Discussion in 'Immigration & Refugees' started by anderson, Nov 29, 2017.
Yep, forced to shut down too.
Remember last year the Limerick Post published an interview with a Muslim working in a refugee center there. He said that there was violence and radicalization going on in the center. This little local paper that had never been heard of before outside of Limerick had the Irish Times hammering it for "shoddy journalism" - though the IT itself made no effort whatsoever to find out if the story was true or not. All the IT was interested in was sending out the message that any local paper that dares to step out of line will be targeted and lynched before the eyes of the great and good - with the implication that any company that advertises with such a paper is also wacist.
700 Protesting Against Violent African Gangs in Balbriggan Ireland Get Accused of Racism
700 Protesting Against Violent African Gangs in Balbriggan Ireland Get Accused of Racism - Alt View Ireland
The fucking Irish Times, who portrayed Syrian and Libyan terrorists as good guys for several years talks about "shoddy journalism"???
Something my better half pointed out to me which is worth examination- why isn't it simply called "The Times" as opposed to "The Irish Times" because the fact it isn't could well imply that it sees itself essentially as some sort of regional newspaper as opposed to a national one.
700 new enemies made for the filth!
Herald.ie refusing to mention the African elephant in the room...
Balbriggan teen gang terror forces 200 into protest - Herald.ie
How did they get 476 signatures if only 200 attended, The Herald?
>Many locals blame a lack of garda presence in the town, along with a reduction in youth services.
And what do many more blame?
Plenty of towns around Ireland with a lack of Garda presence.
Why don't they suffer the same problems?
How is every single Newspaper infected with SJWs who refuse to accurately report the news?
There are three answers to that; the Marxian one given by a lot of people on this, the conspiracy one given by Youngdan, or something inbetween.
The reason is very simple. Newspapers are businesses that depend on other businesses to advertise with them. Any newspaper that seems to be threatening the supply of cheap immigrant labour will not be favoured with business advertising. SJWs are the ideal political cover for this profit driven status quo. They represent Capitalist greed as humanitarian concern.
Because those who work in the media, particularly journalists, tend to have higher than average IQs.
But this doesn't mean that they possess more common sense than average.
Quite the opposite in fact.
Its amazing how the libtards think its ok for this behaviour because some Irish kids are rough in this country.
This is an interesting topic however don't think it is down to them having low common sense but rather them being myopically focused on the present and being self-centred so therefore being highly prone towards sycophancy.
It's as if African street gangs are an essential ingredient to a multicultural utopia.
Serious question-what do you make of Cruimh?
It is for the virtue signaling fucks that don't have to live in it!
I'd say a big chunk of them genuinely believe they're on the right side of history.
As for journalists in general, I'd say it's next to impossible for them to make a living and be ethically consistent at the same time.
Marketers and copywriters get a lot of flak over the perceived sleaziness of their profession.
Snobby journos look down their nose at them.
But commercial writers are actually in a stronger position to turn down work touting stuff they find repugnant.
Being on the winning side of history means nothing in terms of good or evil, right or wrong, healthy or damaging.
My sister used that argument against my mum in law once and my mum in law shredded her for it, yet over another circumstance my mum in law tried to use it against my sister in a very heated discussion and my sister wisely reminded her of her own words and for once my mum in law was flabbergasted. Using the "right side of history" arguments can very easily come back to bite you.
This take on events is often called Whig history.
It's the idea that history has an innate teleological drive towards ever greater liberty, equality and enlightenment.
And it wasn't just the Whigs who held this view. Marx was heavily influenced by this sort of thinking.
Dialectical materialism is teleological to the core, even if it differs from liberalism in its goals.
As for the whole notion of "progress", I don't reject it entirely. I think there can be definable milestones for a society -- and even humanity as a whole.
But we shouldn't fall into the trap of a blind, unquestioning belief in some half baked manifest destiny.
We live under a snowflake theocracy. It's omnipresent because the media monopoly disseminate it 24/7 and nothing else over many decades now. We're under saturation snowflakism.
Snowflakes reckon any nativist stand could morph into a nightmare of a klan 2.0 massacring diversity angels. They intuitively understand that any concerted mass protest that takes hold in the nation would effectively put an end to snowflakism. So they paper over that stuff with talk of "teens" and the like.
Whereas Diversity Angels getting up to antics is greeted with thinly disguised snowflake joy. Finally they have an America race drama of their own, a fun sociological puzzle they can use to denounce "institutionalised racism" and lament the lack of "things to do" for "teens". NGOs dig all these sociological puzzles that never end.