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

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

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This one OK with you

What are the positives of multiculturalism?

Back to this then. Though answers to these would prove more interesting...

Wibbs wrote: »

Where are the examples of European nations where multiculturalism works according to the pro camp?

With the exceptions of those of East Asian origin where are the examples of European nations where those of non European origins don't tend to cluster around the bottom of the stats for education, wealth, employment and social problems and over generations with it?

if Ireland is going to be magically different then why with barely 25 years of multiculturalism we're already seeing ghettoisation, a rise in social problems, an increase in the tax burden because of social supports and an increase in the Them V Us rhetoric egged on by both the "left" and the "right"?

Wibbs wrote: »

Back to this then.

Great!

So I think if we want to attempt to answer this question or even discuss it properly we would first have to be in agreement or have some shared understanding of what is meant by multiculturalism in the context of the question.

So seeing as you proposed the question I think its only fair that you now offer a definition for what multiculturalism means to you in the context of this question please Wibbs.

Wibbs wrote: »

The lack of self awareness is quite staggering. For someone who deflects as a near reflex you don't seem to grasp the meaning of the word itself.

The questions have been put forward throughout the thread and have been consistently avoided and/or deflected away from. But here's a few:

What are the positives of multiculturalism? And no, charity, exoticism and the Irish were migrants once aren't answers. If they're the only answers forthcoming might I respectfully suggest the defence of multiculturalism is wafer thin indeed.

Where are the examples of European nations where multiculturalism works according to the pro camp?

With the exceptions of those of East Asian origin where are the examples of European nations where those of non European origins don't tend to cluster around the bottom of the stats for education, wealth, employment and social problems and over generations with it?

if Ireland is going to be magically different then why with barely 25 years of multiculturalism we're already seeing ghettoisation, a rise in social problems, an increase in the tax burden because of social supports and an increase in the Them V Us rhetoric egged on by both the "left" and the "right"?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Which one do you want to deal with first?

Wibbs wrote: »

Any of them would be nice.

Wibbs wrote: »

Back to this then. Though answers to these would prove more interesting...

To reply to your edit after I had replied to your post already.

I asked you which question you wanted Wibbs.
I gave you the choice and you didn't pick.
So I picked the first question in your list so I couldn't be accused of avoiding something.

Not sure why you would now change your mind and decide you do want to pick the question.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Great!

So I think if we want to attempt to answer this question or even discuss it properly we would first have to be in agreement or have some shared understanding of what is meant by multiculturalism in the context of the question.

So seeing as you proposed the question I think its only fair that you now offer a definition for what multiculturalism means to you in the context of this question please Wibbs.

Well a quick duckduckgo search gave me this from Wordnik: the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country

Collins gives us this: 1. the state or condition of being multicultural
2. the policy of maintaining a diversity of ethnic cultures within a community.

We can start there. What are the advantages of a multicultural society that we see emerging in Ireland and have been going for a while in other European nations.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

To reply to your edit after I had replied to your post already.

I asked you which question you wanted Wibbs.
I gave you the choice and you didn't pick.
So I picked the first question in your list so I couldn't be accused of avoiding something.

Not sure why you would now change your mind and decide you do want to pick the question.

Good lord, even before we start you're already complaining and looking for goalposts to move. I simply said it might be more interesting to see answers to those questions, but your choice is fine. Answer away.

PS my definition has little to do with it, your definition as one who believes it's a positive should prove more enlightening if you want to show the merits of your argument. PLus it should hopefully lead to fewer goalposts being disturbed.

Wibbs wrote: »

PS my definition has little to do with it, your definition as one who believes it's a positive should prove more enlightening if you want to show the merits of your argument. PLus it should hopefully lead to fewer goalposts being disturbed.

Can we reset here and take all the sniping out of this discussion Wibbs.
It will make discussion much easier and enjoyable for all.

Well to be honest the definition we are using does make a difference. As we have seen with this thread Multiculturalism means many different things to many different people throughout this thread.
And so to avoid any suggestion of deflection or goal post moving by anyone I thought it would be better to try and agree a common understanding for what is meant by it for this question.
Indeed even the EU acknowledges the issues with defining what multiculturalism means when presenting its own definition.

Note(s)
1. The term was first used in 1957 to describe CH, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries.
2. There is no universally accepted definition of multiculturalism, multiculturalism can refer to different concepts: demographic facts, philosophical or political ideas and values.
3. Multiculturalism emphasises cultural differences and different cultures existing next to each other without necessarily much contact or participative interaction.
4. The model of multiculturalism has often been criticised on different grounds. Critics of multiculturalism question the ideal of the maintenance of distinct ethnic cultures within a state; others argue that policies of multiculturalism have failed to create inclusion of different cultures within society, but instead have divided society by legitimising segregated separate communities that have isolated themselves and accentuated their specificity.

Now lets go back to your definition.
The first definition you offered is
the state or condition of being multicultural

Do you really need me to declare the positives for this. Do I need to defend the very existence of someone who is multicultural?
Is having parents from different cultures something that I need to defend for each individual who meets the criteria.
Do I need to defend all existing humans born in a different culture to that of their parents.
Do I need to this for all mixed cultural people in the world. Is their right to exist any less than any existing human who could be defined as monocultural?

SchrodingersCat

Wibbs wrote: »

More who are conflating people and "races" with culture.

Wibbs wrote: »

How in god's name is culturalism a type of racism?

Really?

Have you not heard of cultural racism/neo-racism or is it that you refuse to believe in the term? https://www.encyclopedia.com/cultural-racism

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Can we reset here and take all the sniping out of this discussion Wibbs.
It will make discussion much easier and enjoyable for all.

It would make it equally "easier and enjoyable for all" if you didn't continuously avoid points being put to you by either directly avoiding them or reframing them to suit. It's not sniping, it's pointing this out, with added frustration.

Now lets go back to your definition.
The first definition you offered is
the state or condition of being multicultural

Do you really need me to declare the positives for this. Do I need to defend the very existence of someone who is multicultural?
Is having parents from different cultures something that I need to defend for each individual who meets the criteria.
Do I need to defend all existing humans born in a different culture to that of their parents.
Do I need to this for all mixed cultural people in the world. Is their right to exist any less than any existing human who could be defined as monocultural?

Reframe away. Again. We are talking about multiculturalism where it concerns states, not individuals. Particularly in the case of Ireland and the experience of other EU nations who are under this politic.

My direct question: What are the advantages of a multicultural state, in particular where in concerns movements of peoples and cultures that differ more obviously to the native cultures? No flilflam about definitions, no defection, no reframing.

Wibbs wrote: »

It would make it equally "easier and enjoyable for all" if you didn't continuously avoid points being put to you by either directly avoiding them or reframing them to suit. It's not sniping, it's pointing this out, with added frustration.
Reframe away. Again. We are talking about multiculturalism where it concerns states, not individuals. Particularly in the case of Ireland and the experience of other EU nations who are under this politic.

My direct question: What are the advantages of a multicultural state, in particular where in concerns movements of peoples and cultures that differ more obviously to the native cultures? No flilflam about definitions, no defection, no reframing.

Look at the anger and aggression in your posting style. You are clearly trying to antagonise and annoy.

So lets be very clear here that the below is now the question you want me to discuss?

What are the advantages of a multicultural state,
in particular where in concerns movements of peoples
and
cultures that differ more obviously to the native cultures?

yes or no answer will do.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Really? Have you not heard of cultural racism/neo-racism or is it that you refuse to believe in the term? https://www.encyclopedia.com/cultural-racism

The term exists. I don't believe it is racism. Pretty much by definition it isn't, unless one ascribes culture as a product of race, which I thought was what we've been striving to get away from. I also don't buy into cultural relativism. As we've noted when it has come up recently there are pretty obvious problems with it. EG after the cultural relativistic notion popped up:

bubblypop wrote:

Who decides it's true?
It's a type of supremacy, believing that your culture is better then others.
Those people may think their culture is superior to yours, who is right?

Or are they just different cultures? Ever hear of cultural relativism?

I posed this question on the matter:

Wibbs wrote: »

Is 2020's Irish culture objectively better for more people than 1940's Irish culture, when being Gay was illegal and a "sin", where women had fewer rights, no divorce, no SSM, no abortion rights? Yes or no.

If yes then you would judge 1940's Irish culture as being lesser, inferior even and 2020's Irish culture as being superior. So where does your cultural relativism come into play? How does "race" come into it. If the answer is no and we're sticking with cultural relativism, then I really don't know what to say. If it's a maybe, then we're still sitting on that fence.

Followed by the all too common avoidance of the question by reframing it:

bubblypop wrote: »

This is the same thing as judging other cultures. You are judging 1940s Ireland by 2020s standards. You believe culture now to be superior. Perhaps the people living then would not agree.

So even if 1940s Ireland was worse, though that question was avoided, god forbid one points this out and sure they just had different standards, so that's OK then. It seems even suggesting one sees 2020's Ireland as *trigger* superior to 1940's Ireland on those metrics listed is not culturally relativist enough. See the problem?

Societies(and people) make value judgements all the time and by examining them that's how society progresses to the benefit of all. Or hopefully does. It can certainly go the other way at times. However every single right and progress in society we hold dear came about because someone said this position X is wrong, it has less value, it is inferior and bad for society, or for minorities in that society so we should change it for a better position that's more right, has more value and is superior. Value judgements were made after considered thought and socities changed for the better. There was little or no relativism involved. IMHO relativism is an interesting philosophical exercise, but in the real world has little or no utility and is more an empty navel gazing exercise that will change nothing on a practical level.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Look at the anger and aggression in your posting style. You are clearly trying to antagonise and annoy.

No. I'm trying to get a straight answer and at times it's like pulling teeth. How you get "anger" and "aggression" out of that post is beyond me. About the only emotion involved is frustration.

So lets be very clear here that the below is now the question you want me to discuss?
What are the advantages of a multicultural state,
in particular where in concerns movements of peoples
and
cultures that differ more obviously to the native cultures?

yes or no answer will do.

Yes. That is precisely what I wrote down in plain English. QV pulling teeth.

seenitall wrote: »

Ah hell klaz, I’ve been away, recharged my batteries a bit, and am ready for some cut and thrust in the depths of the old CA

Ehhh you aint going to get much cut and trust debates around here.

However you will find more than a few posters who refuse to answer simple questions, pose their own in return, and deflect more than a mirror.

You will get arguments about semantics, definitions and what happened hundreds if not thousands of years ago.

You will find snarky comments left and then nothing.
Be prepared if you are of one opinion to be labelled a racist at some stage.
And funnily enough you never get any comeback or recompense either from the offender or officaldom.

I don't know why some bother trying, they will never pin down the opposition and get them to give a frank and honest answer.
Maybe they are incapable of seeing facts that counter their opinions?
Maybe it is the so called modern mindset where feelings trump facts?

Maybe they have a vested interest in continuing certain experiments?

jmayo wrote: »

Ehhh you aint going to get much cut and trust debates around here.

However you will find more than a few posters who refuse to answer simple questions, pose their own in return, and deflect more than a mirror.

That poster is thread banned I wouldn't expect a reply.
Also worth pointing out Mirrors reflect not deflect.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What is the link to the thread topic?
Honestly I'm not seeing it.

This guy is absolute gold.

Decries not entirely off topic conversation with a selection of posts, omitting his own contribution to the very conversation.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

How is Le Pen and her racist party doing?

To quote the BBC, the headline today could be any one of.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57546011

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Should we expect the same disillusionment to happen at the next Irish general election.
And expect for similarly low turnouts?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Yeah is western democracy on the decline Peter?

Let those without sin etc.

Wibbs wrote: »

Societies(and people) make value judgements all the time and by examining them that's how society progresses to the benefit of all. Or hopefully does. It can certainly go the other way at times. However every single right and progress in society we hold dear came about because someone said this position X is wrong, it has less value, it is inferior and bad for society, or for minorities in that society so we should change it for a better position that's more right, has more value and is superior. Value judgements were made after considered thought and socities changed for the better. There was little or no relativism involved. IMHO relativism is an interesting philosophical exercise, but in the real world has little or no utility and is more an empty navel gazing exercise that will change nothing on a practical level.

And cultural relativism must be applied to all if there is to be any consistency (I know, I know

), not just the pet cultures du jour. If it's racist to criticise based on culture, then that protection must be extended to white supremacist culture, U.S. gun culture, ultra-conservative catholic culture, etc. Because if it isn't, then the cultural relativists' "judgements" are merely the product of bias and favouritism, and not the application of a principle.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

This guy is absolute gold.

Decries not entirely off topic conversation with a selection of posts, omitting his own contribution to the very conversation.

Let those without sin etc.

Thanks for showing how I attempted to link those comments to the thread topic Mike.
I didn't want to quote myself but as you can see I was trying to link it back to Ireland and multiculturalism

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Thanks for showing how I attempted to link those comments to the thread topic Mike.
I didn't want to quote myself but as you can see I was trying to link it back to Ireland and multiculturalism

Na.
You didn't.
Everyone could say the same.

You haven't be clear at all Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The questions have been put forward throughout the thread and have been consistently avoided and/or deflected away from. But here's a few:

What are the positives of multiculturalism? And no, charity, exoticism and the Irish were migrants once aren't answers. If they're the only answers forthcoming might I respectfully suggest the defence of multiculturalism is wafer thin indeed.

Where are the examples of European nations where multiculturalism works according to the pro camp?

With the exceptions of those of East Asian origin where are the examples of European nations where those of non European origins don't tend to cluster around the bottom of the stats for education, wealth, employment and social problems and over generations with it?

if Ireland is going to be magically different then why with barely 25 years of multiculturalism we're already seeing ghettoisation, a rise in social problems, an increase in the tax burden because of social supports and an increase in the Them V Us rhetoric egged on by both the "left" and the "right"?

Alright we got some questions

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Which one do you want to deal with first?

Wibbs wrote: »

Any of them would be nice.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

This one OK with you

What are the positives of multiculturalism?

So I picked the question.

Wibbs wrote: »

Back to this then. Though answers to these would prove more interesting...

But then when I pick one, oh no! You would prefer the other ones!

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I gave you the choice and you didn't pick.
So I picked the first question in your list so I couldn't be accused of avoiding something.

So I ask again

Wibbs wrote: »

We can start there. What are the advantages of a multicultural society that we see emerging in Ireland and have been going for a while in other European nations.

another new question not listed in the original questions list.

Wibbs wrote: »

My direct question: What are the advantages of a multicultural state, in particular where in concerns movements of peoples and cultures that differ more obviously to the native cultures?

The another question

Wibbs wrote: »

No. I'm trying to get a straight answer and at times it's like pulling teeth. How you get "anger" and "aggression" out of that post is beyond me. About the only emotion involved is frustration.

Yes. That is precisely what I wrote down in plain English. QV pulling teeth.

So no you have not been clear. If there is no further changes to the question I can now begin to consider how to respond to it. If that is alright with you?

Comedy gold!! One hour before hand -. "Can we reset here and take all the sniping out of this discussion Wibbs.
It will make discussion much easier and enjoyable for all."

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Look at the anger and aggression in your posting style. You are clearly trying to antagonise and annoy.

.

The new you didn't last long Robbie now did it!

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What is the link to the thread topic?
Honestly I'm not seeing it.

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Na.
You didn't.
Everyone could say the same.

Everyone can your right mike or you know you could answer the question I asked when I quoted all those posts.

What is the link to the thread topic?

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You haven't be clear at all Wibbs

Alright we got some questions

So I picked the question.

But then when I pick one, oh no! You would prefer the other ones!

So I ask again

another new question not listed in the original questions list.

The another question

So no you have not been clear. If there is no further changes to the question I can now begin to consider how to respond to it. If that is alright with you?

I'm pretty sure nobody is waiting for your answer Robbie. Do so at your leisure but rest assured nobody expects it to be a game changer.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Everyone can your right mike or you know you could answer the question I asked when I quoted all those posts.

What is the link to the thread topic?

To paraphrase yourself- let's not go off topic arguing who was and wasn't off topic.

enricoh wrote: »

Comedy gold!! One hour before hand -. "Can we reset here and take all the sniping out of this discussion Wibbs.
It will make discussion much easier and enjoyable for all."

The new you didn't last long Robbie now did it!

I asked I was rebuffed I answered with how I feel about the post in question.
What new Robbie are you referring to Enricoh?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pretty sure nobody is waiting for your answer Robbie. Do so at your leisure but rest assured nobody expects it to be a game changer.

I thought the point of a discussion forum was for an exchange of views, often differing points of view and discussing them.
If you are looking for my views to mirror yours then you are not looking for discussion. In fact it sounds like what you want is an echo chamber. Were you say something and others reassure you it is right Dunne.

So do you want to have a discussion or do you want to stifle debate?

jmayo wrote: »

and deflect more than a mirror.

To paraphrase jmayo, Mike you deflect more than a mirror!

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

To paraphrase yourself- let's not go off topic arguing who was and wasn't off topic.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

** edited for brevity**
If there is no further changes to the question I can now begin to consider how to respond to it. If that is alright with you?

Good god man can you just answer the question. Sometime in our lifetimes would be a bonus.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

I thought the point of a discussion forum was for an exchange of views, often differing points of view and discussing them.
If you are looking for my views to mirror yours then you are not looking for discussion. In fact it sounds like what you want is an echo chamber. Were you say something and others reassure you it is right Dunne.

So do you want to have a discussion or do you want to stifle debate?

Agreed. That was a poor comment if the goal is actually having a debate which seems to be what a forum is about.

MarkEadie wrote: »

Agreed. That was a poor comment if the goal is actually having a debate which seems to be what a forum is about.

Not all "discussion" is equal. There are very few pro immigration posters who post in good faith. The vast majority of their posts, surround the attempt to reach the same conclusion time and time again, a conclusion that always concludes in some form of "exposing bigotry" or "racism". That's not debate. Even if every poster here was a Hitler loving racist, the onus should still be on the other side to argue against their points soundly, and not look to label alone. The moral character of individuals has little to do with the quality of their arguments. I could be the worst human in the world, with the soundest reason in the world.

MarkEadie wrote: »

Agreed. That was a poor comment if the goal is actually having a debate which seems to be what a forum is about.

I'm feeling a very strong sense of Irony about your and Robbies posts if that's what you consider debating to be. Would this be an example of double standards? Where you hold others up to a standard that you're not prepared to follow yourself?

TomTomTim wrote: »

Not all "discussion" is equal. There are very few pro immigration posters who post in good faith. The vast majority of their posts, surround the attempt to reach the same conclusion time and time again, a conclusion that always concludes in some form of "exposing bigotry" or "racism". That's not debate. Even if every poster here was a Hitler loving racist, the onus should still be on the other side to argue against their points soundly, and not look to label alone. The moral character of individuals has little to do with the quality of their arguments. I could be the worst human in the world, with the soundest reason in the world.

That's quite simply nonsense.
So if to use your own godwinned example a literal nazi came to boards and started debating how the Jewish people are the human equivalent of vermin and should be exterminated.
You believe the best course of action would be to have a nice chat about that, rather than call them out on their racism?