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

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

This is a terrible and dangerous view to take. It assumes that we cannot improve our society by rejecting discrimination through racism.

Actually, I'd say that your interpretation is more dangerous.

Just because racism is part of humanity, doesn't mean that we can't seek to minimize the effects of it. Just as we have a wide range of laws/rules/taboos/social norms to control the more aggressive aspects of human behaviors, and while we can be conditioned over time to control them (somewhat), they're never fully removed from us.

It undersells the huge progress we have made since WWII when millions died due to racism. It ignores the effort and changes that civil rights movements have made to improve the quality of life for so many in our society. Giving up on this "vague objective" is to normalise racism, a disgusting proposition.

Hilarious. How could you get any sense that I suggested we give up on dealing with racism from my post? You've simply jumped on to the most extreme interpretations to what I wrote, and it clearly shows a very black/white unsubtle viewpoint towards the world.

Nothing I said, suggests that we give up on the development of society, and the conditioning that exists to control our behavior, and the systems we have in place.

So here's what a multi cultural society would look like.

The State would accept that there are different cultures, which is often shorthand for religion. These religious groups would have different laws.

Such multicultural states exist - for instance in Malaysia there is a separate legal system for muslims. Theres no need to not have that in the West, if we were truly multi cultural we would do something similar.

TomTomTim wrote: »

Can you not see the difference between the cultural elements you're citing and cultural elements that are harmful to the host nation? You're making points about trivial things, while we care about things that are harmful, and not one bit equivalent to what you are highlighting.

The whole issue started when some posters suggested they we are superior to other groups of people who have cultures that they didn't see to be as 'good' as 'our' culture.

Which elements do you think are harmful to the host nation?

bubblypop wrote: »

I'm well aware of all that, thanks.
If you read my posts at all you should.be aware that I am all about law and order. Without question.
Live and let live, I have no issue with people of different cultures living in different countries.
They must live according to the law of the land though. Obviously.

Why should people live according to the law of the land which is in opposition to their culture? And shouldn't they try change it? Why not have multi cultural laws?

Do you really think that France can keep its "supremacist" form of secularism as Islam becomes the largest religion, maybe the majority population.

bubblypop wrote: »

The whole issue started when some posters suggested they we are superior to other groups of people who have cultures that they didn't see to be as 'good' as 'our' culture.

Which elements do you think are harmful to the host nation?

You don't think that. Thats why you want people to abide by laws. Your philosophy is all over the place.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why should people live according to the law of the land which is in opposition to their culture? And shouldn't they try change it? Why not have multi cultural laws?

Do you really think that France can keep its "supremacist" form of secularism as Islam becomes the largest religion, maybe the majority population.

We don't have different laws for different persons as justice treats everyone as equal, it does not discriminate.
The law of the land is paramount.

And I don't believe that you believe otherwise, which means you are just arguing in bad faith, just for the same of arguing.

bubblypop wrote: »

The law of the land is paramount.

The law of the land can and does change with the culture.

bubblypop wrote: »

We don't have different laws for different persons as justice treats everyone as equal, it does not discriminate.

The law of the land is paramount.

And I don't believe that you believe otherwise, which means you are just arguing in bad faith, just for the same of arguing.

No I'm not. I am arguing for an actual multicultural society, as they have in Malaysia. I don't want that but you should. Its fairly easy to have multi legal systems.

TomTomTim wrote: »

Just because some sociologists have came up with new ways to call people racist, doesn't mean that they should be validated.

Exactly. Scholars and theorists need to continue adding ideas and expanding concepts to stay relevant for funding, and professor positions. Just because a variety of scholars have suggested something is so, doesn't mean that it actually is that way, nor that it's of benefit to be promoted.

I was thinking about this earlier. What cultural groups don't I like? Well.. there's Chavs, in the UK. Should I be considered racist because I don't like their attitudes or behavior? They're a cultural group, after all. So... I'm racist because I don't like Chav's but I don't have any issues with anyone based on their race.. however, I should be considered a racist regardless of that, because I don't like the chav culture...

Racism used to mean something. A pretty obvious something, and it had meaning for people that they could easily recognise. Now... you could be considered racist for just about any opinion that doesn't embrace every possible group out there.

Don't like the KKK, and what they stand for? Well... you're a cultural racist showing racism towards racists. Awesome, isn't it? Unless, of course, double standards are applied, in which case, you wouldn't be racist because you dislike something that is on the approved list.

bubblypop wrote: »

The whole issue started when some posters suggested they we are superior to other groups of people who have cultures that they didn't see to be as 'good' as 'our' culture.

Which elements do you think are harmful to the host nation?

In Canada, and the US, we turned that concept on its head. The inferior culture was the First Nations' one.

In the twentieth century, we had a handy recipe: we conjugated the government's approval and resources
with various Christian denominations' beneficent supervision to create Residential schools.

Pluck out the little kiddies from their infamous parents, take away their ability to hunt, fish and converse in their native tongues, and last but not least, abuse them, bury them in mass graves with the perfect gift of anonimity.

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

In Canada, and the US, we turned that concept on its head. The inferior culture was the First Nations' one.

You didn't turn it on it's head, that's standard operating procedure to justify mass immigration/colonisation and always has been throughout history from the dawn of time. The so called inferior culture presently being portrayed as such in Ireland and all over western Europe is also the indigenous one.

fvp4 wrote: »

WTF has that got to do with the subject at hand? Thats a Canadian issue. Canada has a lot more to apologise for than that, like the entire genocide of a peoples.

In any case it was immigration that ended the First Nations.

The First Nations ended?

WTF are you talking about?

Why not bring Canada into this discussion? Who are you to dictate? Lol

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly. Scholars and theorists need to continue adding ideas and expanding concepts to stay relevant for funding, and professor positions. Just because a variety of scholars have suggested something is so, doesn't mean that it actually is that way, nor that it's of benefit to be promoted.

I was thinking about this earlier. What cultural groups don't I like? Well.. there's Chavs, in the UK. Should I be considered racist because I don't like their attitudes or behavior? They're a cultural group, after all. So... I'm racist because I don't like Chav's but I don't have any issues with anyone based on their race.. however, I should be considered a racist regardless of that, because I don't like the chav culture...

Racism used to mean something. A pretty obvious something, and it had meaning for people that they could easily recognise. Now... you could be considered racist for just about any opinion that doesn't embrace every possible group out there.

Don't like the KKK, and what they stand for? Well... you're a cultural racist showing racism towards racists. Awesome, isn't it? Unless, of course, double standards are applied, in which case, you wouldn't be racist because you dislike something that is on the approved list.

Spot on.
BiB applies to pretty much the source of all the current critical theories, race/identity/queer/gender identity/social justice

The conversation on multiculturalism so far.

A All cultures are equal and should be treated equal
B What about FGM, honour killings and the death penalty for homosexuality
A Thats laws
B Laws are influenced by culture. Culture creates laws. So should we legalise those acts to benefits the cultures who have immigrated here who practice these cultural artefacts. .
A The law is paramount.
B But laws are downwind of culture....

As usual the multiculturalists don't really understand their own position.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The law of the land can and does change with the culture.

This is why Poland and Hungary (the bad boys of the EU) refuse to "dilute" their culture

I guess its their culture, their call

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The conversation on multiculturalism so far.

A All cultures are equal and should be treated equal
B What about FGM, honour killings and the death penalty for homosexuality
A Thats laws
B Laws are influenced by culture. Culture creates laws. So should we legalise those acts to benefits the cultures who have immigrated here who practice these cultural artefacts. .
A The law is paramount.
B But laws are downwind of culture....

As usual the multiculturalists don't really understand their own position.

Another oddity is to support multiculturalism

You do realise that honour killings are illegal in every country?
Tbf, FGM is still legal in lots of countries, however so is male circumcision.

john123470 wrote: »

This is why Poland and Hungary (the bad boys of the EU) refuse to "dilute" their culture

I guess its their culture, their call

Is it though? or is it Politicians using the vilification of minorities for their own gain. On the one hand people are trying to tell us Eastern European culture is pro LGBT rights and on the other they are trying to say it is anti LGBT rights. Its more the case that Poland and Hungary were actively in favour of LGBT rights but that culture is being diluted so that minorities can be attacked and villified in order promote politicians.

fvp4 wrote: »

B But laws are downwind of culture....

Chicken and egg tbh. It is equally arguable that culture is downwind of laws. If I have the power to pass laws, I can shape the culture by making it illegal to express culture I disagree with.

Annasopra wrote: »

Is it though? or is it Politicians using the vilification of minorities for their own gain. On the one hand people are trying to tell us Eastern European culture is pro LGBT rights and on the other they are trying to say it is anti LGBT rights. Its more the case that Poland and Hungary were actively in favour of LGBT rights but that culture is being diluted so that minorities can be attacked and villified in order promote politicians.

Absolutely. Do they have problems and injustices, sure.
Thats why you see Massive turnouts on Warsaw streets etc in protest. They might be a few steps behind a 'reformed' Ireland but they're getting out of the hole .. they can't just shrug it off. Neither did we

By 'dilute' , what i think they mean is .. they as Poles / Hungarians will deal with their "multi culture" troubles without inviting in yet more folk with Their "multi cultural universes / troubles" .. and well ..expect it all to work out just fine ..

That at least is what i think they mean. If so, then that is their right

john123470 wrote: »

Absolutely. Do they have problems and injustices, sure.
Thats why you see Massive turnouts on Warsaw streets etc in protest. They might be a few steps behind a 'reformed' Ireland but they're getting out of the hole .. they can't just shrug it off. Neither did we

By 'dilute' , what i think they mean is .. they as Poles / Hungarians will deal with their "multi culture" troubles without inviting in yet more folk with Their "multi cultural universes / troubles" .. and well ..expect it all to work out just fine ..

That at least is what i think they mean. If so, then that is their right

They are not shrugging it off. They are actively working against the protesters to crush dissent and villify minorities for political gain. Its very contradictory in a way - proponents of monoculturalism hold up our supposed great liberal ideals in Ireland of womens/LGBT rights but when Hungary/Poland try to reverse these they are silent and/or supportive. Its an indirect way of saying they agree with Poland/Hungary because these Countries take anti migrant/anti refugee/anti islam stances.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Cultural racism/neo-racism describes discrimination of racial and ethnic groups based on cultural differences. If you believe that various cultures are not compatible with each other and should not co-exist in the same society, then congrats: You are a Cultural Racist. https://www.encyclopedia.com/cultural-racism

Or a realist when considering the breadth of world history and the conflicts of same.

Biological racism is where groups are discriminated and oppressed based on their biological race. This is the racism that we are most familiar with, as it caused so much harm to our societies in the last century. We saw the horrible results of racism in the second world war, 60's America, apartheid, colonialism, etc. Thankfully, we have come a long way since. In the second half of the last century, societies have progressed to where it became a repulsive view with the general public and made governments denounce it.

The reason why both biological and Cultural Racism are forms of racism is that both result in the same harmful discrimination of groups of people.

The major difference being that A) cultures change, "races" do not.

there are no fundamental differences of potential intellect and capabilities between populations C) cultures can most certainly be incompatible around things they both hold so dear, if from oppossing sides D) and this is the stumbling block as we've seen, one can respect cultures, but at the same time see where they're lacking in comparison to "our" own. That goes both ways too.

Again - and because it has been studiously avoided - to take the same local Irish baseline and the same "race", but a cultural difference over time. I am quite sure while you might see plenty of positives you would consider the attitudes and mores of 1940's Ireland towards women, Gays, foreigners, Choice and a few others to be inferior, sorry, negatives when compared to the attitudes and mores of 1940's Ireland towards same. I doubt you'd use the "ah well maybe they thought they were positive and superior" angle, but we'll see. Further, would you see those same attitudes and mores of 1940's Ireland as being incompatible with the majority in 2020's Ireland? Same "race", just a difference of a few decades. Barely a short whizz into the ocean of human history. Put it another way; would you be all happy to see say 80,000 of such 1940's Irish people and their cultural attitudes show up and create enough of a voting bloc to possibly change things back?

And like I say it can go both ways too. This would be actual cultural relativism in play if we want to be truly objective here. Not so easy as we all have our biases, the ones that confidently claim they don't usually have more. No matter what their personal politic. 1940's Ireland's culture would be horror struck and breaking the glass on the emergency Rosary beads box at the thoughts of the 2020's Ireland of Gay rights, contraception, SSM, Choice. Never mind the "permissive society" and Sexual Revolution. Attacks of the vapours, Novenas of Grace, pulpits exploding all over the place and seventeen Hail Marys and ten Our Fathers. Would their cultural attitudes be equal to ours, not inferior or superior, just because they hold them dear and believe so fervently in them? Or are they a "blank slate" that we can write upon in our own image? There can certainly be an element in that going on.

More's to the point, if we go the route of "cultural relativism" of no judgement of cultures because it's all subjective and racist and nobody can truly judge; How can you hope for culture to improve for more people living within it and not just the majority view? Further; how do you know your attitudes and mores are the right ones? That right there is the major problem with laissez faire philosophies, they are mired in their own inaction and can't progress, or progress comes slowly.

As I noted on another thread when folks were talking about culture and dodgy notions and how we are as individuals; you are not a sexist, homophobe, racist and all the rest, not because it came somehow magically to you. It almost certainly didn't. Those that start the fight against their culture wishing to change things are a tiny minority. You're not all of those things because you live in a culture that informed you that these were incompatible with your culture, that judged that they were, wrong.

Another reason why Cultural Racism is a form of racism is because biological racists use it as a tool to push a more palatable version of their views to the public.

We can 100% certainly agree there that actual racists may twist it to their own ends in an attempt to hide their tracks. Though many theories can be twisted, it depends on who's doing the twisting. Even neutral scientific theories. Darwin a classic. I don't think there's a politic who haven't had a go at mashing that square peg into their self constructed round hole. From Communists to Fascists and all points between.

Though I will say I would hold a candle for the progressive types as they tend to genuinely and optimistically, if naively IMHO, feel that things aren't so determinist and that there's always hope. They can irritate me, but by god they generally make for better company, and better neighbours. The "right" tend to cling to a twisted form of Darwinian determinism, ranting about doleheads and "their" taxes, where they naively believe in the perfect society they'd be the ones ending up on top. QV Libertarians. Sorry sunshine, you're not John Galt.

Annasopra wrote: »

Its very contradictory in a way - proponents of monoculturalism hold up our supposed great liberal ideals in Ireland of womens/LGBT rights but when Hungary/Poland try to reverse these they are silent and/or supportive.

I certainly wouldn't be silent or not supportive. I am fully behind Ireland's liberal ideals. I can remember the tail end of cassocks and cringe that was Ireland without them. I would be be fully behind Hungarians or Polish fighting for the same rights. This doesn't automatically mean I believe modern Western European multiculturalism as a politic is this overwhelmingly positive thing it's been painted as. Particularly when it's bringing cultures and mores in that would be just as much against women and LGBT rights as the "right wingers". They're separate issues as far as I'm concerned anyway.

Annasopra wrote: »

They are not shrugging it off. They are actively working against the protesters to crush dissent and villify minorities for political gain. Its very contradictory in a way - proponents of monoculturalism hold up our supposed great liberal ideals in Ireland of womens/LGBT rights but when Hungary/Poland try to reverse these they are silent and/or supportive. Its an indirect way of saying they agree with Poland/Hungary because these Countries take anti migrant/anti refugee/anti islam stances.

I meant the protestors "can't just shrug off" (the yoke) - in this case the Law and Justice party and their rulings, headed by Herr Captain Duda.

The Catholic church is very politicised in Poland. That is where his support comes from. We were in much the same boat in Ireland not so long ago.

As mentioned above, there are injustices and people take to the streets to protest these injustices. It is not going to change overnight

I would certainly support eg. these womens' Absolute right to express their sexuality / their right to decide what to do with their bodies.

I also happen to support their idea of monoculturalism

john123470 wrote: »

I meant the protestors "can't just shrug off" (the yoke) - in this case the Law and Justice party and their rulings, headed by Herr Captain Duda.

The Catholic church is very politicised in Poland. That is where his support comes from. We were in much the same boat in Ireland not so long ago.

As mentioned above, there are injustices and people take to the streets to protest these injustices. It is not going to change overnight

I would certainly support eg. these womens' Absolute right to express their sexuality / their right to decide what to do with their bodies.

I also happen to support their idea of monoculturalism

The Polish and Hungarian idea of monocultarism is to attack Womens/LGBT/Migrant/Refugee rights

What happens if you've a problem with the below? Does it mean that you're culturally racist? This is a culture after all, and according to some of the posters here opposing this stuff makes one a cultural racist.

https://twitter.com/AltNewsMedia/status/1409966905369182213

TomTomTim wrote: »

What happens if you've a problem with the below? Does it mean that you're culturally racist? This is a culture after all, and according to some of the posters here opposing this stuff makes one a cultural racist.

https://twitter.com/AltNewsMedia/status/1409966905369182213

Do you hate all Muslims Tom?

What's the link to the ongoing discussion or thread topic?

I can't see any issue with anybody not agreeing with that man. I don't agree with him.
I can't change his mind, but there are bigots everywhere in this world unfortunately.
Neither do I believe he is somehow a speaker for all Muslim people.
Not do I believe what he is saying can somehow be claimed as culture of 1.8 billion people.

Wibbs wrote: »

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

Well the linked explainer contains the handy sentence "At its core, cultural racism is a form of racism (that is, a structurally unequal practice) that relies on cultural differences rather than on biological markers of racial superiority or inferiority."

Which is to say: it is not racism by any definition anyone actually uses.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Do you hate all Muslims Tom?

What's the link to the ongoing discussion or thread topic?

This is almost parody :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the linked explainer contains the handy sentence "At its core, cultural racism is a form of racism (that is, a structurally unequal practice) that relies on cultural differences rather than on biological markers of racial superiority or inferiority."

Which is to say: it is not racism by any definition anyone actually uses.

You are making a rather silly assumption that racist people are rational or their beliefs need to be supported by any science. Lol