nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Hot take: Multiculturalism is good

sk8erboii

Reactionary types beware: Multiculturalism is defined as the spread of people and ideas.

I know you're already thinking about white genocide, catholic oppression and that liberal arts girl that rejected you for being rough around the edges. But hear me out, because im about to tell you why multiculturalism is good.

The one reason: It's the default state of humanity.

You ever wonder why those forgotten tribes like in the sentinel islands is rare and in many ways primitive? Because they are not like us. The rest of the world has managed to collectively cooperate. One guy comes up with a great idea and someone else from another country copies it and improves it. Thats multiculturalism.

I made this thread as a response to the obvious xenophobic hatemongering in other posts.

Like some scumbag throwing acid to a child's face, somehow implicates every immigrant and they should be put under a proverbial spotlight. Its tenuous logic at any point of view.

Right now I want you to imagine if Ireland became your insular and backwards utopia. Forget about the Wakanda syndrome (That if a nation somehow closes its borders and focuses on itself it will become advanced) and look at case studies. The empire Japan is the poster boy for the self-serving xenophobic nation state. And it was 200 years behind until it stopped the blockade then it entered modernity.

If Ireland had no multiculturalism (which includes the Catholic church) it would literally be a depressing backwater even moreso than it was for hundreds of years. Everything you ever owned, knew and f*cked is influenced by foreign people.

That doesn't mean genocide, asmuch as self-victimizing citizens in the top 10 quality of life in the world would have you think. It simply means acknowledging that Ireland and multiculturalism are deeply intertwined, even back to the building of 'native' structures (which were built by people that came from spain, scandinavia and france).

Ireland's golden days when it was all 'native' never existed. In fact, those days were among the most depressing and oppressive in history that the population never recovered. Blighted by a food that came from Peru.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

buried

sk8erboii wrote: »

Saudi arabia? The one that conducts global trade, using american capitalist values and imports people from all over the world (sociologists, nurses, scientists, computer experts etc) to compensate for its lack of development in these areas?

Saudi is pretty insular, but still participates in MC. Bad example.

How is it a bad example when it's them who is running the show?

sk8erboii

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

No you’re not. Your defining it incorrectly to include free trade, and different classes. And movies.

That’s precisely the problem.

Classes are not ethnographic categories. Nationalities are. So one thing right there.

In general nobody talked about multicultural states prior to modern patterns of migration. Even the US was described as a melting pot, which as I have said before (and the wiki confirmed) isn’t the same thing.

This form of language by you is of course a verbal trick. The opposite of multiculturalism isn’t insular, and that word has many implied meanings including a resistance to trade, autarky, or just simply being an island. Is it possible to be insular, to have one dominant culture and little immigration, while engaging in trade and some cultural interchange with the rest of the world - sure japan does that.

That's a lot of mental gymnastics to just say you hate brown people man.

sk8erboii

buried wrote: »

Bull$hit. Saudi Arabia is a nation, Saudi Arabia exists, yet it doesn't want to participate in any sort of "multiculturalism" whatsoever, yet the gangster House of Saud is at the apex of what determines global policy for the rest of the planet outside its own self. Looks like they truly benefit from ditching this multiculturalism lark. They order everyone else about while under this policy so it must work.

Saudi arabia? The one that conducts global trade, using american capitalist values and imports people from all over the world (sociologists, nurses, scientists, computer experts etc) to compensate for its lack of development in these areas?

Saudi is pretty insular, but still participates in MC. Bad example.

Sunny88

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate I've literally told you ten times, every nation has participated in multiculturalism. I've answer your troll question.

But you can never ever answer this: What insular nations are successful?

Ask the people in Nice who got flattened by an articulated truck

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

I'm not defining it in my own way. Im condensing it.

No you’re not. Your defining it incorrectly to include free trade, and different classes. And movies.

But define multiculturalism as any way

That’s precisely the problem.

and you can see that it boils down to coexistence (which predicates movement) and different ethnographic classes (scientists, lower, middle, upper classes, different nationalities etc etc)

Classes are not ethnographic categories. Nationalities are. So one thing right there.

What they're defining it as is 'mass migration' which is 100% part of MC but is not entirely it.

In general nobody talked about multicultural states prior to modern patterns of migration. Even the US was described as a melting pot, which as I have said before (and the wiki confirmed) isn’t the same thing.

Meanwhile, im inversing his question for context. Has any nation become successful by becoming insular?

This form of language by you is of course a verbal trick. The opposite of multiculturalism isn’t insular, and that word has many implied meanings including a resistance to trade, autarky, or just simply being an island. Is it possible to be insular, to have one dominant culture and little immigration, while engaging in trade and some cultural interchange with the rest of the world - sure japan does that.

buried

sk8erboii wrote: »

Literally every nation that has ever existed participated in multiculturalism. You're doing the Alex Jones thing of asking like a really nonsensical rhetoric and thinking you're smart because you keep repeating it.

But i'll repeat. Every nation that has every existed has participated in multiculturalism and has benefitted from it.

Bull$hit. Saudi Arabia is a nation, Saudi Arabia exists, yet it doesn't want to participate in any sort of "multiculturalism" whatsoever, yet the gangster House of Saud is at the apex of what determines global policy for the rest of the planet outside its own self. Looks like they truly benefit from ditching this multiculturalism lark. They order everyone else about while under this policy so it must work.

sk8erboii

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. *types on american laptop*

You are ranting there again I'm afraid.

*speaks English*

You have again failed to answer the simple question asked

*tips Italian fedora*

and have provided no figures whatsover as to whom and where

*Swings Japanese katana*

'multiculturalism' is seen as a good. End of story.
Sips on german beer

You are also confusing trade and commerce with 'multiculturism' -
*says hi to polish co worker*

a word which has been pointed out - that you dont know the meaning of.

*goes to catholic church to worship middle eastern god*

I would suggest you invest in a dictionary and book yourself back into primary school
*drives french car*

I'll leave you there ...

*espouses right wing italian rhetoric

Mate I've literally told you ten times, every nation has participated in multiculturalism. I've answer your troll question.

But you can never ever answer this: What insular nations are successful?

Sunny88

gozunda wrote: »

Lol.

You are ranting there again I'm afraid. You have again failed to answer the simple question asked and have provided no figures whatsover as to whom and where 'multiculturalism' is seen as a good. End of story.

You are also confusing trade and commerce with 'multiculturism' - a word which has been pointed out - that you dont know the meaning of.

I would suggest you invest in a dictionary and book yourself back into primary school

I'll leave you there ...

But why are low iq irish plebs so racist against pakistani grooming gangs

Why dont racists start threads bashing polish and swiss and aussies

Its so inconsistent

gozunda

sk8erboii wrote: »

I've answered your question 10 times since page one lol.Literally every nation that has ever existed participated in multiculturalism. You're doing the Alex Jones thing of asking like a really nonsensical rhetoric and thinking you're smart because you keep repeating it.But i'll repeat. Every nation that has every existed has participated in multiculturalism and has benefitted from it. I'll give an inverse of your question to contextualize how stupid it is:
Has any nation become prosperous and successful by being insular?The answer is no, because you close yourself to trade, ideas and useful people. In either case, it's easy to see you have had zero formal education on the subject.

Lol.

You are ranting there again I'm afraid. You have again failed to answer the simple question asked and have provided no figures whatsover as to whom and where 'multiculturalism' is seen as a 'net positive' (sic). End of story.

You are also confusing trade and commerce with 'multiculturalism' - a word which has been pointed out - that you dont know the meaning of.

I would suggest you invest in a dictionary and book yourself back into primary school

I'll leave you there ...

sk8erboii

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

For a man who is totally defining his own terms here you might want to be a bit more humble about your own ideology.

Free trade isn’t multi culturalism. Watching American movies isn’t multicultural. Even countries with historical patterns of immigration aren’t necessarily multi cultural.

See wiki here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

Which says

Multiculturalism as a political philosophy involves ideologies and policies which vary widely.[1] It has been described as a "salad bowl" and as a "cultural mosaic"[2] - in contrast to a melting pot.[3]

Multiculturalism, then, doesn’t entail just immigration or existing nation or ethnic groups in a state - a necessary but not sufficient condition - but treating these cultures as equal of respect.

That doesn't really refute anything. It leads to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interculturalism

sk8erboii

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s basically how it’s defined, to become multicultural a nation needs migration.

Japan is pretty successful. China is successful. Korea is successful.

The exchange of ideas isn’t the definition of multi culturalism. In fact as I explained earlier even immigrant countries didn’t call themselves multi cultural until the past generation. The US preferred to call itself a melting pot, ie immigrants melted into the existing culture.

Those are really bad examples mate. Japan became successful when it stopped its blockade in the late mid 19th century and let Americans and Europeans in for their industrial technology.

Saying china is insular is kinda racist, considering they consist of 56 ethnic groups. Unless you're saying they all look the same ?

Dunno about Korea.

Multiculturalism greatly facilitates the exchange of ideas. Its incredibly pedantic and self serving to say its not strictly MC, but how are you going to deal with Japanese electronics company if neither speaks the other's language?

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

I've answered your question 10 times since page one lol.

Literally every nation that has ever existed participated in multiculturalism. You're doing the Alex Jones thing of asking like a really nonsensical rhetoric and thinking you're smart because you keep repeating it.

But i'll repeat. Every nation that has every existed has participated in multiculturalism and has benefitted from it.

I'll give an inverse of your question to contextualize how stupid it is:

Has any nation become prosperous and successful by being insular?

The answer is no, because you close yourself to trade, ideas and useful people.

In either case, it's easy to see you have had zero formal education on the subject.

For a man who is totally defining his own terms here you might want to be a bit more humble about your own ideology.

Free trade isn’t multi culturalism. Watching American movies isn’t multicultural. Even countries with historical patterns of immigration aren’t necessarily multi cultural.

See wiki here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

Which says

Multiculturalism as a political philosophy involves ideologies and policies which vary widely.[1] It has been described as a "salad bowl" and as a "cultural mosaic"[2] - in contrast to a melting pot.[3]

Multiculturalism, then, doesn’t entail just immigration or existing nation or ethnic groups in a state - a necessary but not sufficient condition - but treating these cultures as equal of respect.

https://www.ifla.org/publications/defining-multiculturalism

sk8erboii

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You realise you are defining your own version of multiculturalism here (again). Apparently free trade is multiculturalism. It isn’t.

I'm not defining it in my own way. Im condensing it. But define multiculturalism as any way and you can see that it boils down to coexistence (which predicates movement) and different ethnographic classes (scientists, lower, middle, upper classes, different nationalities etc etc)

What they're defining it as is 'mass migration' which is 100% part of MC but is not entirely it.

Meanwhile, im inversing his question for context. Has any nation become successful by becoming insular?

[Deleted User]

riffmongous wrote: »

There's so much wrong there it's hard to know where to begin.. you can't honestly compare our current situation to that of the native americans.. 15th century english settlers? Statutes of Kilkenny was a century earlier.. multiculturalism is down to MNCs importing educated people to work for them? That's why we have thousands of Brazilians and English in Ireland?

You obviously didn't read the previous post about the importation of cheap labour, and you do know what language we speak here now?

sk8erboii

gozunda wrote: »

Your definition of 'multiculturism' has already be shown to be like a lady of the night's underwear- full of holes and flimsy ...

Hmmm your refusal to answer the question asked is very very strange indeed. You are babbling - so let's keep it simple.

Your statement:

The question:

An answer to the actual question asked. Thanks.

I've answered your question 10 times since page one lol.

Literally every nation that has ever existed participated in multiculturalism. You're doing the Alex Jones thing of asking like a really nonsensical rhetoric and thinking you're smart because you keep repeating it.

But i'll repeat. Every nation that has every existed has participated in multiculturalism and has benefitted from it.

I'll give an inverse of your question to contextualize how stupid it is:

Has any nation become prosperous and successful by being insular?

The answer is no, because you close yourself to trade, ideas and useful people.

In either case, it's easy to see you have had zero formal education on the subject.

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate how are you not getting what im saying. Its the default state of humanity. People are open to other people and their ideals. Your denial of this is actually insane.

Was your laptop made in Ireland? Was your car? Your favorite movie?Statistically speaking not even your DNA is from Ireland.

So how can you deny that you do not accept multiculturalism when nothing about you was made in a vacuum?

And stop with the wordplay and mental gymnastics.

You realise you are defining your own version of multiculturalism here (again). Apparently free trade is multiculturalism. It isn’t.

gozunda

Sunny88 wrote: »

Go over to Rotherham and ask them for their opinion

Great first post btw!

Franz Von Peppercorn

sk8erboii wrote: »

So you define multiculturalism in your 'insular' way as mass migration?

That’s basically how it’s defined, to become multicultural a nation needs migration.

You're using weird mental gymnastics and illogical 'insular' statements (one that leads to obvious answers, but have no actual theoretical values)

I'm asking you, are there any successful insular nations today?

Or is interdependence and exchange of peoples and ideas is how humanity has operated since forever?

Ill answer it for you:

There are no successful insular nations today. Every nation has had it's success due to the exchange of ideas and peoples. Every.

Japan is pretty successful. China is successful. Korea is successful.

The exchange of ideas isn’t the definition of multi culturalism. In fact as I explained earlier even immigrant countries didn’t call themselves multi cultural until the past generation. The US preferred to call itself a melting pot, ie immigrants melted into the existing culture.

gozunda

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate how are you not getting what im saying. Its the default state of humanity. People are open to other people and their ideals. Your denial of this is actually insane....

Your definition of 'multiculturism' has already been shown by any number of posters to be like a lady of the night's lacy underwear- flimsy and full of holes ...

Hmmm your refusal to answer the question asked is very very strange indeed. You are babbling - so let's keep it simple.

Your statement:

The vast majority of people accept multiculturalism as a net positive lad.

The question:

Who do? Where? Please provide accurate figures to show that is so.

An answer to the actual question asked. Thanks.

sk8erboii

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Btw youre the one rabbititing on about 'insular' for some reason.

Again as to what was asked:

your statement

The question

An answer to that. Thanks.

Mate how are you not getting what im saying. Its the default state of humanity. People are open to other people and their ideals. Your denial of this is actually insane.

Was your laptop made in Ireland? Was your car? Your favorite movie?Statistically speaking not even your DNA is from Ireland.

So how can you deny that you do not accept multiculturalism when nothing about you was made in a vacuum?

And stop with the wordplay and mental gymnastics.

Sunny88

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Btw youre the one rabbititing on about 'insular' for some reason.

Again as to what was asked:

your statement

The question

An answer to that. Thanks.

Go over to Rotherham and ask them for their opinion

gozunda

sk8erboii wrote: »

So you define multiculturalism in your 'insular' way as mass migration?You're using weird mental gymnastics and illogical 'insular' statements (one that leads to obvious answers, but have no actual theoretical values)I'm asking you, are there any successful insular nations today?Or is interdependence and exchange of peoples and ideas is how humanity has operated since forever?

Nope. Btw you're the one going on about 'insular' for some reason. Note: Multiculturalism is not defined by any dictionary as the the "spread of ideas and peoples" (sic).

Again as to what was asked:

your statement

The vast majority of people accept multiculturalism as a net positive lad.

The question

Who do? Where? Please provide accurate figures to show that is so.

An answer to that. Thanks.

sk8erboii

gozunda wrote: »

We have already established that multiculturism is NOT defined as the 'spread of ideas and peoples' (sic). Your a bit mixed up there lad.

You also appear to be conflating immigration control with the word 'insular'. Are you 'insular' when you lock your door during the day so that others dont access your house without your permision?

To paraphrase your use of subjective 'if statements ' - do you think that if Bigbird became an elephant would it be able to fly?

Rather than assigning your own unique definitions to words - perhaps you would be good enough to reply to the question asked. Thanks.

So you define multiculturalism in your 'insular' way as mass migration?

You're using weird mental gymnastics and illogical 'insular' statements (one that leads to obvious answers, but have no actual theoretical values)

I'm asking you, are there any successful insular nations today?

Or is interdependence and exchange of peoples and ideas is how humanity has operated since forever?

Ill answer it for you:

There are no successful insular nations today. Every nation has had it's success due to the exchange of ideas and peoples. Every.

gozunda

sk8erboii wrote: »

The exchange of ideas and peoples is how its been since prehistory. The better question is: What successful insular nations exist today?
And do you think that if Ireland became insular it would become prosperous?

We have already established that multiculturism is NOT defined as the 'spread of ideas and peoples' (sic). You're a bit mixed up there lad.

You also appear to be conflating immigration control with the word 'insular'. Are you 'insular' when you lock your door during the day so that others dont access your house without your permision?

To paraphrase your use of subjective 'if statements ' - do you think that if Bigbird became an elephant would it be able to fly?

Rather than assigning your own unique definitions to words - perhaps you would be good enough to reply to the question asked. Thanks.

Your statement

The vast majority of people accept multiculturalism as a net positive lad.

The question

Who do? Where? Please provide accurate figures to show that is so.

sk8erboii

gozunda wrote: »

You have a very strange take on history lad.

Btw you said

Where are all these "accepters"?

In regard to the above you were asked but haven't answered ...

The exchange of ideas and peoples is how its been since prehistory. You might not notice it because of it's prevalence, but you're typing on a product based on engineering designs from Babbage to the first microchip. That could only exist by people coexisting and sharing ideas. The better question is: What successful insular nations exist today?

And do you think that if Ireland became insular it would become prosperous?

gozunda

sk8erboii wrote: »

Its interesting you started with the need for a massive influx of workers, but not 'Why.'
Would you not say it all stems from Ireland's greying population? One that never recovered from the famine?

You have a very strange take on history lad.

Btw you said

sk8erboii wrote:

The vast majority of people accept multiculturalism as a net positive lad.

Where are all these "accepters"?

In regard to the above you were asked but haven't answered ...

That is a tenuous statement at best. In regard to that claim -
Who do? Where? Please provide accurate figures to show that is so. It remains many many countries worldwide do not promote multiculturalism.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

The famine happened decades before the oldest living person in the country was born.
Multinational companies moved here for the tax benefits that were created as part of the peace dividend from the good Friday agreement and as such they were expected to provide more than just a "brass plate" headquarters.
They rapidly expanded their presence such that in many cases outstripped the local workforces capabilities to provide worker bees. So they imported them and paid a much lower wage at the same time. Multiculturalism as a concept was created to persuade the incumbent population to accept these people and to accept their differing culture and outlook on life.
There was no "when in Rome" acceptance by modern inward migrants as was expected from previous generations of migrants. Historically, there was no real acceptance of migrants, unless they adopted the ways of the community they were coming into, that was even true when the first wave of English settlers came to Ireland in the fifteenth century, After the second generation were born they were as Irish as the locals.
Later far larger numbers came over and tipped the balance.

the Alternative is when huge numbers come in and the local population is swamped be the inward migrants, just remember what language we now speak and what happened to the Native Americans. What will be the first language here be in 100 years time?

There's so much wrong there it's hard to know where to begin.. you can't honestly compare our current situation to that of the native americans.. 15th century english settlers? Statutes of Kilkenny was a century earlier.. multiculturalism is down to MNCs importing educated people to work for them? That's why we have thousands of Brazilians and English in Ireland?

[Deleted User]

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

We had a baby boom not 10 years ago and have one of the youngest populations in Europe.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-population-is-youngest-in-the-eu-369301.html

These babies also has a disproportionally large percentage of non-Irish born parents.
Also a large number of Irish emigrants returned with young families.

[Deleted User]

sk8erboii wrote: »

Its interesting you started with the need for a massive influx of workers, but not 'Why.'

Would you not say it all stems from Ireland's greying population? One that never recovered from the famine?

The famine happened decades before the oldest living person in the country was born.
Multinational companies moved here for the tax benefits that were created as part of the peace dividend from the good Friday agreement and as such they were expected to provide more than just a "brass plate" headquarters.
They rapidly expanded their presence such that in many cases outstripped the local workforces capabilities to provide worker bees. So they imported them and paid a much lower wage at the same time. Multiculturalism as a concept was created to persuade the incumbent population to accept these people and to accept their differing culture and outlook on life.
There was no "when in Rome" acceptance by modern inward migrants as was expected from previous generations of migrants. Historically, there was no real acceptance of migrants, unless they adopted the ways of the community they were coming into, that was even true when the first wave of English settlers came to Ireland in the fifteenth century, After the second generation were born they were as Irish as the locals.
Later far larger numbers came over and tipped the balance.

the Alternative is when huge numbers come in and the local population is swamped be the inward migrants, just remember what language we now speak and what happened to the Native Americans. What will be the first language here be in 100 years time?

Ulysses Gaze

sk8erboii wrote: »

Its interesting you started with the need for a massive influx of workers, but not 'Why.'

Would you not say it all stems from Ireland's greying population? One that never recovered from the famine?

We had a baby boom not 10 years ago and have one of the youngest populations in Europe.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-population-is-youngest-in-the-eu-369301.html