Irish 'multiculturalism'

[vegetariantaxidermy]

To all the PC scoundrels on here: what do you think of Ireland (do you think at all?), and the travesty of 'Northern Ireland', which was artificially created by being flooded with protestant English, thereby skewing the royalist 'election' results in favour of the oppressor? 'Northern Ireland' shouldn't even exist.
But everyone is the same, right? Isn't that the way it goes? Protestant, catholic...we're all human aren't we?



I'm afraid you don't get any brownie points here. No 'special protected groups' for you to 'virtue signal' over.

[Arising_uk]

To all the PC scoundrels on here: what do you think of Ireland (do you think at all?), and the travesty of 'Northern Ireland', which was artificially created by being flooded with protestant English, ...

Presbyterian Scots.

What do you think of all the Catholic Scots who later moved to Scotland and imported their sectariansm into Scottish cities?
P.s.
Whoops! Should have been "Catholic Irish".

[vegetariantaxidermy]

To all the PC scoundrels on here: what do you think of Ireland (do you think at all?), and the travesty of 'Northern Ireland', which was artificially created by being flooded with protestant English, ...

Presbyterian Scots.

What do you think of all the Catholic Scots who later moved to Scotland and imported their sectariansm into Scottish cities?

That's not what this thread's about. It's about the British Govts.' deliberate campaign to undermine the Irish vote and ensure a royalist majority by exporting Britih protestants there. Genocide by sheer numbers. Northern Irish protestants aren't Irish--they even have a horrible accent.
What a cowardly way to 'argue'. I knew you would come up with something annoying, considering you are one of the worst offenders on here when it comes to PCtosserism. Are you excusing what the British did?
Why didn't you just say 'what do you think about Hitler?'
Isn't it ironic how nauseatingly PC the English have become, after being the most arrogant and worst mass murderers and bullies imaginable, and they're still at it in the ME. Trying unsuccessfully to atone for past sins?
I was watching some English show about hellish neighbours, and one guy was filmed telling a neighbour that he doesn't like immigrants. Oh my god. Put him in irons. The police arrested him and actually charged him with 'hate speech'. And yes, there was a recording, and that is ALL he said (after much provocation by his petty little tosser of a neighbour who happened to be an Egyptian immigrant). Those sort of laws aren't there to 'protect' people, they are there to control people and stifle objections to objectionable Govt. policy, and to protect those who have a vested interest in cheap immigrant labour. The Egyptian guy had been harassing the other guy for months, yet the only outcome was the other guy ending up with a 'criminal' conviction for voicing an opinion?
Why not have 'hate speech' laws that protect fat people? Or ugly people? Or old people? How many times have we called someone a 'stupid old fart'? Why is nationality so sacrosanct? So he's not allowed to state his opinion of immigrants, but it's ok for British mercenaries to slaughter muslims in their own countries, even being called 'heroes' for doing so?
And what are you British puddings doing to help Julian Assange? Where's your faux empathy and humanity there? What? You don't like him? You think he's peculiar? Hmm. Just what the British and American Govts. want you to 'think'. Of course, it wouldn't be about destroying somone who 'just happens' to represent the last gasps of Free Speech, someone who exposed American and British atrocities in the ME, atrocities no one would ever have otherwise known about.

[Arising_uk]

That's not what this thread's about. It's about the British Govts.' deliberate campaign to undermine the Irish vote and ensure a royalist majority by exporting Britih protestants there. Genocide by sheer numbers. Northern Irish protestants aren't Irish--they even have a horrible accent. ...

Their descendants disagree, they call think themselves Irish but wish to be part of Britain, hence they call themselves Northern Irish.

Are the Scots Kiwi's not New Zealanders? As I bet their Maroi accent is atrocious, if they speak it at all.

What a cowardly way to 'argue'. ...

Who's arguing? I just corrected an assertion of yours as the English Protestants didn't want to go to the Ulster Plantation so they sent the Scots lowlanders.

I asked my question as I wondered where your faux right-wing PC moral outrage stretched? For example, does it stretch to the Scots Kiwis? Should we send them home?

I knew you would come up with something annoying, considering you are one of the worst offenders on here when it comes to PCtosserism. Are you excusing what the British did? ...

Sounds all a bit of a PC process to me.

Why didn't you just say 'what do you think about Hitler?'

I'll leave you to throw around 'nazisms'.

Isn't it ironic how nauseatingly PC the English have become, after being the most arrogant and worst mass murderers and bullies imaginable, and they're still at it in the ME. Trying unsuccessfully to atone for past sins? ...

Make your mind up, either you want the English to be PC and apologise for past deeds or you don't. If the latter what are you banging on about.

I was watching some English show about hellish neighbours, and one guy was filmed telling a neighbour that he doesn't like immigrants. Oh my god. Put him in irons. The police arrested him and actually charged him with 'hate speech'. And yes, there was a recording, and that is ALL he said (after much provocation by his petty little tosser of a neighbour who happened to be an Egyptian immigrant). Those sort of laws aren't there to 'protect' people, they are there to control people and stifle objections to objectionable Govt. policy, and to protect those who have a vested interest in cheap immigrant labour. The Egyptian guy had been harassing the other guy for months, yet the only outcome was the other guy ending up with a 'criminal' conviction for voicing an opinion? ...

The law of unintended consequences. Hastily made law is pretty much always bad.

Why not have 'hate speech' laws that protect fat people? Or ugly people? Or old people? How many times have we called someone a 'stupid old fart'? Why is nationality so sacrosanct? So he's not allowed to state his opinion on immigrants, but it's ok for British mercenaries to slaughter muslims in their own countries, even being called 'heroes' for doing so?

Post up the link to the show, as I'm dubious you can be charged under the Hate Speech laws for saying you dislike someone.

And what are you British puddings doing to help Julian Assange? Where's your faux empathy and humanity there? What? You don't like him? You think he's peculiar? Hmm. Just what the British and American Govts. want you to 'think'. Of course, it wouldn't be about destroying somone who 'just happens' to represent the last gasps of Free Speech, someone who exposed American and British atrocities in the ME, atrocities no one would ever have known about otherwise.

Is Assange a British citizen? If so then I'd expect my government to be assisting him.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

What do 'wings' have to do with this? Did I mention anything about 'wings'? If anything it's the so-called 'conservative' political parties that promote mass immigration as a way of scratching the backs of their Big Business buddies. And why are you banging on about Scots? You should also look up the definition of 'country'. If Maori would be happy going back to being tribalistic, stone age cannibals who practised slavery, with a life expectancy of 30 (optimistic), then I would be very surprised; and they were well able to take care of themselves--unlike the Moriori they wiped out.
For some reason the British became pretty decent sort of people when they went to NZ (probably because they had found a 'savage' race they couldn't push around. Stand up to a bully and he invariably backs down). NZ has no history of slavery, segregation, child-stealing, lynchings, racial brutality...-about as close to 'saint-like' as a country can get. A far cry from what the hapless Aborigines in Australia have had to endure.

[Arising_uk]

Well apart from colonising their land and making them a minority you were absolute angels what with bringing them your civilization and its economic benefits. So why do you not apply this metric to the Ulster Plantation then? As apparently they raised the living conditions and economic lot of the Irish way above what previously existed.
p.s.
I'm still wondering why all this is bothering you at all, I'd have thought it more the concern of the PC brigade that you love so much.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Well apart from colonising their land and making them a minority you were absolute angels what with bringing them your civilization and its economic benefits. So why do you not apply this metric to the Ulster Plantation then? As apparently they raised the living conditions and economic lot of the Irish way above what previously existed.
p.s.
I'm still wondering why all this is bothering you at all, I'd have thought it more the concern of the PC brigade that you love so much.

Are you a psychopath? Perhaps you should do the test. And what do you mean 'you'? I'm not British. Perhaps you mean you. 'Minority' is a modern term you twit. It's quite possible to give a damn about injustices that don't personally involve you directly. When did the PC ever give a damn about something that doesn't earn 'virtue-signalling' brownie points? I've found this has been a recurring theme with the PC; they are genuinely shocked and bewildered when they encounter anyone who has actual feelings and a passion for justice and fair play. They just don't 'get' it.
And yes, the British were relative angels towards the Maori when you think about how they have treated every other people they have inflicted themselves on.
Stop thinking about money, but if you insist on thinking about it in those terms, Ireland is actually far better off than 'That bit that was stolen by the Brits'.

[Arising_uk]

Are you a psychopath? Perhaps you should do the test. ...

Aready have and the answer was no, have you?

And what do you mean 'you'? I'm not British. ...

"You" as in you the kiwi.

Perhaps you mean you. 'Minority' is a modern term you twit. ...

But what it describes is not.

It's quite possible to give a damn about injustices that don't personally involve you directly. When did the PC ever give a damn about something that doesn't earn 'virtue-signalling' brownie points? I've found this has been a recurring theme with the PC; they are genuinely shocked and bewildered when they encounter anyone who has actual feelings and a passion for justice and fair play. They just don't 'get' it. ...

So what do you propose we should do about this burning injustice?

And yes, the British were relative angels towards the Maori when you think about how they have treated every other people they have inflicted themselves on. ...

Are you a Maori? If not then I think you ought to be thinking about 'we' when you think about the NZ colonists. If relative angels means more than decimating their population for a time through imported diseases and flogging them weapons to slaughter each other then angelic you certainly were but I agree by most colonial standards NZ is an exemplar and like you say it'll be largely due to them fighting their corner and also the British Empire being not that much interested in the place.

Stop thinking about money, but if you insist on thinking about it in those terms, Ireland is actually far better off than 'That bit that was stolen by the Brits'.

Not at the time it wasn't, at the time Ireland pretty much meets your description of a non-country, disperate tribal kings ruling over impoverished short-lived peasants so I'm surprised you think there was any problem with bringing in colonists. The Ulster Plantation led to an economic boom with the concomintent improvements in the lot of the plebs that such things often bring.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So you are saying there was no Irish identity prior to the British invasion? They were virtual cavemen?

''In the 1690s, a system of Protestant English rule was designed to materially disadvantage the Catholic majority and Protestant dissenters, and was extended during the 18th century. With the Acts of Union in 1801, Ireland became a part of the United Kingdom. A war of independence in the early 20th century was followed by the partition of the island, creating the Irish Free State, which became increasingly sovereign over the following decades, and Northern Ireland, which remained a part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland saw much civil unrest from the late 1960s until the 1990s. This subsided following a political agreement in 1998. In 1973 the Republic of Ireland joined the European Economic Community while the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland, as part of it, did the same. The Ulster Protestant community emerged during the Plantation of Ulster. This was the colonisation of Ulster with loyal English-speaking Protestants from Great Britain under the reign of King James. Those involved in planning the plantation saw it as a means of controlling, anglicising,[12] and "civilising" Ulster.''

As I said before, there shouldn't even be a 'Northern Ireland'.
And why are you constantly bringing up where you think I'm from and trying to use it as a weapon against me? I believe that's known as a 'straw man' agument. That should have nothing to do with anything. I've never told you where I'm from, and I couldn't give a toss where you are from. It's you who likes to mention where you are from, as if anyone is interested. Do you think my opinion would be different depending on where I live? Why would it? Do you think that where I'm from has some kind of bearing on the validity of my argument? You are apparently the British one. You should be hanging your head in shame for giving your diseases to the Maori and selling them guns. Tsk tsk.
ps. Slavery was also 'good for the US economy'. 'Good for the economy/economic growth' 'arguments' mean nothing. People always say that about rotten Governments.

[Arising_uk]

So you are saying there was no Irish identity prior to the British invasion? They were virtual cavemen?

No, I'm saying that by your previous descriptions of what a 'country' is then they didn't have one so there was no problem with the British sending colonists.

As I said before, there shouldn't even be a 'Northern Ireland'. ...

Why? As according to your definitions there wasn't a country?

And why are you constantly bringing up where you think I'm from and trying to use it as a weapon against me? I believe that's known as a 'straw man' agument. That should have nothing to do with anything. I've never told you where I'm from, and I couldn't give a toss where you are from. It's you who likes to mention where you are from, as if anyone is interested. Do you think my opinion would be different depending on where I live? ...

Nope, but it'd be interesting to see if you apply the same metrics to yourself and your countries history.

Why would it? Do you think that where I'm from has some kind of bearing on the validity of my argument? You are apparently the British one. You should be hanging your head in shame for giving your diseases to the Maori and selling them guns. Tsk tsk. ...

Not me, I don't give a toss about what my ancestors did historically other than hopefully learning the lessons from history and not trying to repeat them.

ps. Slavery was also 'good for the US economy'. 'Good for the economy/economic growth' 'arguments' mean nothing. People always say that about rotten Governments.

How PC of you.

[11011]

it is hard to separate the native country/tribe from the oppressor...anywhere

whenever such a separation is made it is almost always done out of convenience and for the sake of creating a sense of unified identity in a people, whether for a coming election, a war, whatever, anything that requires a group to come together for someone else's purposes.

in reality, there is no such thing as Ireland, there is no such thing as Britain, there is nothing that makes people British and if you say there is you are merely subscribing to one of these political processes in the past that sought to stamp people together under a common name at a particular point in history.

but can you make a strong case for the existence of the British? or Irish?

trying to trace a lineage further back does not legitimize your claim. the Celts, the Slavics of Russia, if you go further back they will all fragment into disparate groups that actually had no meaningful relation. it's all politics in the end at different points in history as people folk to group identities for privilege and other appeals to humans.

so then what is the only legitimate unifier?

human, perhaps, but it is also no in the tendency of humans, or rather it is not conducive to their relationships or happiness, to feel as though the 'village' encompasses the entire world, or does not discriminate.

whether due to their human evolution or basic nature, humans function best (are happiest, most trustworthy of those around them, least stressed, etc.) when their society is local, stable, and discriminate that is excludes outsiders. no amount of economic importation will make up for a fundamental disruption to this arrangement as far as real human gains

so yes, northern Ireland shouldn't exist, it's wrong, but nor should Ireland, and nor should Britain, based on the principles you seem to defending the integrity of Ireland.

once society gets too large there will be an oppressor meddling. Britain was meddling as far back as their were irish nobles, same with in scotland. i don't know much about the history but i have this much insight.

the rise of the nobility started repression as irishmen betrayed their own people for personal gains, probably eventually become so separate from the 'common people' they felt they and more in common with and belonged with the nobility regardless of country. country is meaningless when you are a noble and so is not a factor where the lines are drawn. 'country' is a common people concept and point of identification.

so yes if you want to stop the oppression, if you want to maintain your roots, the integrity of your society, generation to generation, to have a stable meaningful identity that doesn't get uprooted by people conveniently moving in and out, if you want to have meaningful election or an analogous process then it must all be small scale and absolutely discriminate to outsiders, who will also have their own, and everyone should respect these boundaries.

will productivity suffer? will the survival potential of humanity as a whole suffer? i would be surprised if it didn't.

but what really matters? if you are pro-technological advancement, pro-let's make humanity the strongest it can be then clinging to country and wanting to keep 'outsiders' out is incompatible and you're not seeing the big picture.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

So you are saying there was no Irish identity prior to the British invasion? They were virtual cavemen?

No, I'm saying that by your previous descriptions of what a 'country' is then they didn't have one so there was no problem with the British sending colonists.

As I said before, there shouldn't even be a 'Northern Ireland'. ...

Why? As according to your definitions there wasn't a country?

And why are you constantly bringing up where you think I'm from and trying to use it as a weapon against me? I believe that's known as a 'straw man' agument. That should have nothing to do with anything. I've never told you where I'm from, and I couldn't give a toss where you are from. It's you who likes to mention where you are from, as if anyone is interested. Do you think my opinion would be different depending on where I live? ...

Nope, but it'd be interesting to see if you apply the same metrics to yourself and your countries history.

Why would it? Do you think that where I'm from has some kind of bearing on the validity of my argument? You are apparently the British one. You should be hanging your head in shame for giving your diseases to the Maori and selling them guns. Tsk tsk. ...

Not me, I don't give a toss about what my ancestors did historically other than hopefully learning the lessons from history and not trying to repeat them.

ps. Slavery was also 'good for the US economy'. 'Good for the economy/economic growth' 'arguments' mean nothing. People always say that about rotten Governments.

How PC of you.

How is it PC? It's just an observation. It's not 'my' definition. It's 'the' definition.
Stick your straw men, if that's all you have.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

it is hard to separate the native country/tribe from the oppressor...anywhere

whenever such a separation is made it is almost always done out of convenience and for the sake of creating a sense of unified identity in a people, whether for a coming election, a war, whatever, anything that requires a group to come together for someone else's purposes.

in reality, there is no such thing as Ireland, there is no such thing as Britain, there is nothing that makes people British and if you say there is you are merely subscribing to one of these political processes in the past that sought to stamp people together under a common name at a particular point in history.

but can you make a strong case for the existence of the British? or Irish?

trying to trace a lineage further back does not legitimize your claim. the Celts, the Slavics of Russia, if you go further back they will all fragment into disparate groups that actually had no meaningful relation. it's all politics in the end at different points in history as people folk to group identities for privilege and other appeals to humans.

so then what is the only legitimate unifier?

human, perhaps, but it is also no in the tendency of humans, or rather it is not conducive to their relationships or happiness, to feel as though the 'village' encompasses the entire world, or does not discriminate.

whether due to their human evolution or basic nature, humans function best (are happiest, most trustworthy of those around them, least stressed, etc.) when their society is local, stable, and discriminate that is excludes outsiders. no amount of economic importation will make up for a fundamental disruption to this arrangement as far as real human gains

so yes, northern Ireland shouldn't exist, it's wrong, but nor should Ireland, and nor should Britain, based on the principles you seem to defending the integrity of Ireland.

once society gets too large there will be an oppressor meddling. Britain was meddling as far back as their were irish nobles, same with in scotland. i don't know much about the history but i have this much insight.

the rise of the nobility started repression as irishmen betrayed their own people for personal gains, probably eventually become so separate from the 'common people' they felt they and more in common with and belonged with the nobility regardless of country. country is meaningless when you are a noble and so is not a factor where the lines are drawn. 'country' is a common people concept and point of identification.

so yes if you want to stop the oppression, if you want to maintain your roots, the integrity of your society, generation to generation, to have a stable meaningful identity that doesn't get uprooted by people conveniently moving in and out, if you want to have meaningful election or an analogous process then it must all be small scale and absolutely discriminate to outsiders, who will also have their own, and everyone should respect these boundaries.

will productivity suffer? will the survival potential of humanity as a whole suffer? i would be surprised if it didn't.

but what really matters? if you are pro-technological advancement, pro-let's make humanity the strongest it can be then clinging to country and wanting to keep 'outsiders' out is incompatible and you're not seeing the big picture.

Humans like to think they are a bit more 'enlightened' now, yet Northern Ireland still exists. For what purpose?
Countries quickly evolve their own unique identity. That's unavoidable. That's what makes the world interesting.

[gaffo]

To all the PC scoundrels on here: what do you think of Ireland (do you think at all?), and the travesty of 'Northern Ireland', which was artificially created by being flooded with protestant English,

"travesty"? - since 1630 or so?

i see no travesty. only history.

thereby skewing the royalist 'election' results in favour of the oppressor?

royalist election????????????? WTF are you talking about?

per the Good Friday Agreement, a Reforemdum upon the final state of NI per - the vote - was affirm,

i welcome the ROI and some/most? in NI voting to join ROI vs Trumpite Brexiters.

GFA treaty/aggreement/ect - legally affirms the right of Reforendum, is the Brixit thugs wish to cut of the nose for the sake of the face, most in NI will vote to join the ROI, and leave the UK.

so be it and amen!

'Northern Ireland' shouldn't even exist.

??????? what bullshit,

of course it should and has existed for what? 400 yrs now?

it will cease to exist per the legal GFA, via the reforendum/and assuming those living there choose Dublin over London.

I'm all about the Rule of Law over "feelings". GFA allows of this reforndum, and may god bless then WHEN they vote (Brexit was indiocy) to leave the UK.

But everyone is the same, right?

correct everyone is the same.

Isn't that the way it goes? Protestant, catholic...we're all human aren't we?

yes that is way it goes.

say goodbye to NI, Scottland,and probably Wales,

"Rule - Brit.............no wait,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, er um,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, rule england".


serves the BrexiTrumperiters reich, setting sun upon a former Empire now fixeded upon hating Poles for taking jobs Brits refuse to have..................


ya fk em. England, not the fk the Sun nor Poles (they got fked over in ww2 enough - fight well and with honor, unlike the Frech that did not - but for another thread).

ya, god bless the Poles and fk the Brits.

[gaffo]

To all the PC scoundrels on here

1/2 of my ancestors, scotts-irish,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

not sure it matters, BTW it does not, only right vs reich matters...........