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

jmreire

Happy New Year Klaz, and may we all be in a better covid free place this time next year !!!

Kivaro

biko wrote: »

That's a commendable collection of sources which kinda flies in the face of what this source is saying.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45269764

If these men had not been invited into Sweden then almost 6 out of 10 rapes would never have happened.

And of course the Norwegian police chief that said that all recorded rapes in Oslo was done by men born abroad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7t5ZffkA0A

These are shocking statistics.
Possibly a canary in the coal mine for Ireland; if those in government care to listen out for it?

Sand

Kivaro wrote: »

These are shocking statistics.
Possibly a canary in the coal mine for Ireland; if those in government care to listen out for it?

For them to grasp the reality, statistics aren't enough. You need to pierce an almost religious fervor that has been indoctrinated in them throughout their education and mass media consumption to believe non-indigenous=good/interesting, indigenous=bad/boring. When you are dealing with indoctrination then presenting evidence will only make them defensive because you're using stats to infer negative conclusions about non-indigenous groups and that is blasphemy. Their stance is not principled. They will use stats where they can to draw negative conclusions about indigenous people as a group. They will assign group responsibility to indigenous people for actions of an individual member of the group. But it they will equally view it as entirely taboo to use rape stats to draw negative conclusions about non-indigenous groups in Sweden. Or to assign any level of group responsibility to non-indigenous groups in Sweden. The indoctrinated belief system is the root, evidence is just a weapon.

We don't see intelligent or reasoned defences of multiculturalism in this thread - or any like it - because it is faith based, not evidence based. And their faith has defenses against evidence. Either plain out ignore it (anyone who doesn't subscribe to the ideology is evil or even non-human, so shouldn't be listened to) or like Christians and dinosaur bones, it reformats the evidence itself as a test of faith (yes, there are some problems, but keep the faith it will all work out...).

For the people in government caring to listen out, the prospects are grim. Their guides on policy are lobbyists linked to the NGO industrial complex. From landlords to legal fees to construction companies to diversity training to 'research' - there is huge money to be extracted from taxpayers and the worse things get, the more money they can charge to 'fix' them. Money funds lobbying, lobbying directs policy. The average guy on the street gets practically no voice by comparison.

Kivaro

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Q.E.D.

jmreire

Sand wrote: »

For them to grasp the reality, statistics aren't enough. You need to pierce an almost religious fervor that has been indoctrinated in them throughout their education and mass media consumption to believe non-indigenous=good/interesting, indigenous=bad/boring. When you are dealing with indoctrination then presenting evidence will only make them defensive because you're using stats to infer negative conclusions about non-indigenous groups and that is blasphemy. Their stance is not principled. They will use stats where they can to draw negative conclusions about indigenous people as a group. They will assign group responsibility to indigenous people for actions of an individual member of the group. But it they will equally view it as entirely taboo to use rape stats to draw negative conclusions about non-indigenous groups in Sweden. Or to assign any level of group responsibility to non-indigenous groups in Sweden. The indoctrinated belief system is the root, evidence is just a weapon.

We don't see intelligent or reasoned defences of multiculturalism in this thread - or any like it - because it is faith based, not evidence based. And their faith has defenses against evidence. Either plain out ignore it (anyone who doesn't subscribe to the ideology is evil or even non-human, so shouldn't be listened to) or like Christians and dinosaur bones, it reformats the evidence itself as a test of faith (yes, there are some problems, but keep the faith it will all work out...).

For the people in government caring to listen out, the prospects are grim. Their guides on policy are lobbyists linked to the NGO industrial complex. From landlords to legal fees to construction companies to diversity training to 'research' - there is huge money to be extracted from taxpayers and the worse things get, the more money they can charge to 'fix' them. Money funds lobbying, lobbying directs policy.

"The average guy on the street gets practically no voice by comparison.

"

Exactly !!! That is until some group or party articulates what all the "No Voice People" are thinking ..... and uses it. This is what happened during the Brexit referendum. The Brexiteers blamed all of the Countrys woes on membership of the EU. And now we have the result. We had a sample here during the Presidential election when Peter Casey got 330'000 votes based on his comments on traveller issues. The very same thing, he tapped into a well of "No Voice" people. Had he been able to campaign for a longer time, who knows how many more votes he may have got? And the nr's of " No Voice" people is growing. Sooner or later, as soon as the oppurtunity presents itself, they will be heard.

One eyed Jack

Sand wrote: »

For them to grasp the reality, statistics aren't enough. You need to pierce an almost religious fervor that has been indoctrinated in them throughout their education and mass media consumption to believe non-indigenous=good/interesting, indigenous=bad/boring. When you are dealing with indoctrination then presenting evidence will only make them defensive because you're using stats to infer negative conclusions about non-indigenous groups and that is blasphemy. Their stance is not principled. They will use stats where they can to draw negative conclusions about indigenous people as a group. They will assign group responsibility to indigenous people for actions of an individual member of the group. But it they will equally view it as entirely taboo to use rape stats to draw negative conclusions about non-indigenous groups in Sweden. Or to assign any level of group responsibility to non-indigenous groups in Sweden. The indoctrinated belief system is the root, evidence is just a weapon.

Hang on a minute. How is what you’re arguing, any different from what you’re arguing against? You’re using statistics wherever you can to draw negative correlations between social ills and immigrants as a group, instead of adhering to one of the core values of natural justice - the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You’re simply attempting guilt by association on the basis of your own interpretation of a limited dataset. The problem is with your evidence in that it just isn’t compelling enough to prejudice anyone towards immigrants. You’re talking out your arse if you imagine your efforts are in any way principled, because they are predicated upon people being ignorant (and by ignorant I mean lacking knowledge, not that people are rude).

Sand wrote: »

We don't see intelligent or reasoned defences of multiculturalism in this thread - or any like it - because it is faith based, not evidence based. And their faith has defenses against evidence. Either plain out ignore it (anyone who doesn't subscribe to the ideology is evil or even non-human, so shouldn't be listened to) or like Christians and dinosaur bones, it reformats the evidence itself as a test of faith (yes, there are some problems, but keep the faith it will all work out...).

We don’t see any defence of multiculturalism in this thread because there doesn’t need to be one. It’s you are suggesting immigrants are to be perceived with suspicion as though they have already done something wrong, whereas that’s not the way a society functions - we don’t assume people are guilty, we just haven’t found something to find them guilty of yet (there’s the obvious go-to inference that they are rapists, but the evidence for that assertion just isn’t compelling). One doesn’t need faith in order to regard people as innocent of any wrongdoing. If you’re going to make a claim that something is wrong or there is an issue which needs to be examined more closely, then you’re going to have to come up with compelling evidence is all, because the evidence you’ve presented so far is insufficient to support your claims, let alone justify your actions against people who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Sand wrote: »

For the people in government caring to listen out, the prospects are grim. Their guides on policy are lobbyists linked to the NGO industrial complex. From landlords to legal fees to construction companies to diversity training to 'research' - there is huge money to be extracted from taxpayers and the worse things get, the more money they can charge to 'fix' them. Money funds lobbying, lobbying directs policy. The average guy on the street gets practically no voice by comparison.

That paragraph is all very true, but the average guy on the street doesn’t need to effect change at national level, they can effect change in their own communities. The idea that they can have everything remain the same while society is changing all around them is the equivalent of sticking their head in the sand. Statistics aren’t going to cut it as most people don’t particularly care for statistics, they base their judgement on their experience, as opposed to buying an ideological argument which smells like bullshìt.

Wibbs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We don’t see any defence of multiculturalism in this thread because there doesn’t need to be one.

Handy way of avoiding an explanation of why it's such a positive.

One doesn’t need faith in order to regard people as innocent of any wrongdoing. If you’re going to make a claim that something is wrong or there is an issue which needs to be examined more closely, then you’re going to have to come up with compelling evidence is all, because the evidence you’ve presented so far is insufficient to support your claims, let alone justify your actions against people who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Again you're coming from the baseline position of "multiculturalism is good". You're not examining the whys, beyond the usual exoticism and charity aspects, never mind completely ignoring the negatives, not least for the migrants and their descendants. EG over half of all Africans in Ireland are unemployed. That's a negative. Now racism is a part of it, but that doesn't go away. If anything it tends to harden in both the native and the migrant population as the years pass. This is demonstrable across multicultural Europe and beyond.

Even when we look at the stats that McHardcore posted regarding Sweden and "nothing to see here", even those within those reports state that while recent mass migration hasn't affected sexual assault stats, in the same breath they note that such assaults are more likely to be carried out by the descendants of migrants. Same with gun crime in Sweden. Oh no, it's not the recent migrants, that's from previously established migrant areas. You couldn't make this stuff up. Oh and it's because of socioeconomic reasons. Well duuuuh, of course that has a large part to play. In a monocultural society that's going on too, but why import more problems on top? It's beyond daft.

Statistics aren’t going to cut it as most people don’t particularly care for statistics, they base their judgement on their experience, as opposed to buying an ideological argument which smells like bullshìt.

One could say the same of the ideology of multiculturalism.

biko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We don’t see any defence of multiculturalism in this thread because there doesn’t need to be one.

What is the benefit for me with multiculturalism?
Forget the food aspect.

How does it benefit me that there will be less Irish people in my area and more Indian/Polish?

One eyed Jack

Wibbs wrote: »

Handy way of avoiding an explanation of why it's such a positive.

It’s not that I’m trying to avoid having to explain why there’s anything positive about multiculturalism, it’s that I don’t view multiculturalism in either positive or negative terms. For me it’d be like someone suggesting that I can’t argue the positives of homosexuality. I don’t need to, there’s nothing positive or negative about homosexuality itself, in just the same way as there’s nothing positive or negative about multiculturalism itself.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again you're coming from the baseline position of "multiculturalism is good". You're not examining the whys, beyond the usual exoticism and charity aspects, never mind completely ignoring the negatives, not least for the migrants and their descendants. EG over half of all Africans in Ireland are unemployed. That's a negative. Now racism is a part of it, but that doesn't go away. If anything it tends to harden in both the native and the migrant population as the years pass. This is demonstrable across multicultural Europe and beyond.

I’m really not. I’m coming at it from the baseline that there’s nothing inherently good or bad about multiculturalism. I could argue that it drives innovation, which it does. But then the question becomes whether one sees innovation as a good thing or a bad thing. Me personally I see innovation as a good thing. For me it’s not about exoticism or charity, I expect that everyone in society contributes positively to society and they’re given the opportunity to do so. I don’t care for their ethnicity or their culture or anything else, as long as they are motivated to contribute positively to society.

Racism and discrimination are problems, but they’re not problems caused by multiculturalism or immigration, they’re problems which can only be dealt with at a more local level as opposed to using statistics to suggest that the issues are national issues caused by multiculturalism. Over half of all Africans are unemployed doesn’t explain why they are unemployed. I don’t care for whether a person is employed or unemployed so long as they’re contributing positively to society.

Of course it matters to some people that they wish to point fingers at any particular demographic and say they’re unemployed, but what’s the point in bringing that up? If they’re interested in addressing unemployment in this country, it’s still nothing to do with multiculturalism. The percentage of Africans who are unemployed means nothing if you’re not willing to put it in some sort of context. Of the total number of people who are unemployed, what percentage are African? I’d rather concentrate my efforts on helping people within my local community who are unemployed and want to work or want to contribute to society, or want to make something of themselves, regardless of their ethnicity or cultural background or socioeconomic status.

It’s easy for the indigenous population or the natives or whoever to point fingers at migrants and suggest they’re to blame, in the same way that it’s easy for migrants to point fingers and suggest that the indigenous population or the natives are to blame, and any group will conjure up statistics to support their point of view. In reality Irish society is no more racist than it is homophobic just because people can point to incidents and say “Look, homophobia! racism!”, etc. That’s just propagating their own biases and hoping to appeal to the same biases in others. What’s demonstrable there and all across Euro and throughout human history is the lack of trust and the attempt to engender suspicion of anyone who doesn’t share their perspective.

Wibbs wrote: »

Even when we look at the stats that McHardcore posted regarding Sweden and "nothing to see here", even those within those reports state that while recent mass migration hasn't affected sexual assault stats, in the same breath they note that such assaults are more likely to be carried out by the descendants of migrants. Same with gun crime in Sweden. Oh no, it's not the recent migrants, that's from previously established migrant areas. You couldn't make this stuff up. Oh and it's because of socioeconomic reasons. Well duuuuh, of course that has a large part to play. In a monocultural society that's going on too, but why import more problems on top? It's beyond daft.

Sweden is an oddball of a country at the best of times, it’s got all sorts of weirdness going on. I wouldn’t look to Sweden for guidance on anything as putting the issue of immigration in the context of Swedish society as a whole, immigration is the least of their problems IMO. Of course if one is looking specifically at issues related to multiculturalism, they’re going to find issues with multiculturalism and lay it at the feet of immigrants who they observe are over-represented in statistics related to social ills. It’s observation bias, they can’t make objective observations because their own research is influenced by their own prejudices. The fact is that the reports are made up by fudging statistics to present a particular narrative, in exactly the same way as people have always spun narratives to suit themselves based upon their own prejudices. We’re not importing more problems, and preventing immigrants from contributing to society doesn’t do anything to address problems which already exist and have existed predominantly among the natives before migrants ever showed up to be blamed.

Wibbs wrote: »

One could say the same of the ideology of multiculturalism.

They could, and that’s why I’m not particularly gone on engendering mistrust and suspicion in people, because I see that as perpetuating fear and mistrust rather than integration. I’m not suggesting anyone has to go kissing immigrants arses and signal how virtuous they are, but the opposite of that IMO is suggesting that immigrants are to blame for adding to societies problems.

One eyed Jack

biko wrote: »

What is the benefit for me with multiculturalism?
Forget the food aspect.

How does it benefit me that there will be less Irish people in my area and more Indian/Polish?

None, and there’s no benefit to you personally that there are less Irish people in your area and more Indian/Polish.

I’m not even gone on the food aspect myself as they eat some weird shìt like fish-heads and pickled fish. As Croc Dundee says - you can eat it, but it tastes like shìt.

I much prefer Western style Chinese food

Sand

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hang on a minute. How is what you’re arguing, any different from what you’re arguing against? You’re using statistics wherever you can to draw negative correlations between social ills and immigrants as a group, instead of adhering to one of the core values of natural justice - the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You’re simply attempting guilt by association on the basis of your own interpretation of a limited dataset. The problem is with your evidence in that it just isn’t compelling enough to prejudice anyone towards immigrants. You’re talking out your arse if you imagine your efforts are in any way principled, because they are predicated upon people being ignorant (and by ignorant I mean lacking knowledge, not that people are rude).

I'm not doing any of that. My viewpoint is 'multiculturalism' is bad for the indigenous people. Evidence regarding non-indigenous people as a group is only intended to test that viewpoint. It is not to convict every individual in the non-indigenous group. But that isnt the issue. I pointed out the taboo being breached is criticism of the non-indigenous group. No one objects to drawing negative conclusions about the Irish specifically or Whites more generally as a group.

Advocates of multiculturalism are not interested in examining if multiculturalism is good or bad for indigenous people. Most of them will deny indigenous European people even exist in any positive sense. To the extent that they are recognized to exist, it is as a negative which is dangerous and must be corrected or fixed. So, its why statistics on the over-representation of non-indigenous groups in rapes in Sweden are ineffective when talking to advocates of multiculturalism. Even where the stats cannot be denied, the underlying view is the Swedes deserve it. Certainly its taboo to conclude Swedes would be better off if non-indigenous groups were not present in Sweden as there wouldn't be as many rapes, nor as much resources tied up in solving those crimes.

We don’t see any defence of multiculturalism in this thread because there doesn’t need to be one.

Yes there does. It is a policy being pursued by governments across the western world which deeply harms indigenous populations. The policy has to be justified or ended.

That paragraph is all very true, but the average guy on the street doesn’t need to effect change at national level

The national government draws its mandate from the averages guys on the street. However, having won their mandate government policy is set by the interaction between politicians/civil servants and lobbyists - indeed its seen as a virtue to remove ordinary voters from the consideration (i.e. populism). The interests of the average guy on the street and an NGO profiting from mass migration couldn't be further apart. But its the NGOs that set policy.

This divergence explains why Brexit (and to some extent Trump) were such seismic shocks to the political classes.

Sand

One eyed Jack wrote: »

None, and there’s no benefit to you personally that there are less Irish people in your area and more Indian/Polish.

Exactly, that is his point afterall. No benefit at all, but all the costs of a low trust society as demonstrated by the fallout from the recent Garda shooting. So why should we create a low trust multicultural zone in Ireland again?

[Deleted User]

biko wrote: »

What is the benefit for me with multiculturalism?
Forget the food aspect.

How does it benefit me that there will be less Irish people in my area and more Indian/Polish?

Why does there have to be a benefit to you?
Why does it matter to you whether the people living in your area are irish or Indian or polish or any nationality?
This is why no-one argues the positives, because as they just don't even think about positives, because, well, why would they?!

Sand

bubblypop wrote: »

Why does there have to be a benefit to you?
Why does it matter to you whether the people living in your area are irish or Indian or polish or any nationality?
This is why no-one argues the positives, because as they just don't even think about positives, because, well, why would they?!

The purpose of Irish government policy surely is to benefit the Irish people. That's why multiculturalism has to be justified - its created low trust, divided societies across Europe which ultimately breakdown (i.e. Yugoslavia). So how does it benefit Irish people to do it in Ireland is the key test.

As for your strategic nihilism I could equally argue what does it matter to me if the people living in my area are sick? Or unemployed? Or uneducated? Or homeless? Multiculturalism creates low trust societies. If we should care so little about our neighbors, what is the justification for paying taxes to fund assistance to my neighbors?

Nation states emerged precisely because they were able to provide a durable justification. You cant, other than who cares?

[Deleted User]

Sand wrote: »

As for your strategic nihilism I could equally argue what does it matter to me if the people living in my area are sick? Or unemployed? Or uneducated? Or homeless? Multiculturalism creates low trust societies.

All people can be any of the above, no matter what their nationality. So why would I care what nationality they are?
I really don't get your idea that multiculturalism creates low trust?

biko

bubblypop wrote: »

Why does there have to be a benefit to you?
Why does it matter to you whether the people living in your area are irish or Indian or polish or any nationality?
This is why no-one argues the positives, because as they just don't even think about positives, because, well, why would they?!

The base function of any state is to the secure interests of its citizens.

Why would it interest me, a representative of the Irish everdayman, to consider your politics?

If you sell me your politics instead of trying to force it onto me I'd probably wouldn't be so adverse.

So, again, what's in it for us?

Scoondal

Sand wrote: »

The purpose of Irish government policy surely is to benefit the Irish people. That's why multiculturalism has to be justified - its created low trust, divided societies across Europe which ultimately breakdown (i.e. Yugoslavia). So how does it benefit Irish people to do it in Ireland is the key test.

As for your strategic nihilism I could equally argue what does it matter to me if the people living in my area are sick? Or unemployed? Or uneducated? Or homeless? Multiculturalism creates low trust societies. If we should care so little about our neighbors, what is the justification for paying taxes to fund assistance to my neighbors?

Nation states emerged precisely because they were able to provide a durable justification. You cant, other than who cares?

Multiculturalism creates low trust societies ? Perhaps it does, but the question should be "Why does multiculturalism create low trust societies" ?

[Deleted User]

biko wrote: »

The base function of any state is to the secure interests of its citizens.

Why would it interest me, a representative of the Irish everdayman, to consider your politics?

If you sell me your politics instead of trying to force it onto me I'd probably wouldn't be so adverse.

So, again, what's in it for us?

I'm not selling any politics to you. I don't believe I have to try to prove any positives.
I'm also a representative of an ordinary Irish person.
What difference does it make to you whether your area is full of Irish or indians or whoever?

Sand

bubblypop wrote: »

All people can be any of the above, no matter what their nationality. So why would I care what nationality they are?

If I don't care who they are, why do I care about them at all?

Nation states justified themselves on the basis that you and your neighbors were part of a common people with a shared history, experience and future. With multiculturalism, the only thing people have in common with their neighbors is sharing the same road. Multicultural societies inevitably fail unless they can forge a common identity, which is essentially the same thing.

I really don't get your idea that multiculturalism creates low trust?

Check out Robert Putnam's research from 2006-7 in the US.

Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that”.

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”

Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”

British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction and Prof Putnam, now working with social scientists at Manchester University, said other European countries would be likely to have similar trends.

None of this is surprising. Anyone could have predicted it based on common sense alone. As the US gets more diverse, it gets more politically divided. The US is a single economic zone with multiple different groups sharing the territory, not a country.

biko

bubblypop wrote: »

What difference does it make to you whether your area is full of Irish or indians or whoever?

I feel closer to Irish people rather than Indian people. We share a culture and tradition that I don't share with Indian people.

Maybe you don't care if you are the only person in your neighbourhood with a Christmas tree, but for me small things like that are important.
We're in Ireland after all so I kinda want Irish people around me. Is that really so hard to understand?

It sounds a little bit like for you people and places are exchangeable, I trust that's not true.

Sand

Scoondal wrote: »

Multiculturalism creates low trust societies ? Perhaps it does, but the question should be "Why does multiculturalism create low trust societies" ?

No. If a policy is bad, then the question is why are we pursuing bad policy. Anything else is not an immediate concern.

[Deleted User]

Ireland is not the USA and there is no need to believe that we would. Just sitting back and saying 'this doesn't work, it will never work' etc etc is just negative.

biko

If we look at high trust and low trust societies.

The West is made up of all high trust societies, with varying degrees of success. Japan, South Korea, and Singapore are Asian examples of high trust societies.
For the most part in Asia these societies are thin on the ground.
In Africa and the Middle East they are non-existent, Israel being the sole exception.
https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2019/03/19/low-trust-societies/

After making a purchase, people in high-trust societies expect to receive the ordered merchandise and correct change; they do not expect to be cheated.
In low-trust societies ‘let the buyer beware’ rules the marketplace, one can only trust oneself.

Pew https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2008/04/15/where-trust-is-high-crime-and-corruption-are-low/

Sand

bubblypop wrote: »

Ireland is not the USA and there is no need to believe that we would. Just sitting back and saying 'this doesn't work, it will never work' etc etc is just negative.

You say that, and yet we've just tapping into police shootings and ethnic activism here in Ireland. There isnt anything unique about the US experience. Multiculturalism creates bad outcomes. It is bad policy. None of you can defend it.

It should be stopped.

One eyed Jack

Sand wrote: »

No one objects to drawing negative conclusions about the Irish specifically or Whites more generally as a group.

I certainly do, and always have done. It’s why I disagree with feminists perpetuating “rape culture” nonsense, or why I object to Rory O’ Neill suggesting Irish society is a hotbed of homophobia because he had a milk carton thrown at him. The Ebun Joseph one doesn’t even warrant the energy it takes to do an eye roll, I just cannot muster up enough energy to take her shìte seriously, much less be concerned enough to think it’s worth challenging.

Sand wrote: »

Advocates of multiculturalism are not interested in examining if multiculturalism is good or bad for indigenous people. Most of them will deny indigenous European people even exist in any positive sense. To the extent that they are recognized to exist, it is as a negative which is dangerous and must be corrected or fixed. So, its why statistics on the over-representation of non-indigenous groups in rapes in Sweden are ineffective when talking to advocates of multiculturalism.

No, they’re just not seeing why they should have to prove anything to anyone. If you want to claim there are all sorts of negatives, that’s fine. It doesn’t put any onus on anyone to balance your negatives with any positives, they just have to offer a critique of your opinion with regard to the negatives of multiculturalism. That’s why I said to Biko a few minutes ago that there are no positives to multiculturalism for him. He doesn’t believe there are any (apart from the food maybe, but I would have a more nuanced opinion on that one), and I’m not trying to sell him on the idea of multiculturalism. I’m criticising the way multiculturalism is being portrayed as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the indigenous population. Rape statistics from Sweden are ineffective in any case because of the way those statistics are recorded. They are not recorded in the same way as statistics related to sexual offences are recorded in Ireland for example, nor are they recorded in the same way statistics related to sexual offences are recorded in African countries.

Sand wrote: »

Yes there does. It is a policy being pursued by governments across the western world which deeply harms indigenous populations. The policy has to be justified or ended.

It no more deeply harms an indigenous population than it enriches an indigenous population. Geographic safe spaces just don’t exist in reality. The policy is wholly justified by the idea that the values of the indigenous population will influence the behaviour of immigrants. That doesn’t happen when immigrants aren’t permitted to participate equally in society. Where it does happen that immigrants are permitted to participate equally in society, there are both positive and negative outcomes, depending upon a whole number of different factors.

Sand wrote: »

The national government draws its mandate from the averages guys on the street. However, having won their mandate government policy is set by the interaction between politicians/civil servants and lobbyists. The interests of the average guy on the street and an NGO profiting from mass migration couldn't be further apart. But its the NGOs that set policy.

This divergence explains why Brexit (and to some extent Trump) were such seismic shocks to the political classes. Policy-making is so insulated from what the people want and instead focused on what elites want.

Oh they don’t. The average guy on the street has no influence whatsoever on national politics or anything related to Government. They tell people what they want to hear in order to gain their support. Neither Brexit nor Trump nor Peter Casey’s popularity in running for President of this country came as a shock to the political classes or the elites or anyone else. NGOs as little time as I have for them aren’t making any profit from mass migration, nor are they setting policy.

Without so much as a hint of irony, it’s foreign politicians who are dictating and driving Irish policies with regards to immigration. It’s not surprising given how many times the Irish have had to be bailed out by now that the people who bailed us out would be looking for something in return. In their 2040 Government plan, the Government made plenty of forecasts which were again based upon wishful thinking, but none so wishful as the kind of rocket fuelled bullshìt from some sources -

1 million migrants to flood Ireland in Ireland 2040 plan

Easily debunked, without having to explain the benefits or positives of importing 1 million immigrants -

FactCheck: Does this tweet show the decline of the 'ethnic Irish' population from 2040 onward?

[Deleted User]

biko wrote: »

I feel closer to Irish people rather than Indian people. We share a culture and tradition that I don't share with Indian people.

Maybe you don't care if you are the only person in your neighbourhood with a Christmas tree, but for me small things like that are important.
We're in Ireland after all so I kinda want Irish people around me. Is that really so hard to understand?

It sounds a little bit like for you people and places are exchangeable, I trust that's not true.

Honestly, I wouldn't care at all if I was the only person in the area with a Christmas tree. I really don't see the need to be surrounded by irish people but that's your feeling, you can't help it. Perhaps youre afraid of what you see as different? I'm not being smart, I just find it hard to understand.

I don't really know what you mean by your last sentence?

[Deleted User]

Sand wrote: »

You say that, and yet we've just tapping into police shootings and ethnic activism here in Ireland. There isnt anything unique about the US experience. Multiculturalism creates bad outcomes. It is bad policy. None of you can defend it.

It should be stopped.

No, people create bad outcomes for multiculturalism, and dare I say it, people like you. Who are just anti foreigner.

biko

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't really know what you mean by your last sentence?

It sounds a little bit like for you people and places are exchangeable, I trust that's not true.

Means - if we took 50% of Palestinians in Gaza and replaced them with Italians, would Gaza still be Gaza?
You appear to say yes - anyone can replace anyone.

One eyed Jack

Sand wrote: »

Exactly, that is his point afterall. No benefit at all, but all the costs of a low trust society as demonstrated by the fallout from the recent Garda shooting. So why should we create a low trust multicultural zone in Ireland again?

In case you hadn’t noticed, low trust exists among different groups of people within Irish society before migrants were ever involved. There are people on all sides making hay of that particular incident, the vast majority of them native Irish, not immigrants.

[Deleted User]

biko wrote: »

It sounds a little bit like for you people and places are exchangeable, I trust that's not true.

Means - if we took 50% of Palestinians in Gaza and replaced them with Italians, would Gaza still be Gaza?
You appear to say yes - anyone can replace anyone.

Ah yes, I see what you mean now. No, people and places are not necessarily exchangeable, but I don't have an issue with people coming into live in a new country. It's never going to happen that 50% are replaced, so I think some people coming in, will take up local customs. Some may not, but that's ok too. Some local people have no interest in local customs either.