Breaking: At least 1 man dead after stabbing rampage in Dundalk

ArthurDayne wrote: »

But multiculturalism is not an 'ideal', it is simply a phenomenon which has been ongoing for centuries.

...

If we believe in a world where people, including Irish people, have the right to seek a living and settle elsewhere in the world -- then we have already accepted the inevitability of a multicultural world. It is therefore incumbent on us to make it work in the best way possible rather than find ever more totalitarian ways to sub-divide society.

I dont think you understand what multiculturalism is. It is the belief that all cultures be tolerated in society rather than having migrants adapt to the culture of the host country to an acceptable degree.

Multicultural is feasible with some cultures, but not others.

Strazdas wrote: »

What is being glossed over is that the vast bulk of Islamist terror attacks are by "homegrown" terrorists, not by recent arrivals to the country.

Trying to associate the phenomenon of modern terrorism with immigration would be a distortion and banning immigration would have zero impact on homegrown terrorism.

Personally I don't get too hung up on 'just' terrorist incidents. The probability of getting caught up in one is minute. It's the crime and another societal challenges on a daily/continuous basis that I'd be more concerned with myself.

i don't think it's being glossed over at all. I'd have thought looking at the perpetrators of the Paris murders for example that it's second and subsequent generations of immigrants that are more likely to pose a threat in the future. If they feel disaffected then over time the greater chance that they'll become radicalised.

Off the top of my head though I remember hearing a few times of such and such a person having been refused assylum before they went off and did something.

Tell me how wrote: »

Wherever you have humans, you have trouble and strife. But then when participants are different cultures, it's said oh multiculturalism doesn't work.
Human nature is the problem.

So which is the worse of two evils?
A risk of attacks while helping 1000's of refugees or no "external" trouble makers when turning away the same 1000 refugees.

Why is it seen as some kind of duty for us in Europe to provide for these refugees exactly? I've never been given a proper explanation for it.

Sending aid to troubled regions I get, taking some of the most vulnerable and resettling them here I get, but apparently now we are responsible for providing
for anyone and everyone from Afghanistan all the way to Morocco who fancies relocating.

I thought notions of 'master race' went out with the third reich?

Cason Loud Broomstick wrote:

Let's not forget the primary cause for the event known as 'Brexit'. In the 2nd largest ever public vote in the UK's history, 52% decided they had enough of Europe, and one topic in particular. Let's hope post-brexit 2020 Ireland doesn't turn ugly.

If the Brexit vote was held again tomorrow, what do you think the breakdown would be?

Very sad to hear this news. Sad for the people injured and the deceased and their families. Sad for our little country too, it's the end of things as we know them and sad that our way of living is going to change forever.

But sure I'll light a few candles stick up a je suis profile on fakebook and I'll have done my bit.

In the meantime the water taxi service that is the Irish navy will keep ferrying more and more "migrants" to Europe.

Joeytheparrot wrote:

I know right. As I said earlier some on here are only wetting themselves with excitement. Finally. After years of being forced to live off events in those dark multicultural elsewheres, while patiently longing for an event of their own to frame as 'Islamic Terrorism', tonight they are only delighted about it. It gives them great opportunity to spread far right racist myths and memes. They're having boners all over. "Finally; been saying it for years; jihad in Ireland"

The "right" are far from delighted what happened, we are the ones who are scared for the people of this country at the risk of being killed in a random attack like what happened today. The reason we complain and comment on it so much is we want a stop to it by stopping large scale immigration. It's the "left" who don't seem to care and are happy for these attacks to become part of our lives like dying in traffic accidents. Just wait until it happens someone you know and come back to tell us how you feel about it then.

And don't use the 'it's usually 2nd generation immigrants that are already living here' as a reason why stopping immigration won't work, just because we have a problem already doesn't mean we shouldnt try to stop it getting multiple times worse.

Tell me how wrote: »

The vast majority of refugees aren't coming to Ireland though are they?

No but they are coming to countries with very little shared values. In fact, most of them are totally at odds with their values.

testaccount123 wrote: »

Why is it seen as some kind of duty for us in Europe to provide for these refugees exactly? I've never been given a proper explanation for it.

Sending aid to troubled regions I get, taking some of the most vulnerable and resettling them here I get, but apparently now we are responsible for providing
for anyone and everyone from Afghanistan all the way to Morocco who fancies relocating.

I thought notions of 'master race' went out with the third reich?

The middle class/elite tend to live very isolated and bubbly lives; tending to be smart but often not very smart (as a result easy prey to bullshìt ideologies) and for a lot of people, being seen to care is a status signaller (in the same way you buy a new car say), rather than actually caring.

Irish people are go along to get along very risk averse people. We dislike things that stand out.

Western Europe is increasingly depressed and nihilistic which means that people don't actually care about what is going on.

This won't end well. It never does.

Wibbs wrote:

This argument is specious at best. 1) the majority of Irish traveled to colonial nations, those built in immigration. 2) when they did in the majority of cases didn't have the safety net of social welfare to help them and 3) in latter years weren't entertained beyond a J1 if they didn't have marketable and employable skills. Comparing a Mayo potato farmer traveling to Ellis island in 1890 with the current "refugees" has little comparing to it at all.

Either intentionally or otherwise, you misinterpreted my post.

And didn't answer the question.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

If we believe in a world where people, including Irish people, have the right to seek a living and settle elsewhere in the world -- then we have already accepted the inevitability of a multicultural world.

That's not correct. Multiracial does not equal multicultural. Culture is about social norms, values, and expressions of art etc. It's perfectly possible to have a society which welcomes individuals of all colours and nationalities, without accepting that they can live - and more crucially, demand that their children born and raised here live - according to foreign and incompatible social norms.

For instance: I would have absolutely no issue with banning non medical circumcision in Ireland for infants. I find the very concept of it obscene and barbaric. Now, this would straight away mean that Ireland would cease to be a multicultural society - we would be saying to Jewish people, "if you want to live here, you must accept that this aspect of your culture is illegal under Irish law, so if you want to live here, you'll have to leave that part of your culture behind".

Many, many countries do this in all sorts of different ways. If you grew up in Amsterdam then legalised weed is part of your culture, if you come to Ireland, it is not. If you grew up in Ireland and move to America at 18, then drinking at your age is probably part of your culture but it is illegal in America.

This is what multiculturalism means. It doesn't just mean people of different ethnicities living in the same geographic region, it also means allowing them to live according to their own cultural norms as opposed to demanding that they adopt Ireland's. And I have never been fully on board with multiculturalism in the latter manner - for instance, if you teach your daughter that her role in life is to be subservient to men and that she must hide her face in public or be punished at home, that in my view is something which in our culture we should regard as child abuse, and insist that people either refrain from practising that in Ireland or else get the f*ck out of here.

Multiculturalism is *not* the same as multiracialism and it is *not* in any way racist to disagree with or oppose the concept of multiculturalism.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

That's some intense hyperbole going on.

My partners cousin in Nice used to scoff at all the 'hysterical' reactions of people to the immigration issues there. Now when I go down there are soldiers with assault rifles guarding the supermarkets.

Wibbs wrote:

Yeah, it kinda did T, maybe you just don't want to hear the answer, because you appear to be sold on the ideal of multiculturalism. The answer being that it's a grand idea, but doesn't work too well and that unicultures tend to be safer and more stable.

I hear what you're saying, clearly, but it still didn't answer the question I asked. But that's fine.

Seeing as you assumed my position km this, let me clarify it. (At least you'll consider it).
I'm not suggesting there aren't problems with refugees relocating in to new cultures.

But I don't agree that it can't work. I think as humans, we, and them should want to make it work.

As it stands, I do think they need to integrate more but I don't think threatening them with expulsion and assuming they are plotting to kill us will help.