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

What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

RyanthePirate

I would like to see a Boards.ie Consensus.

Economists agree that immigration has a net positive on the economy and this immigration is surely a wonderful thing for the county.

Agree/Disagree?

Mod:

I have updated the OP of this thread with a list of threadbanned users, I would advise posters to check on this before posting in the thread again or a forum sanction will be imposed for breaching same.

If you want to discuss your threadban feel free to PM the banning mod (or myself if you can't remember who that is and I'll point you in the right direction).

Threadbanned Users:
DelaneyIn
TheCitizen
V8 Interceptor
Hamachi - lifted 14/03/22, reinstated 28/03/22
Effects
biko
Kivaro
Eric Cartman
Swindled
Gradius
RobbieTheRobber - lifted 25/08/21 - reinstated 27/08/21
Cordell - lifted 16/08/21
Gangster Yippin
blindjustice
Eircom_Sucks
TomSweeney
Wojtek the Bear
Cordell
klaz
0ph0rce0
tonium22
tonycascarino
Real Donald Trump
Star Bingo
Nuts102
TomTomTim
Nosler
Absolute Zero
Hungry Burger

Find more posts tagged with

racism

i-am-a-racist-but...

we're-not-racist

Quick Links

Comments

ExMachina1000

Zarco wrote: »

Better than your plan for refugee camps

At least I'll think about it

So you keep saying. I predict no coherent plan will ever come.

TomTomTim

Zarco wrote: »

That's what some people are thinking including some posters here

You lads could win jumping competitions in the Olympics with those massive leaps you make.

Zarco

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

So you keep saying. I predict no coherent plan will ever come.

I won't be rushed into making stupid plans

TheCitizen

Zarco wrote: »

Would it be better to just shoot them

That's what some people are thinking including some posters here

Or put them all in jail cos they’re all criminals as the fella that calls himself “galway guy” says.

TheCitizen

TomTomTim wrote: »

You lads could win jumping competitions in the Olympics with those massive leaps you make.

A poster here labelled everyone in the camp a criminal and got supported with “Thanks” for it, who are you accusing of jumping to conclusions on here exactly?

LessOutragePlz

Zarco wrote: »

I won't be rushed into making stupid plans

You so are not offering any solutions to the problem?

[Deleted User]

Zarco wrote: »

I won't be rushed into making stupid plans

Aka the intellectual substance needed to formulate a coherent thought is missing. Instead, I’ll accuse other posters of wishing to shoot migrants. It really does seem to be a case of how low can you go.

[Deleted User]

Mad_maxx wrote: »

we in the rich countries do indeed need to help those nations but population transfer as is currently happening , is not the answer

Rich country is a relative term considering the amount in taxes needed to maintain the existing standards of living, and provision of services. Even then, the provision of services in many European countries is starting to buckle under their existing populations. Allowing in large numbers of migrants into Europe would place greater strain than the existing population, because in most cases, the existing population can contribute to the economy. Migrants without skills/education to compete against natives are going to be an added drain. So... these rich countries probably wouldn't stay rich for long. In any case, considering the way economies and recessions are occurring over the last two decades, the reliability of being a rich country is flimsy.

But yes, population transfer is definitely not the answer, although that's what the pro-immigration crowd want... irrespective of the practical downsides.

Ideally, western nations would be able to invest, and help other countries to stimulate their economies to such a state that they would be able to provide for their own citizens. The first problem, though, is that corruption is rampant throughout Africa, and the M.East, so investing in these countries is likely to be rather inefficient, with little control over how that investment is truly spent. In addition, a lot of investment would be used by political/social/religious groups to simply increase their own power bases, which can be the opposite of western values.

The second problem is that a large degree of the migrants moving throughout the world are leaving due to civil wars, territorial wars, genocides, religious conflict, etc. The UN has been very weak at managing to stop such from happening, and it's dubious that any other organisation would be more effective. The world outside is rather unstable... and has been for decades.

There are no easy answers. Unfortunately. All the same, allowing in migrants without consideration to their ability to survive in a first world nation is completely irresponsible, and entirely based on the need to virtue signal. Short term emotional gains, for long term economic/social problems.

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

A poster here labelled everyone in the camp a criminal and got supported with “Thanks” for it, who are you accusing of jumping to conclusions on here exactly?

TheCitizen wrote:

A disgusting thread populated by racist right wing loons.

Yup.

Galwayguy35

TheCitizen wrote: »

Oh I know you do, you’re on here night and day with the same ould guff. you label everyone in the camp a criminal because some within the camp in desperation may have started a fire, and then double down it, says all we need to know about you.

I’m not in PBP either pal.

And you make excuses for them starting the fire, they also stopped the emergency services getting to the fire.

Seeing as the people who set it will never be caught there is a good chance they will be relocated to another country which rewards criminal activity.

But you just refuse to accept any of these points.

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Rich country is a relative term considering the amount in taxes needed to maintain the existing standards of living, and provision of services. Even then, the provision of services in many European countries is starting to buckle under their existing populations. Allowing in large numbers of migrants into Europe would place greater strain than the existing population, because in most cases, the existing population can contribute to the economy. Migrants without skills/education to compete against natives are going to be an added drain. So... these rich countries probably wouldn't stay rich for long. In any case, considering the way economies and recessions are occurring over the last two decades, the reliability of being a rich country is flimsy.

But yes, population transfer is definitely not the answer, although that's what the pro-immigration crowd want... irrespective of the practical downsides.

Ideally, western nations would be able to invest, and help other countries to stimulate their economies to such a state that they would be able to provide for their own citizens. The first problem, though, is that corruption is rampant throughout Africa, and the M.East, so investing in these countries is likely to be rather inefficient, with little control over how that investment is truly spent. In addition, a lot of investment would be used by political/social/religious groups to simply increase their own power bases, which can be the opposite of western values.

The second problem is that a large degree of the migrants moving throughout the world are leaving due to civil wars, territorial wars, genocides, religious conflict, etc. The UN has been very weak at managing to stop such from happening, and it's dubious that any other organisation would be more effective. The world outside is rather unstable... and has been for decades.

There are no easy answers. Unfortunately. All the same, allowing in migrants without consideration to their ability to survive in a first world nation is completely irresponsible, and entirely based on the need to virtue signal. Short term emotional gains, for long term economic/social problems.

You see a lot of the points you made above illustrate the complexity of the situation, but then the mask slips with your “virtue signalling” jibe. Having a humanitarian approach to these issues is labelled “virtue signalling” which cheapens and sullies the discussion. Poor stuff. A little bit of self awareness would help.

Zarco

Who causes the most problems out of all the migrants

It doesn't get discussed enough

LessOutragePlz

Zarco wrote: »

Who causes the most problems out of all the migrants

It doesn't get discussed enough

Who do you think causes the most problems out of all the migrants?

TheCitizen

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

And you make excuses for them starting the fire, they also stopped the emergency services getting to the fire.

Seeing as the people who set it will never be caught there is a good chance they will be relocated to another country which rewards criminal activity.

But you just refuse to accept any of these points.

I’m not making excuses for those who allegedly started the fire, I was alluding to the fact that if they did it was an act of desperation. I think that’s a reasonable observation but wouldn’t go down well with the likes of you on here that seek to label everyone in the camp a “criminal”. Poor stuff, but predictable.

ExMachina1000

Zarco wrote: »

Who causes the most problems out of all the migrants

It doesn't get discussed enough

Good question.

Who do you think?

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

You see a lot of the points you made above illustrate the complexity of the situation, but then the mask slips with your “virtue signalling” jibe. Having a humanitarian approach to these issues is labelled “virtue signalling” which cheapens and sullies the discussion. Poor stuff. A little bit of self awareness would help.

And here we go again. For someone who talks about poor debate, you don't engage in any actual debate.

As for the mask slipping, could you possibly stop with that rubbish? It seems as if you're incapable of responding to someone without putting in some kind of dig.

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And here we go again. For someone who talks about poor debate, you don't engage in any actual debate.

As for the mask slipping, could you possibly stop with that rubbish? It seems as if you're incapable of responding to someone without putting in some kind of dig.

You were the one that dropped the “virtue signalling” jibe. We all know who uses that sort of chat. Up your game there. Poor stuff.

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

You were the one that dropped the “virtue signalling” jibe. We all know who uses that sort of chat. Up your game there. Poor stuff.

Short term emotional gains, for long term economic/social problems. Virtue signalling, no?

We all know who uses that sort of chat.

Do we? That's assuming a lot.

Ok. Let's get specific.. rather than these vague statements about posters. You want to debate. Let's debate. Explain that statement and let's argue about it's accuracy, and possible bias, because I am so frickin tired of your BS.

TheBlackPill

Multiracial, monocultural(for everybody). Its the only real alternative to ethnonationalism

Mad_maxx

TomTomTim wrote: »

We really shouldn't "need" to anything. Charity should be a choice, not something forced upon us by European law.

no, its in our interest to see improvement in those nations

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Short term emotional gains, for long term economic/social problems. Virtue signalling, no?

Do we? That's assuming a lot.

Ok. Let's get specific.. rather than these vague statements about posters. You want to debate. Let's debate. Explain that statement and let's argue about it's accuracy, and possible bias, because I am so frickin tired of your BS.

Virtue signalling is a loaded term, it means a lot more than you’re pretending it does and well you know it. I am debating, Ive given plenty of views on the substantive issue here, you’re just choosing to bicker and you can’t help yourself with the “virtue signalling/SJW” etc. type jargon. Drop the juvenile petty commentary and you might discover that the level of debate will improve.

I’m not sure you’re interested in that though, like I said there are comments Ive made in recent pages discussing the substantive issue in general terms but you’re swerving that and instead hilariously and hypocritically accuse me of talking “BS”.

Grow up and debate properly.

TheCitizen

Mad_maxx wrote: »

no, its in our interest to see improvement in those nations

Of course it is. Those on here arguing we should wash our hands of this are living in cloud cuckoo land. Irresponsible, dangerous, childish and selfish delusion.

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

Virtue signalling is a loaded term, it means a lot more than you’re pretending it does and well you know it.

I provided the context for my use of the word..

I am debating, Ive given plenty of views on the substantive issue here, you’re just choosing to bicker and you can’t help yourself with the “virtue signalling/SJW” etc. type jargon. Drop the juvenile petty commentary and you might discover that the level of debate will improve.

I’m not sure you’re interested in that though, like I said there are comments Ive made in recent pages discussing the substantive issue in general terms but you’re swerving that and instead hilariously and hypocritically accuse me of talking “BS”.

Grow up and debate properly.

So, that's a "no" then. I ask you to explain your statement, and you take it as an opportunity to insult me further. Not explaining your statement, not defending it, and not stepping back from your insulting manner of posting.

You're not debating. Not even slightly.

TheCitizen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I provided the context for my use of the word..

So, that's a "no" then. I ask you to explain your statement, and you take it as an opportunity to insult me further. Not explaining your statement, not defending it, and not stepping back from your insulting manner of posting.

You're not debating. Not even slightly.

The context for your use of that word is gibberish, you know exactly what you’re doing when you drop that in there.

I am debating the issue in general terms if you read my posts, it appears you’re not interested and instead jump on the offended bus.

If you want to actually debate with me pick up one of the posts I’ve made there re the issues arising from these matters and the complexities and multi faceted need for any potential solutions.

Beechwoodspark

TheCitizen wrote: »

Of course it is. Those on here arguing we should wash our hands of this are living in cloud cuckoo land. Irresponsible, dangerous, childish and selfish delusion.

An EU wide asylum processing centre located in North Africa (or on border with Turkey) for example would be much better than the “ah sure twill be grand” approach that you seem to have

[Deleted User]

TheCitizen wrote: »

If you want to actually debate with me pick up one of the posts I’ve made there re the issues arising from these matters and the complexities and multi faceted need for any potential solutions.

Nope. I'm done with trying to have any kind of rational/logical discussion with you. I have posted up long passages with specifics about my views, and I've received deflections, and dismissals from you. No actual debate happening. Almost all of your posts consist of a vague statement, followed by insinuations about the posters in this thread.

Nah. Waste of time trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion with you. I'll leave it to others to deal with your vague nonsense, and snide remarks.

Zarco

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

An EU wide asylum processing centre located in North Africa (or on border with Turkey) for example would be much better than the “ah sure twill be grand” approach that you seem to have

Like a giant fishmongers..

Mad_maxx

TheCitizen wrote: »

Of course it is. Those on here arguing we should wash our hands of this are living in cloud cuckoo land. Irresponsible, dangerous, childish and selfish delusion.

yes but population transfer is a bad idea

[Deleted User]

Zarco wrote: »

Like a giant fishmongers..

Good lad. Great analogy.

That thinking cap you promised to put on was very fruitful.

Wibbs

TheCitizen wrote: »

Being honest I don’t know what the solution is, as I said earlier I think it needs an holistic approach and developing countries where these migrants are so desperately fleeing from whether economic or otherwise has to be a big part of any combination of solutions.

Desperately fleeing conflict OK, "desperately fleeing" economies? G'way to feck. If they're at the bottom of the heap in their own countries they're hardly likely to be moving up in ours and the proportion on social welfare bears this out. Though that's apparently down to racism. Never mind that when our economy dips as economies do, then we've an even bigger issue added on top of the native population. Though when our economy dips the chancers tend not to bother nearly so much. How many were "desperately fleeing" on economic grounds in 1980's Ireland? Funny that.

Simply turning them away ain’t gonna stop the tide in my view.

It worked for Australia. Closer to home when the Irish people overwhelmingly voted to close the birthright clause funny how the numbers of those looking for pregnancy passports standing on Rosslare pier with their waters breaking fell right off a cliff. We're an island on the edge of Atlantic Europe so should have more control of our borders on a practical level if nothing else.