Hot take: Multiculturalism is good

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-03-2019 5:24pm

Edenmoar wrote: »

what about irish gangs keeping slaves and destroying the countryside in the UK? should we stop irish people emigrating there? we used to bomb the sh*t out of england too.
whataboutery yes, but there are good and bad of all peoples.

Not Irish, but an very small enthic group known as 'Irish Traveller'.

The other group, are circa 0.0001% of the millions who went to live and work there over the many decades.

GinAndBitter · 08-03-2019 5:24pm

Edenmoar wrote: »

yes, they used to be anyway. The flats etc. They don't go to Blackrock college, but you know that anyway, I don't know what your angle is here.

You are making a generalisation about people from the inner city. You don't seem to think there is a problem with that.

Edenmoar · 08-03-2019 5:25pm

GinAndBitter wrote: »

You are making a generalisation about people from the inner city. You don't seem to think there is a problem with that.

ok then, good talk

Edenmoar · 08-03-2019 5:27pm

Sienna Nervous Purse wrote: »

the millions who went to live and work there over the many decades.

Spend some time in the UK and you'll see that can be applied to any nationality or creed. Most are good and law abiding.

Ultros · 08-03-2019 5:30pm

Edenmoar wrote: »

Well I lived in the uk for 7 years and the Islamic folk seemed to integrate fine

So you don't think it's also brought massive problems in that country?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq

"Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday."

That's 23,000 people ( the size of Carlow ) who police believe have the potential of carrying out an act of terrorism. Bear in mind that doesn't include those who align with their views, which I'd imagine which is a far larger number. These Jihadi's don't appear out of thin air.

There's a grooming gang epidemic in the UK were white young vulnerable girls are being subjected to gang rape.. and worse. The vast majority of these ( 84% ) attacks are committed by "Asian" men. One of the latest groups uncovered was found in Huddersfield.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-45918845

"Twenty men have been found guilty of being part of a grooming gang that raped and abused girls as young as 11 in Huddersfield.

The men were convicted of more than 120 offences against 15 girls.

Victims were plied with drink and drugs and then "used and abused at will" in a seven-year "campaign of rape and abuse" between 2004 and 2011."

Mosques are also a serious problem and what's being thought inside of them. A C4 documentary called "Undercover Mosque" found that a Mosque which was previously required to kick out any extremism years prior was still preaching hatred. Here's some of what was said on tape

Dr. Ijaz Mian on the subject of non-Muslim laws: "You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir…[w]e have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others."

Abu Usamah saying of apostates: "If the imam wants to crucify him he should crucify him. The person is put up on the wood and he's left there to bleed to death for three days."

Abu Usamah speaking on the deficiency of women's minds: "Allah has created the woman, even if she gets a PhD, deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."

Praises the killer of a British soldier serving in Afghanistan, stating "The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders."

Abdullah el-Faisal: "You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews you kill them physically."

Advocates violent Jihad against the non-Muslims and predicting that an army of Muslims will arise against the non-Muslims in England.

Dr Bilal Philips on marriage with girls before puberty: "The prophet Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty. With his practice, he clarified what is permissible, and that is why we shouldn't have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman, which is looked down upon by this society today, but we know that Prophet Mohammed practised it, it wasn’t abuse or exploitation, it was marriage."

Condemns Muslim integration into British society.

Calls for the overthrow of the British government and democracy.

"[T]hey will fight in the cause of Allah. I encourage all of you to be from amongst them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength, and when that happens, people won’t get killed – unjustly."

Dr. Mian: "You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state within a state, until you take over."

Al Jibali: "By the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her."

Dr. Mian praised the Saudi religious police practice of imprisoning people who do not pray: "They send the police, and they say, well, if you don’t come for prayer, close your shop, we will arrest you. But if you don’t, then we have to bring the punishment on you, you will be killed, and nobody will pray on you."

Abu Usamah saying that homosexuals should be killed by throwing them off a cliff, stating "throw [the homosexual] off the mountain."

I could keep going but here's a final point, Muslims view on homosexuality in the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal, poll finds

..."when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed. Almost half (47%) said they did not agree that it was acceptable for a gay person to become a teacher, compared with 14% of the general population."

Angela Merkel said Multiculturalism is a "sham" and it has failed in Germany, she's not wrong.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/angela-merkel-multiculturalism-is-a-sham

"Speaking at her party's convention, Time's "Person of the Year" said Germany may soon reach its capacity for refugees. "We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably," she said, after declaring that "Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and multiculturalism thus remains a living lie."

As the Muslim population continues to grow in the coming decades, so will all these problems.

Edenmoar · 08-03-2019 5:32pm

We have women living under Sharia law under a certain ethnic group here already. I get it though yeah I wasn't talking about Muslims in particular, and I don't want bigots against homosexuality and women living in Ireland, I just don't think immigration is going to go anywhere any time soon, so you're better off coming to terms with it and not worrying about it. I've nothing more to say really, peace out .

Ted Johnson · 08-03-2019 6:40pm

seamus wrote: »

And over longer timescales the entire human race will likely be some form of tanned colour, with some minor variances here and there.

'My race will go extinct. And that's a good thing'. That's some next level liberal self hate.

Auntie Semite · 08-03-2019 7:00pm

It never fails to amaze me hearing people who self identify as Socialists and Left Wing arguing for Multinationals, Corporations, Neo Liberal economics, Low wage cleaners, Low skill workers to fill (and suppress the wages of) low wage jobs and arguing in favour of mass immigration which lines the pockets of the property class and the developer capitalists

sk8erboii · 08-03-2019 7:08pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

'My race will go extinct. And that's a good thing'. That's some next level liberal self hate.

‘My race will go extinct’

- literal paranoid rhetoric from people uneducated in the topic of race

Ted Johnson · 08-03-2019 7:10pm

sk8erboii wrote: »

‘My race will go extinct’

- literal paranoid rhetoric from people uneducated in the topic of race

Your boy Seamus is calling it. I don't personally think whites will go extinct although our numbers will decline. People will want to marry and breed with their own kind. Just human nature.

Patrick2010 · 08-03-2019 7:45pm

Interesting piece on RTÉ news giving a very positive view on womens life in Saudi Arabia sponsored by some group I never heard of.
This was followed by a piece from Galway including a girl who had to endure 8 years in direct provision, no question of how many appeals. She was asked what it was like to be a black Irish girl.
Do RTÉ have an agenda??

gozunda · 08-03-2019 8:05pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Your boy Seamus is calling it. I don't personally think whites will go extinct although our numbers will decline. People will want to marry and breed with their own kind. Just human nature.

It is estimated that approx 11.5% of the total world population can be defined as 'white' (not counting partial European descent). With the remaining 88.5 % of the world's population accounting for all other races. Lower birth rates and increased immigration into Europe and even allowing for low rates of inter marriage will most likley reduce that further.

4068ac1elhodqr · 08-03-2019 8:05pm

Edenmoar wrote: »

Spend some time in the UK and you'll see that can be applied to any nationality or creed. Most are good and law abiding.

Better still, spend some time looking at the 2016 Prison stats (Eng & Wales), and report back your findings on ethnicity proportionality compared to overall population.

.... and 15% of all prisoners are?

Ulysses Gaze · 08-03-2019 8:07pm

Auntie Semite wrote: »

It never fails to amaze me hearing people who self identify as Socialists and Left Wing arguing for Multinationals, Corporations, Neo Liberal economics, Low wage cleaners, Low skill workers to fill (and suppress the wages of) low wage jobs and arguing in favour of mass immigration which lines the pockets of the property class and the developer capitalists

They aren't real socialists.

They are Middle Class "Socialists".

sk8erboii · 08-03-2019 9:05pm

gozunda wrote: »

It is estimated that approx 11.5% of the total world population can be defined as 'white' (not counting partial European descent). With the remaining 88.5 % of the world's population accounting for all other races. Lower birth rates and increased immigration into Europe and even allowing for low rates of inter marriage will most likley reduce that further.

Did somebody just discover demographic shifts?

Its been happening since fire was invented

Sand · 08-03-2019 9:40pm

Wibbs wrote: »

The trouble comes with the second and subsequent generations. They're told they're French/Irish/British/whatever but they realise early on in life that they're not quite French/Irish/British/whatever. This naturally and quite understandably leads to a dissatisfaction and kickback against the country they find themselves in. The country that they belong to, but not quite.

Agreed, I look at people like Kehinde Andrews, Gary Younge and Afua Hirsch and I see deeply unhappy people who are citizens of nowhere. They seem to project that unhappiness outwards into a resentment against the country they were born into but recognise they are not a part of. What we take for granted, a homeland and a sense of being part of a wider people, was taken from them. I feel genuine sympathy for them.

I suppose I was pointing to the financial and material benefits. While later generations may feel alienated from both their own heritage and that of the indigenous people, its materially better to be drawing the dole in Peckham than it is to be surviving hand to mouth in a lean-to in Ghana. If you're going to be existentially depressed, the most rewarding way to do it is as a Guardian columnist.

Sand · 08-03-2019 10:03pm

Edenmoar wrote: »

well where do we get our cleaners etc from in the meantime? I believe most people are inherently good anyway, the wasters in this country are Irish not foreign. Anyway where do people find the time to give a sh*t about where people are from? Life's too short amigos.

Back in the 1600s the rich had to capture foreigners and transport them at their own cost over the seas to work low waged menial jobs they would not pay local rates to do. But in 2019 we are much more advanced. Now the foreigners pay their own costs to travel over the seas to work low waged menial jobs for the rich.

Das Reich · 08-03-2019 10:10pm

Imigration can be good depending on how it is done. Just look at Brazil, the most multicultural country on earth. If not by the european imigration of 1870 to 1920 that would be a country similar to Haiti (the poorest on the America).

08-03-2019 11:39pm

sk8erboii wrote: »

Did somebody just discover demographic shifts?

Its been happening since fire was invented

Demographic shift is one thing, importing huge numbers to appease the gods of "growth" in another thing entirely.

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 12:12am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Demographic shift is one thing, importing huge numbers to appease the gods of "growth" in another thing entirely.

So its all a conspiracy then?

Its the globalist cabal’s ploy?

09-03-2019 12:52am

sk8erboii wrote: »

So its all a conspiracy then?

Its the globalist cabal’s ploy?

No conspiracy, just walk down any street to see the evidence, why are they here?
They were invited here to be cheap labour as it was cheaper to import people to become consumers than to allow growth (& their profits) to slow and eventually stop, than to continue increasing wages to maintain the living standards of the natives.
Before your time, many of us can remember the seriously bad labour relations that were commonplace in the 1960s & 1970s, strikes were commonplace as management found that the staff disliked being overworked and they also had higher expectations. Back in those days a household had only one income earner and that was sufficient to support the entire family, try that today.

Importing cheap labour has reduces the living standards for most families and both parents are now forced to work to provide sufficient income to support the household and rent/mortgage and have money left over for everything else.

All of this has of course has speeded up the flow upwards of money to the people at the top, with globalisation there are far fewer of them, but these individuals have wealth beyond belief. Some individuals have a net worth that is greater than several of the smallest countries in the world.

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 1:08am

Deleted User wrote: »

No conspiracy, just walk down any street to see the evidence, why are they here?
They were invited here to be cheap labour as it was cheaper to import people to become consumers than to allow growth (& their profits) to slow and eventually stop, than to continue increasing wages to maintain the living standards of the natives.
Before your time, many of us can remember the seriously bad labour relations that were commonplace in the 1960s & 1970s, strikes were commonplace as management found that the staff disliked being overworked and they also had higher expectations. Back in those days a household had only one income earner and that was sufficient to support the entire family, try that today.

Importing cheap labour has reduces the living standards for most families and both parents are now forced to work to provide sufficient income to support the household and rent/mortgage and have money left over for everything else.

All of this has of course has speeded up the flow upwards of money to the people at the top, with globalisation there are far fewer of them, but these individuals have wealth beyond belief. Some individuals have a net worth that is greater than several of the smallest countries in the world.

Its interesting you started with the need for a massive influx of workers, but not 'Why.'

Would you not say it all stems from Ireland's greying population? One that never recovered from the famine?

Ulysses Gaze · 09-03-2019 1:11am

sk8erboii wrote: »

Its interesting you started with the need for a massive influx of workers, but not 'Why.'

Would you not say it all stems from Ireland's greying population? One that never recovered from the famine?

We had a baby boom not 10 years ago and have one of the youngest populations in Europe.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-population-is-youngest-in-the-eu-369301.html

09-03-2019 1:23am

sk8erboii wrote: »

Its interesting you started with the need for a massive influx of workers, but not 'Why.'

Would you not say it all stems from Ireland's greying population? One that never recovered from the famine?

The famine happened decades before the oldest living person in the country was born.
Multinational companies moved here for the tax benefits that were created as part of the peace dividend from the good Friday agreement and as such they were expected to provide more than just a "brass plate" headquarters.
They rapidly expanded their presence such that in many cases outstripped the local workforces capabilities to provide worker bees. So they imported them and paid a much lower wage at the same time. Multiculturalism as a concept was created to persuade the incumbent population to accept these people and to accept their differing culture and outlook on life.
There was no "when in Rome" acceptance by modern inward migrants as was expected from previous generations of migrants. Historically, there was no real acceptance of migrants, unless they adopted the ways of the community they were coming into, that was even true when the first wave of English settlers came to Ireland in the fifteenth century, After the second generation were born they were as Irish as the locals.
Later far larger numbers came over and tipped the balance.

the Alternative is when huge numbers come in and the local population is swamped be the inward migrants, just remember what language we now speak and what happened to the Native Americans. What will be the first language here be in 100 years time?

09-03-2019 1:26am

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

We had a baby boom not 10 years ago and have one of the youngest populations in Europe.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-population-is-youngest-in-the-eu-369301.html

These babies also has a disproportionally large percentage of non-Irish born parents.
Also a large number of Irish emigrants returned with young families.

riffmongous · 09-03-2019 1:38am

Deleted User wrote: »

The famine happened decades before the oldest living person in the country was born.
Multinational companies moved here for the tax benefits that were created as part of the peace dividend from the good Friday agreement and as such they were expected to provide more than just a "brass plate" headquarters.
They rapidly expanded their presence such that in many cases outstripped the local workforces capabilities to provide worker bees. So they imported them and paid a much lower wage at the same time. Multiculturalism as a concept was created to persuade the incumbent population to accept these people and to accept their differing culture and outlook on life.
There was no "when in Rome" acceptance by modern inward migrants as was expected from previous generations of migrants. Historically, there was no real acceptance of migrants, unless they adopted the ways of the community they were coming into, that was even true when the first wave of English settlers came to Ireland in the fifteenth century, After the second generation were born they were as Irish as the locals.
Later far larger numbers came over and tipped the balance.

the Alternative is when huge numbers come in and the local population is swamped be the inward migrants, just remember what language we now speak and what happened to the Native Americans. What will be the first language here be in 100 years time?

There's so much wrong there it's hard to know where to begin.. you can't honestly compare our current situation to that of the native americans.. 15th century english settlers? Statutes of Kilkenny was a century earlier.. multiculturalism is down to MNCs importing educated people to work for them? That's why we have thousands of Brazilians and English in Ireland?

gozunda · 09-03-2019 1:42am

sk8erboii wrote: »

Its interesting you started with the need for a massive influx of workers, but not 'Why.'
Would you not say it all stems from Ireland's greying population? One that never recovered from the famine?

You have a very strange take on history lad.

Btw you said

sk8erboii wrote:

The vast majority of people accept multiculturalism as a net positive lad.

Where are all these "accepters"?

In regard to the above you were asked but haven't answered ...

That is a tenuous statement at best. In regard to that claim -
Who do? Where? Please provide accurate figures to show that is so. It remains many many countries worldwide do not promote multiculturalism.

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 1:48am

gozunda wrote: »

You have a very strange take on history lad.

Btw you said

Where are all these "accepters"?

In regard to the above you were asked but haven't answered ...

The exchange of ideas and peoples is how its been since prehistory. You might not notice it because of it's prevalence, but you're typing on a product based on engineering designs from Babbage to the first microchip. That could only exist by people coexisting and sharing ideas. The better question is: What successful insular nations exist today?

And do you think that if Ireland became insular it would become prosperous?

gozunda · 09-03-2019 2:03am

sk8erboii wrote: »

The exchange of ideas and peoples is how its been since prehistory. The better question is: What successful insular nations exist today?
And do you think that if Ireland became insular it would become prosperous?

We have already established that multiculturism is NOT defined as the 'spread of ideas and peoples' (sic). You're a bit mixed up there lad.

You also appear to be conflating immigration control with the word 'insular'. Are you 'insular' when you lock your door during the day so that others dont access your house without your permision?

To paraphrase your use of subjective 'if statements ' - do you think that if Bigbird became an elephant would it be able to fly?

Rather than assigning your own unique definitions to words - perhaps you would be good enough to reply to the question asked. Thanks.

Your statement

The vast majority of people accept multiculturalism as a net positive lad.

The question

Who do? Where? Please provide accurate figures to show that is so.

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 2:14am

gozunda wrote: »

We have already established that multiculturism is NOT defined as the 'spread of ideas and peoples' (sic). Your a bit mixed up there lad.

You also appear to be conflating immigration control with the word 'insular'. Are you 'insular' when you lock your door during the day so that others dont access your house without your permision?

To paraphrase your use of subjective 'if statements ' - do you think that if Bigbird became an elephant would it be able to fly?

Rather than assigning your own unique definitions to words - perhaps you would be good enough to reply to the question asked. Thanks.

So you define multiculturalism in your 'insular' way as mass migration?

You're using weird mental gymnastics and illogical 'insular' statements (one that leads to obvious answers, but have no actual theoretical values)

I'm asking you, are there any successful insular nations today?

Or is interdependence and exchange of peoples and ideas is how humanity has operated since forever?

Ill answer it for you:

There are no successful insular nations today. Every nation has had it's success due to the exchange of ideas and peoples. Every.

gozunda · 09-03-2019 2:19am

sk8erboii wrote: »

So you define multiculturalism in your 'insular' way as mass migration?You're using weird mental gymnastics and illogical 'insular' statements (one that leads to obvious answers, but have no actual theoretical values)I'm asking you, are there any successful insular nations today?Or is interdependence and exchange of peoples and ideas is how humanity has operated since forever?

Nope. Btw you're the one going on about 'insular' for some reason. Note: Multiculturalism is not defined by any dictionary as the the "spread of ideas and peoples" (sic).

Again as to what was asked:

your statement

The vast majority of people accept multiculturalism as a net positive lad.

The question

Who do? Where? Please provide accurate figures to show that is so.

An answer to that. Thanks.

Sunny88 · 09-03-2019 2:22am

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Btw youre the one rabbititing on about 'insular' for some reason.

Again as to what was asked:

your statement

The question

An answer to that. Thanks.

Go over to Rotherham and ask them for their opinion

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 2:23am

gozunda wrote: »

Nope. Btw youre the one rabbititing on about 'insular' for some reason.

Again as to what was asked:

your statement

The question

An answer to that. Thanks.

Mate how are you not getting what im saying. Its the default state of humanity. People are open to other people and their ideals. Your denial of this is actually insane.

Was your laptop made in Ireland? Was your car? Your favorite movie?Statistically speaking not even your DNA is from Ireland.

So how can you deny that you do not accept multiculturalism when nothing about you was made in a vacuum?

And stop with the wordplay and mental gymnastics.

gozunda · 09-03-2019 2:30am

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate how are you not getting what im saying. Its the default state of humanity. People are open to other people and their ideals. Your denial of this is actually insane....

Your definition of 'multiculturism' has already been shown by any number of posters to be like a lady of the night's lacy underwear- flimsy and full of holes ...

Hmmm your refusal to answer the question asked is very very strange indeed. You are babbling - so let's keep it simple.

Your statement:

The vast majority of people accept multiculturalism as a net positive lad.

The question:

Who do? Where? Please provide accurate figures to show that is so.

An answer to the actual question asked. Thanks.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-03-2019 2:33am

sk8erboii wrote: »

So you define multiculturalism in your 'insular' way as mass migration?

That’s basically how it’s defined, to become multicultural a nation needs migration.

You're using weird mental gymnastics and illogical 'insular' statements (one that leads to obvious answers, but have no actual theoretical values)

I'm asking you, are there any successful insular nations today?

Or is interdependence and exchange of peoples and ideas is how humanity has operated since forever?

Ill answer it for you:

There are no successful insular nations today. Every nation has had it's success due to the exchange of ideas and peoples. Every.

Japan is pretty successful. China is successful. Korea is successful.

The exchange of ideas isn’t the definition of multi culturalism. In fact as I explained earlier even immigrant countries didn’t call themselves multi cultural until the past generation. The US preferred to call itself a melting pot, ie immigrants melted into the existing culture.

gozunda · 09-03-2019 2:35am

Sunny88 wrote: »

Go over to Rotherham and ask them for their opinion

Great first post btw!

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-03-2019 2:37am

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate how are you not getting what im saying. Its the default state of humanity. People are open to other people and their ideals. Your denial of this is actually insane.

Was your laptop made in Ireland? Was your car? Your favorite movie?Statistically speaking not even your DNA is from Ireland.

So how can you deny that you do not accept multiculturalism when nothing about you was made in a vacuum?

And stop with the wordplay and mental gymnastics.

You realise you are defining your own version of multiculturalism here (again). Apparently free trade is multiculturalism. It isn’t.

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 2:37am

gozunda wrote: »

Your definition of 'multiculturism' has already be shown to be like a lady of the night's underwear- full of holes and flimsy ...

Hmmm your refusal to answer the question asked is very very strange indeed. You are babbling - so let's keep it simple.

Your statement:

The question:

An answer to the actual question asked. Thanks.

I've answered your question 10 times since page one lol.

Literally every nation that has ever existed participated in multiculturalism. You're doing the Alex Jones thing of asking like a really nonsensical rhetoric and thinking you're smart because you keep repeating it.

But i'll repeat. Every nation that has every existed has participated in multiculturalism and has benefitted from it.

I'll give an inverse of your question to contextualize how stupid it is:

Has any nation become prosperous and successful by being insular?

The answer is no, because you close yourself to trade, ideas and useful people.

In either case, it's easy to see you have had zero formal education on the subject.

09-03-2019 2:38am

riffmongous wrote: »

There's so much wrong there it's hard to know where to begin.. you can't honestly compare our current situation to that of the native americans.. 15th century english settlers? Statutes of Kilkenny was a century earlier.. multiculturalism is down to MNCs importing educated people to work for them? That's why we have thousands of Brazilians and English in Ireland?

You obviously didn't read the previous post about the importation of cheap labour, and you do know what language we speak here now?

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 2:41am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You realise you are defining your own version of multiculturalism here (again). Apparently free trade is multiculturalism. It isn’t.

I'm not defining it in my own way. Im condensing it. But define multiculturalism as any way and you can see that it boils down to coexistence (which predicates movement) and different ethnographic classes (scientists, lower, middle, upper classes, different nationalities etc etc)

What they're defining it as is 'mass migration' which is 100% part of MC but is not entirely it.

Meanwhile, im inversing his question for context. Has any nation become successful by becoming insular?

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-03-2019 2:45am

sk8erboii wrote: »

I've answered your question 10 times since page one lol.

Literally every nation that has ever existed participated in multiculturalism. You're doing the Alex Jones thing of asking like a really nonsensical rhetoric and thinking you're smart because you keep repeating it.

But i'll repeat. Every nation that has every existed has participated in multiculturalism and has benefitted from it.

I'll give an inverse of your question to contextualize how stupid it is:

Has any nation become prosperous and successful by being insular?

The answer is no, because you close yourself to trade, ideas and useful people.

In either case, it's easy to see you have had zero formal education on the subject.

For a man who is totally defining his own terms here you might want to be a bit more humble about your own ideology.

Free trade isn’t multi culturalism. Watching American movies isn’t multicultural. Even countries with historical patterns of immigration aren’t necessarily multi cultural.

See wiki here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

Which says

Multiculturalism as a political philosophy involves ideologies and policies which vary widely.[1] It has been described as a "salad bowl" and as a "cultural mosaic"[2] - in contrast to a melting pot.[3]

Multiculturalism, then, doesn’t entail just immigration or existing nation or ethnic groups in a state - a necessary but not sufficient condition - but treating these cultures as equal of respect.

https://www.ifla.org/publications/defining-multiculturalism

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 2:46am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

That’s basically how it’s defined, to become multicultural a nation needs migration.

Japan is pretty successful. China is successful. Korea is successful.

The exchange of ideas isn’t the definition of multi culturalism. In fact as I explained earlier even immigrant countries didn’t call themselves multi cultural until the past generation. The US preferred to call itself a melting pot, ie immigrants melted into the existing culture.

Those are really bad examples mate. Japan became successful when it stopped its blockade in the late mid 19th century and let Americans and Europeans in for their industrial technology.

Saying china is insular is kinda racist, considering they consist of 56 ethnic groups. Unless you're saying they all look the same ?

Dunno about Korea.

Multiculturalism greatly facilitates the exchange of ideas. Its incredibly pedantic and self serving to say its not strictly MC, but how are you going to deal with Japanese electronics company if neither speaks the other's language?

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 2:48am

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

For a man who is totally defining his own terms here you might want to be a bit more humble about your own ideology.

Free trade isn’t multi culturalism. Watching American movies isn’t multicultural. Even countries with historical patterns of immigration aren’t necessarily multi cultural.

See wiki here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

Which says

Multiculturalism as a political philosophy involves ideologies and policies which vary widely.[1] It has been described as a "salad bowl" and as a "cultural mosaic"[2] - in contrast to a melting pot.[3]

Multiculturalism, then, doesn’t entail just immigration or existing nation or ethnic groups in a state - a necessary but not sufficient condition - but treating these cultures as equal of respect.

That doesn't really refute anything. It leads to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interculturalism

gozunda · 09-03-2019 2:51am

sk8erboii wrote: »

I've answered your question 10 times since page one lol.Literally every nation that has ever existed participated in multiculturalism. You're doing the Alex Jones thing of asking like a really nonsensical rhetoric and thinking you're smart because you keep repeating it.But i'll repeat. Every nation that has every existed has participated in multiculturalism and has benefitted from it. I'll give an inverse of your question to contextualize how stupid it is:
Has any nation become prosperous and successful by being insular?The answer is no, because you close yourself to trade, ideas and useful people. In either case, it's easy to see you have had zero formal education on the subject.

Lol.

You are ranting there again I'm afraid. You have again failed to answer the simple question asked and have provided no figures whatsover as to whom and where 'multiculturalism' is seen as a 'net positive' (sic). End of story.

You are also confusing trade and commerce with 'multiculturalism' - a word which has been pointed out - that you dont know the meaning of.

I would suggest you invest in a dictionary and book yourself back into primary school

I'll leave you there ...

Sunny88 · 09-03-2019 2:54am

gozunda wrote: »

Lol.

You are ranting there again I'm afraid. You have again failed to answer the simple question asked and have provided no figures whatsover as to whom and where 'multiculturalism' is seen as a good. End of story.

You are also confusing trade and commerce with 'multiculturism' - a word which has been pointed out - that you dont know the meaning of.

I would suggest you invest in a dictionary and book yourself back into primary school

I'll leave you there ...

But why are low iq irish plebs so racist against pakistani grooming gangs

Why dont racists start threads bashing polish and swiss and aussies

Its so inconsistent

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 2:55am

gozunda wrote: »

Lol. *types on american laptop*

You are ranting there again I'm afraid.

*speaks English*

You have again failed to answer the simple question asked

*tips Italian fedora*

and have provided no figures whatsover as to whom and where

*Swings Japanese katana*

'multiculturalism' is seen as a good. End of story.
Sips on german beer

You are also confusing trade and commerce with 'multiculturism' -
*says hi to polish co worker*

a word which has been pointed out - that you dont know the meaning of.

*goes to catholic church to worship middle eastern god*

I would suggest you invest in a dictionary and book yourself back into primary school
*drives french car*

I'll leave you there ...

*espouses right wing italian rhetoric

Mate I've literally told you ten times, every nation has participated in multiculturalism. I've answer your troll question.

But you can never ever answer this: What insular nations are successful?

buried · 09-03-2019 2:56am

sk8erboii wrote: »

Literally every nation that has ever existed participated in multiculturalism. You're doing the Alex Jones thing of asking like a really nonsensical rhetoric and thinking you're smart because you keep repeating it.

But i'll repeat. Every nation that has every existed has participated in multiculturalism and has benefitted from it.

Bull$hit. Saudi Arabia is a nation, Saudi Arabia exists, yet it doesn't want to participate in any sort of "multiculturalism" whatsoever, yet the gangster House of Saud is at the apex of what determines global policy for the rest of the planet outside its own self. Looks like they truly benefit from ditching this multiculturalism lark. They order everyone else about while under this policy so it must work.

Franz Von Peppercorn · 09-03-2019 3:00am

sk8erboii wrote: »

I'm not defining it in my own way. Im condensing it.

No you’re not. Your defining it incorrectly to include free trade, and different classes. And movies.

But define multiculturalism as any way

That’s precisely the problem.

and you can see that it boils down to coexistence (which predicates movement) and different ethnographic classes (scientists, lower, middle, upper classes, different nationalities etc etc)

Classes are not ethnographic categories. Nationalities are. So one thing right there.

What they're defining it as is 'mass migration' which is 100% part of MC but is not entirely it.

In general nobody talked about multicultural states prior to modern patterns of migration. Even the US was described as a melting pot, which as I have said before (and the wiki confirmed) isn’t the same thing.

Meanwhile, im inversing his question for context. Has any nation become successful by becoming insular?

This form of language by you is of course a verbal trick. The opposite of multiculturalism isn’t insular, and that word has many implied meanings including a resistance to trade, autarky, or just simply being an island. Is it possible to be insular, to have one dominant culture and little immigration, while engaging in trade and some cultural interchange with the rest of the world - sure japan does that.

Sunny88 · 09-03-2019 3:00am

sk8erboii wrote: »

Mate I've literally told you ten times, every nation has participated in multiculturalism. I've answer your troll question.

But you can never ever answer this: What insular nations are successful?

Ask the people in Nice who got flattened by an articulated truck

sk8erboii · 09-03-2019 3:00am

buried wrote: »

Bull$hit. Saudi Arabia is a nation, Saudi Arabia exists, yet it doesn't want to participate in any sort of "multiculturalism" whatsoever, yet the gangster House of Saud is at the apex of what determines global policy for the rest of the planet outside its own self. Looks like they truly benefit from ditching this multiculturalism lark. They order everyone else about while under this policy so it must work.

Saudi arabia? The one that conducts global trade, using american capitalist values and imports people from all over the world (sociologists, nurses, scientists, computer experts etc) to compensate for its lack of development in these areas?

Saudi is pretty insular, but still participates in MC. Bad example.

Hot take: Multiculturalism is good

Comments