Gemma O'Doherty and her unicorns

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You strike me as if you are shrugging off the dangers of far right racist ideology. You appear to be dismissing Utoya, Batley and Spen, Chrustchurch and El Paso as if there is no connection at all to the far right racist ideologies that you support. The facts are that the far right racist ideologies and conspirscy theories that you support and espouse are a massive danger to our society and you can't simply dismiss Utoya, Batley and Spen, Christchurch snd El Paso as "lone rangers" - they have direct connections to the ideologies you support and espouse.

But.. but... some racist guy had a curry milkshake thrown at him...:pac:

Stephen15 wrote: »

I disagree with immigration and emigration as I believe people should be allowed to prosper in their homelands

Stopping emigration and immigration is not 'allowing' people to do anything - quite the opposite. Let's stop hiding behind terminology.


Presumably, you'd want the 20%-40% of non-Irish staff that keep our healthcare system ticking over every day to go home urgently, right?

banie01 wrote: »

The reasoned debate isn't for the racists on the thread.
It's for the people who are scared of change, who have heard stories of a friend of a friend and who are searching around for info. Those scared people that are in danger of being taken in by the nonsense espoused.

If anyone comes to Boards and searches for G O'D, I hope it's these threads they find.
The reasoned debate, the people asking Gemma's supporters to lay out their reasoning and getting nothing but waffle (at best) in return.
When actual evidence is presented, they reply with anecdotes.

If Gemma's theories are right, please let her and her supporters lay out their evidence.

If they are wrong, and as can be seen by this thread very many of us believe that they are.
The worst possible thing we can do is stay silent, and let that abhorrent idealism spread unchallenged.
As a smarter man than me once said

I don't know if I am a good man, but I am not going to stand idly by whilst extremist mouthpieces try to offer reasons for making racism and sectarianism ok.

Yeah I see your point.

I guess the way I see it is you’re giving them oxygen which is what they crave, it’s all they have, oxygen through engagement

Without acknowledgement, without clicks and retweets they’ve nothing. I just don’t see the point in trying to tell a racist they’re wrong, on this thread for example simply by engaging, the racists have been given dozens more opportunities to spout their beliefs.

But I get what you’re saying.

splinter65 wrote: »

The problem with identity politics in its entirety is really all on display in this thread and any other argument between left and right issues on boards and elsewhere on social media.
The centrists don’t get any chance to express themselves at all.
If your of a right wing persuasion then you read these threads and all you see is posters advocating for unrestricted immigration into Ireland, no limits no checks all must be made welcome and accommodated.
If your of a left wing persuasion then all you see is Nazis homophobes and racists spreading poison.
The vast majority of Ireland in reality is somewhere in the middle at the moment.
They want immigrants if they are going to have a positive effect on our country.
They want women to be free to go to work or stay at home and mind children if they want and not be judged either way.
They want the right person for the job to get the job irregardless of sex colour creed or nationality.
They don’t want to know anything about anybodies sexuality or gender and really want to mind their own business but not be told at the same time what to think.
None of that is reflected here.

Can you show me a single post where anyone has said this?

splinter65 wrote: »

None of that is reflected here.

I agree with the vast, vast majority of your views Splinter, apart from your mentioning that people here have been espousing open border beliefs(please point that out if I missed it) and your last sentence really.
It really comes across as an attempt to paint those of us who object to the nonsense espoused by some here as just as "extreme"

I'd consider myself as centrist, and I have made a very similar argument to you on the Mass Shooting threads regarding the lack of voice for the centrist majority here.

The whole thrust of this thread in particular, is the ideology expressed by Gemma and her supporters.
Patently extreme views, rebutting those views doesn't mean that one is an über leftist or clappy happy super socialist.
In my case at least, it means addressing the extremism here asking for their proof (and over the entire course of this and many other threads there has been none) and laying out in a reasoned manner why I believe that their reasoning is wrong.

I would and do handle the extreme left in a similar way.
Centrism isn't the answer to societal ills, but it allows a much more inclusive and far less polarising path to solutions than pandering to either extreme.

Extremism of any shade, left, right, religious and even environmental are all inherently dangerous IMHO as they can quite quickly lead to violence either in direct action, or in response to a perceived threat.

Stephen15 wrote: »

I'm not going to deny there are extremist groups out there like the Ku Klux Klan etc. who are extremists similar to ISIS or Al Qaeda but you can't say that anyone who supports tougher immigration policy like myself is some sort of extremist white supermacist

But it's not just "supporting tougher immigration" though.
You've said many racist and ill-informed things during this thread.
You support the same claims as the extremists and repeat their propaganda.
You believe and support and promote the same silly conspiracy theories as they do.

What exactly distinguishes your position from that of the extremists?
You don't advocate violence? Well neither do a lot of those extremists. They're very careful about doing so.

Stephen15 wrote: »

However I also believe that immigrants from first world countries are easier to culturally assimulate than third world immigrants be honest would you rather take an immigrant from a fellow EU member state than someone from Nigeria.

Evidence for this please.
A peer reviewed study by qualified experts would be best.

Otherwise, it will be dismissed as racist propaganda.

Also, could you define what you mean by "first world" and "third world"?
Cause there's third world countries who are "fellow EU member" states.
Some closer than you think...

Looks like Nazi salute guy has been identified - surprise, surprise

https://twitter.com/IzzyKamikaze/status/1160499768797384709

Stephen15 wrote: »

Personally I think immigration should be used solely for the benefit if the host country not the benefit of the immigrant eg to fulfill skills sgortages. However I also believe that immigrants from first world countries are easier to culturally assimulate than third world immigrants be honest would you rather take an immigrant from a fellow EU member state than someone from Nigeria.

So you want to strip struggling countries of their qualified medics and engineers? That's a fairly selfish approach really, isn't it?


And please explain further as to why you'd prefer someone from Poland or Romania to someone from Nigeria to be living beside you?

Stephen15 wrote:

I don't think people should have to emigrate from their home countries.

No one should.

When war, death, famine and disease are at your door you have no choice but to run for your life.

Stephen15 wrote: »

It's simple common sense that someone from a first world country would intergrate easier into another first world country easier than someone coming directly from a third world country. That's like saying you could intergrate just as easily into India as you could into Germany if you had to move tommorrow.

So you've absolutely no explanation of why it would be more difficult for someone from Nigeria?


Or perhaps you know that the explanation will expose you for what you are?