Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On September 17 2024 05:16 BlackJack wrote: Well it's obviously true. They are Republicans after all
What even is your point here? Mind spelling it out without all the sarcasm?
Just pointing out that the first play in the playbook for people on the left is to try to label the person disagreeing with you some kind of -ist to discredit them in response to Biff saying the right-wing is the one relying on ad hominem for political arguments
On September 17 2024 05:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On September 17 2024 05:16 BlackJack wrote: Well it's obviously true. They are Republicans after all
It was a conditional (if-then statement), not an assertion that all Republicans are necessarily all of those -isms.
An example that comes to mind is Canadian President Justin Trudeau speaking of the unvaccinated:
“They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?"
Do you think there is a logical if-then condition that allows us to conclude that someone who opposes vaccine mandates is a hater of women? Or a hater of colored people? Or do you think it's simply a deliberate attempt to demonize those that disagree with him so people can move onto asking the more pressing question of "should we tolerate these people"
This isn't a quote from Trudeau, it's someone on Twitter paraphrasing his comments on extremist anti-vaxxers. What he said was still stupid and wrong, but I feel the need to fact check this 'quote'
It's translated from French so there is no exact quote unless it's written in French. I think bringing up misogyny and racism when speaking of those that opposed the vaccine speaks for itself in making my point.
"“They claim to be tough on crime but really they’re just tough on Black Canadians and Indigenous people,” "
He also repeated accusations of racism/misogyny against the Ottawa trucker protestors and accused them of flying racist and Nazi flags.
Like I said, it's their first play in the playbook. Disagree with me on immigration you're a xenophobe. Disagree with me on criminal justice you're a racist. Disagree with me on abortion you're a sexist. Disagree with me on Palestina you're an Islamophobe. Disagree with me on gender theory you're a transphobe. The list is endless. It's their favorite argument.
...why would you not be able to quote in other languages?
Trudeau said "qui croient pas dans le science" which is literally "...who don't believe in science" with no mention of progress, which was in your quote.
He also says "qui sont souvent mysogenes" and "souvent racistes" which is "who are often mysogynists" and "often racists" without the 'very' your quote shoves in there.
French isn't some unknowable language riddled with context that makes it difficult to translate into english. You could shove that shit through google translate and get pretty darn close.
I agree that your point would have been better served with the actual quote, but you didn't do that and so I yelled at you for using someone's tilted translation.
...this really seems like one of those cases where someone is going off at one of the outlier posters for a total non-issue.
His original "quote" is: “They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist...." Your refinement is: "...who don't believe in science" [...] "who are often misogynists, often racists"
This seems like such a trivial difference. There's nothing between those two that has any effect on the argument. Trudeau does link vaccine denial with some accusatory -ists, and that's all BJ is trying to establish.
Also, it's perfectly normal to use a slash to convey that the source word carries connotations closer to some combination of words in the final language. This is a very common usage, as I'm sure you're aware.
I have no idea if science/progress is a better translation than science alone, but assuming it's not, the rational response is to say "actually that's not a great translation of what he said, a better one is X". You would then explain why the difference is relevant. The wildly irrational approach is to erupt in a rant based on suddenly having forgotten what a slash means in the context of a translation.
I appreciate that BJ gets under peoples' skin, but this really seems like you're losing it over something completely trivial. There are much better things to ping him on than his inability to identify an optimal French translation.
Noted!
For what it's worth, the english translation of the french word "science" used here is "science". The addition of the '/ progress' was editorializing. BJ said the thing he quoted was JT 'speaking' of the unvaccinated, which is why I raised an eyebrow at the '/'. JT commonly speaks english, so I wouldn't assume the quote was originally french if it was posted in english.
I think it's dishonest to list something as a quote when it isn't a quote. What he posted was a tweet from someone on twitter which is an editorialized "quote" from Trudeau.
"oui on va s'en sortir de cette pandémie par la vaccination puis on si on en connaît tous des gens qui sont en train d'hésiter un petit peu on va continuer des convaincre mais aussi des gens qui sont farouchement opposés à la vaccination sont extrémistes qui croient pas dans la science qui sont souvent misogynes souvent racistes aussi c'est un une petite un petit groupe mais qui prend de la place et là il faut faire un choix en tant que leader en tant que pays est-ce qu'on est-ce qu'on tolère ces gens"
Google translate (ish) : "Yes we will get through this pandemic by vaccination and then if we have everyone knows people who hesitate a little we will continue convince people but also people who are fiercely opposed to the vaccination are extremists who do not believe in science, who are often misogynists often racist too. it is a small, a small group but which takes up space and there you have to make a choice as a leader as a country do we do we tolerate these people"
It's not referring to all of the unvaccinated as BJ suggested, does not assert that all of the unvaccinated are very often mysogynists and racists (It refers to a subset of extremists and refers to them as 'often' and not 'very often'), clarifies that it's speaking of this small, vocal group (which is left out in the tweet) and then questions whether or not we should tolerate them.
...Yes we should tolerate them, JT is a dumbass for bringing this up, but hopefully the entire quote illustrates that the actual quote isn't as strong in BJ's favour as the editorialized one is. JT isn't talking about the entirety of the unvaccinated populace.
Wtf? A American bringing a gun to a political rally and shot people to death was not sentenced guilty. What the fuck dude, people commit crimes, statistically white people more then Haitian immigrants. For every stupid story you can present about those murderous Haitians, you will find a hundred of white people being murderous bastards. But I guess you don't care, because you don't like one of those demographics.
On September 17 2024 09:59 Magic Powers wrote: Here's a breakdown of Trump's infanticide lie. It was a claim that made the rounds years ago among right-wingers and he tried to pick it up again for this election. Another example of taking a falsehood, turning into a straight up lie and blowing it completely out of proportion. Anyone who defends the things Trump says or does at this point is simply lost in an alternate reality. His supporters live in a fantasy realm.
Literally your video around 1:50 minute mark:
"The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and family desired"
"On May 22, 2023, the Minnesota state legislature passed an omnibus bill—signed into law the next day by Walz—that repealed all six subdivisions added by the 2015 Born Alive Infants Protection Act as well as two of the three subdivisions established in the original 1976 statute. The bill left intact the first subdivision—which read “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child”—but changed its language requiring medical personnel to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant” to instead require medical personnel to “care for the infant who is born alive.” The bill also repealed many of Minnesota’s abortion reporting requirements, including information about born-alive infants."
Bolded is important because Palliative care is care. Italic - Why?
On September 17 2024 09:59 Magic Powers wrote: Here's a breakdown of Trump's infanticide lie. It was a claim that made the rounds years ago among right-wingers and he tried to pick it up again for this election. Another example of taking a falsehood, turning into a straight up lie and blowing it completely out of proportion. Anyone who defends the things Trump says or does at this point is simply lost in an alternate reality. His supporters live in a fantasy realm.
"On May 22, 2023, the Minnesota state legislature passed an omnibus bill—signed into law the next day by Walz—that repealed all six subdivisions added by the 2015 Born Alive Infants Protection Act as well as two of the three subdivisions established in the original 1976 statute. The bill left intact the first subdivision—which read “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child”—but changed its language requiring medical personnel to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant” to instead require medical personnel to “care for the infant who is born alive.” The bill also repealed many of Minnesota’s abortion reporting requirements, including information about born-alive infants."
Bolded is important because Palliative care is care. Italic - Why?
What's the problem? This is how we do healthcare for all ages of people, not just born alive infants with health problems. Anyone can have a Do Not Resuscitate. If you're not capable of making the decision for yourself, like a 90 year old with dementia or a newborn that can't talk then your next of kin makes the decision, not the government. Nobody speaks of "executing grandma" because her children decided she should be DNR so why do you think it's appropriate to speak of "execution" for a newborn with congenital defects.
Also I don't know why they would repeal reporting requirements for born-alive infants. In California we have Sanctuary Law SB54 which prohibits law enforcement from even inquiring about a person's immigration status. So we don't know the immigration status of people that get arrested. Maybe these states just don't want data on these things. Maybe it makes it easier to say illegal immigrants commit almost no crimes... as far as we know...
On September 17 2024 17:54 Broetchenholer wrote: Wtf? A American bringing a gun to a political rally and shot people to death was not sentenced guilty.
Is this a Rittenhouse reference?
On September 17 2024 17:54 Broetchenholer wrote: What the fuck dude, people commit crimes, statistically white people more then Haitian immigrants. For every stupid story you can present about those murderous Haitians, you will find a hundred of white people being murderous bastards. But I guess you don't care, because you don't like one of those demographics.
If you know more than I do, please share your data and methods, don't just leave us in the lurch after a truth bomb like this. I saw year over year fatal car crashes quadrupled in Springfield, but I suppose if you don't charge those deaths as crimes then it doesn't count as crime. No harm, no foul as they say. What information can you share? I want to know why immigrants from the country that eats people and mud cookies with a history of genocide and is heavily restricted from going to the only other country it land borders, are less criminal than Americans. I assumed a humanist would say everyone commits crime at the same rate, but since you claim to be able to show Americans are more criminal, I want to know what they're doing right so we can copy them.
A population of illegal economic migrants working under the table to earn remittances for their family abroad would be far less likely to engage in petty crimes than the native population for pretty obvious reasons.
It's like asserting that drug smugglers are more likely to obey traffic laws while their truck is loaded with heroin.
It's common sense. They have more to lose.
Not all illegal immigrants are economic migrants but for economic migrants the reasoning is sound. They don’t want any attention, that’s part of why they’re so easily exploited.
On September 17 2024 17:54 Broetchenholer wrote: Wtf? A American bringing a gun to a political rally and shot people to death was not sentenced guilty.
On September 17 2024 17:54 Broetchenholer wrote: What the fuck dude, people commit crimes, statistically white people more then Haitian immigrants. For every stupid story you can present about those murderous Haitians, you will find a hundred of white people being murderous bastards. But I guess you don't care, because you don't like one of those demographics.
If you know more than I do, please share your data and methods, don't just leave us in the lurch after a truth bomb like this. I saw year over year fatal car crashes quadrupled in Springfield, but I suppose if you don't charge those deaths as crimes then it doesn't count as crime. No harm, no foul as they say. What information can you share? I want to know why immigrants from the country that eats people and mud cookies with a history of genocide and is heavily restricted from going to the only other country it land borders, are less criminal than Americans. I assumed a humanist would say everyone commits crime at the same rate, but since you claim to be able to show Americans are more criminal, I want to know what they're doing right so we can copy them.
Truth bomb? It's pretty well established and unsurprising that immigrants (illegal and legal, Haitian and non-Haitian) generally tend to commit less crime than native-born Americans. It's been talked about multiple times in this thread already, and has been well-known for years. Here's one of many sources - this one specifically talks about incarceration rates: https://www.cato.org/blog/haitian-crime-united-states-what-does-evidence-say
From the above source, we see that these are the following rates in 2017: All native-born Americans = 1,477/100,000 Illegal Haitians = 918/100,000 All illegal immigrants = 877/100,000 All Haitians = 421/100,000 All legal immigrants = 380/100,000 Legal Haitians = 282/100,000
If you want to argue that more recent data is showing Haitian immigrants committing more crime, per capita, than native-born Americans, then go ahead and cite your source.
Why are we talking about illegal immigrants again when I thought it was established most if not all are legal in springfield?
Also oblade, the comment about the haitian guy hitting a woman putting out her trash in the morning and not being charged, what do you want him charged with? If he wasnt charged with a crime dont you think it was investigated and it was an accident? People arent always charged with crimes for car accidents even if they result in a fatality.
On September 17 2024 19:42 oBlade wrote: I want to know why immigrants from the country that eats people and mud cookies with a history of genocide and is heavily restricted from going to the only other country it land borders, are less criminal than Americans.
On September 17 2024 09:59 Magic Powers wrote: Here's a breakdown of Trump's infanticide lie. It was a claim that made the rounds years ago among right-wingers and he tried to pick it up again for this election. Another example of taking a falsehood, turning into a straight up lie and blowing it completely out of proportion. Anyone who defends the things Trump says or does at this point is simply lost in an alternate reality. His supporters live in a fantasy realm.
"On May 22, 2023, the Minnesota state legislature passed an omnibus bill—signed into law the next day by Walz—that repealed all six subdivisions added by the 2015 Born Alive Infants Protection Act as well as two of the three subdivisions established in the original 1976 statute. The bill left intact the first subdivision—which read “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child”—but changed its language requiring medical personnel to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant” to instead require medical personnel to “care for the infant who is born alive.” The bill also repealed many of Minnesota’s abortion reporting requirements, including information about born-alive infants."
Bolded is important because Palliative care is care. Italic - Why?
What's the problem? This is how we do healthcare for all ages of people, not just born alive infants with health problems. Anyone can have a Do Not Resuscitate. If you're not capable of making the decision for yourself, like a 90 year old with dementia or a newborn that can't talk then your next of kin makes the decision, not the government. Nobody speaks of "executing grandma" because her children decided she should be DNR so why do you think it's appropriate to speak of "execution" for a newborn with congenital defects.
Where do I speak of executions?
I think it is question of ones ethics, eg: you are able to save someone's live but dont do it. You dont actually kill someone, but on the other hand someone who could live is dead. So yeah you can present it as "abortion after birth", or "there is no abortion after birth and infanticide is illegal" depends which one suits your agenda. Then you can both accuse each other of lying and everyone is happy.
And no, I dont believe Republicans are ethical power houses focused on saving babies, or that Democrats are focused on killing babies for some reasons. Quite frankly I dont think any of them gives a damn, and both are just shouting over each other to their respective voter bases.
On September 17 2024 19:42 oBlade wrote: I want to know why immigrants from the country that eats people and mud cookies with a history of genocide and is heavily restricted from going to the only other country it land borders, are less criminal than Americans.
Is this really necessary? Or even allowed?
'I don't know' to both these questions, but it is a ridiculously over the top stupid thing to say if he was being serious.
On September 17 2024 17:54 Broetchenholer wrote: Wtf? A American bringing a gun to a political rally and shot people to death was not sentenced guilty.
Is this a Rittenhouse reference?
On September 17 2024 17:54 Broetchenholer wrote: What the fuck dude, people commit crimes, statistically white people more then Haitian immigrants. For every stupid story you can present about those murderous Haitians, you will find a hundred of white people being murderous bastards. But I guess you don't care, because you don't like one of those demographics.
If you know more than I do, please share your data and methods, don't just leave us in the lurch after a truth bomb like this. I saw year over year fatal car crashes quadrupled in Springfield, but I suppose if you don't charge those deaths as crimes then it doesn't count as crime. No harm, no foul as they say. What information can you share? I want to know why immigrants from the country that eats people and mud cookies with a history of genocide and is heavily restricted from going to the only other country it land borders, are less criminal than Americans. I assumed a humanist would say everyone commits crime at the same rate, but since you claim to be able to show Americans are more criminal, I want to know what they're doing right so we can copy them.
Truth bomb? It's pretty well established and unsurprising that immigrants (illegal and legal, Haitian and non-Haitian) generally tend to commit less crime than native-born Americans. It's been talked about multiple times in this thread already, and has been well-known for years. Here's one of many sources - this one specifically talks about incarceration rates: https://www.cato.org/blog/haitian-crime-united-states-what-does-evidence-say
From the above source, we see that these are the following rates in 2017: All native-born Americans = 1,477/100,000 Illegal Haitians = 918/100,000 All illegal immigrants = 877/100,000 All Haitians = 421/100,000 All legal immigrants = 380/100,000 Legal Haitians = 282/100,000
The incarceration rate of Ohio is around 600.
You made a claim about crime and went straight to incarceration, which is a questionable proxy, albeit a proxy. The stages are crime -> arrest -> charge -> conviction -> incarceration (is one of the punishments we use). This is an issue for a couple reasons, which are there can be forces sorting against some groups (or rather towards other groups) at any stage of this. But it's most simply illustrated by I stab someone and get imprisoned and you stab 50 people and get imprisoned and we have the same incarceration rate.
Forgetting for a second that this guy out of the starting gate overestimated the base incarceration rate of the US by a factor of 2 I will try to look into his "methods" soon. The main issue is getting reliable data at any stage of the above process for any populations.
On September 17 2024 19:55 KwarK wrote: A population of illegal economic migrants working under the table to earn remittances for their family abroad would be far less likely to engage in petty crimes than the native population for pretty obvious reasons.
It's like asserting that drug smugglers are more likely to obey traffic laws while their truck is loaded with heroin.
It's common sense. They have more to lose.
I understand that this is our hope, but I find it more obvious not to ascribe your own rationalizations to the selective lawbreaking of populations. Traffic laws is a good analogy because that's one Ohio seems to especially struggle with.
On September 17 2024 20:22 Sadist wrote: Also oblade, the comment about the haitian guy hitting a woman putting out her trash in the morning and not being charged, what do you want him charged with? If he wasnt charged with a crime dont you think it was investigated and it was an accident? People arent always charged with crimes for car accidents even if they result in a fatality.
On September 17 2024 20:22 Sadist wrote: Also oblade, the comment about the haitian guy hitting a woman putting out her trash in the morning and not being charged, what do you want him charged with? If he wasnt charged with a crime dont you think it was investigated and it was an accident? People arent always charged with crimes for car accidents even if they result in a fatality.
Manslaughter?
But was it manslaughter, or an accident that wasn't the driver's fault? Was there any evidence of negligent or unsafe driving? Was there any evidence about whether or not there was intent? More importantly: Why would the justice system fail to charge someone who could be successfully charged with a serious crime?
After a 5 minute google, the New York Post reports:
No charges were filed against the driver, as police and prosecutors ruled days later that he was not at fault.
On September 17 2024 20:22 Sadist wrote: Also oblade, the comment about the haitian guy hitting a woman putting out her trash in the morning and not being charged, what do you want him charged with? If he wasnt charged with a crime dont you think it was investigated and it was an accident? People arent always charged with crimes for car accidents even if they result in a fatality.
Manslaughter?
But was it manslaughter, or an accident that wasn't the driver's fault? Was there any evidence of negligent or unsafe driving? Was there any evidence about whether or not there was intent? More importantly: Why would the justice system fail to charge someone who could be successfully charged with a serious crime?
After a 5 minute google, the New York Post reports:
No charges were filed against the driver, as police and prosecutors ruled days later that he was not at fault.
Because "accidents happen" isn't as sexy to these people as the narrative that Haitian immigrants are roving around running over old ladies and running amok.
Not only should they be held to a higher standard of 0 crime or else get deported, we'll also just make shit up and say they committed crimes just to nail them to the wall.
But no wait, we can have positive conversations about immigrants in America! Happens all the time!
On September 17 2024 20:22 Sadist wrote: Also oblade, the comment about the haitian guy hitting a woman putting out her trash in the morning and not being charged, what do you want him charged with? If he wasnt charged with a crime dont you think it was investigated and it was an accident? People arent always charged with crimes for car accidents even if they result in a fatality.
Manslaughter?
But was it manslaughter, or an accident that wasn't the driver's fault? Was there any evidence of negligent or unsafe driving? Was there any evidence about whether or not there was intent? More importantly: Why would the justice system fail to charge someone who could be successfully charged with a serious crime?
After a 5 minute google, the New York Post reports:
No charges were filed against the driver, as police and prosecutors ruled days later that he was not at fault.
Because "accidents happen" isn't as sexy to these people as the narrative that Haitian immigrants are roving around running over old ladies and running amok.
Not only should they be held to a higher standard of 0 crime or else get deported, we'll also just make shit up and say they committed crimes just to nail them to the wall.
But no wait, we can have positive conversations about immigrants in America! Happens all the time!
In my epic 5 minute Google session i found alot of references to Haitians being unfamiliar with driving laws in the US, to the point where accidents are increasing. This is not a situation of a crime spree by Haitians. It can be fixed without involving the justice system, and in a way that is positive for the community. Start an organisation (whether this is governmental, private or charity doesn't even matter) dedicated to teaching Haitians about US driving laws in locations where you find alot of new Haitian immigrants. You do this and ensure uptake by making clear that it is about the safety of the Haitian community as well as the local community as a whole. You get both Haitian immigrants who have lived in the US for a while and US born locals to run the scheme together, which will bring the communities together.
That's just an idea off the top of my head that isn't thought through properly, but its surely superior to saying 'Well look, the accident rate is increasing alot, Haitians must all be dreadful people and criminals, let's get rid of them'.
On September 17 2024 20:22 Sadist wrote: Also oblade, the comment about the haitian guy hitting a woman putting out her trash in the morning and not being charged, what do you want him charged with? If he wasnt charged with a crime dont you think it was investigated and it was an accident? People arent always charged with crimes for car accidents even if they result in a fatality.
Manslaughter?
But was it manslaughter, or an accident that wasn't the driver's fault? Was there any evidence of negligent or unsafe driving? Was there any evidence about whether or not there was intent? More importantly: Why would the justice system fail to charge someone who could be successfully charged with a serious crime?
After a 5 minute google, the New York Post reports:
No charges were filed against the driver, as police and prosecutors ruled days later that he was not at fault.
Because "accidents happen" isn't as sexy to these people as the narrative that Haitian immigrants are roving around running over old ladies and running amok.
Not only should they be held to a higher standard of 0 crime or else get deported, we'll also just make shit up and say they committed crimes just to nail them to the wall.
But no wait, we can have positive conversations about immigrants in America! Happens all the time!
In my epic 5 minute Google session i found alot of references to Haitians being unfamiliar with driving laws in the US, to the point where accidents are increasing. This is not a situation of a crime spree by Haitians. It can be fixed without involving the justice system, and in a way that is positive for the community. Start an organisation (whether this is governmental, private or charity doesn't even matter) dedicated to teaching Haitians about US driving laws in locations where you find alot of new Haitian immigrants. You do this and ensure uptake by making clear that it is about the safety of the Haitian community as well as the local community as a whole. You get both Haitian immigrants who have lived in the US for a while and US born locals to run the scheme together, which will bring the communities together.
That's just an idea off the top of my head that isn't thought through properly, but its surely superior to saying 'Well look, the accident rate is increasing alot, Haitians must all be dreadful people and criminals, let's get rid of them'.
Few things are more effective at getting people to show up than if you give out food. Hell, I'd show up to stuff that has almost nothing to do with me if food was involved.
I'm into stuff like this. I'm of the opinion that education and empowerment are far preferable and more effective than punishment without rehabilitation. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but if a subset of the population is more ignorant than average (for legitimate reasons), then that should be investigated. We should be giving as many people as possible good opportunities to integrate with society effectively, rather than doing nothing and punishing everyone who doesn't comply.
EPT
