Immigration

[mister dog]

 

[Scaff]

You're actually using Info Wars as a source?



Info Wars!

Oh that has made my day, oh well at least they have a better track record of apologies and retractions than Breitbart, only by one, but at least they have made one.

That is not a credible or unbiased source of information, never has been.

 

[mister dog]

You're actually using Info Wars as a source?



Info Wars!

Oh that has made my day, oh well at least they have a better track record of apologies and retractions than Breitbart, only by one, but at least they have made one.

That is not a credible or unbiased source of information, never has been.

Maybe watch the video first if you want to make comments about it?

 

[Scaff]

Maybe watch the video first if you want to make comments about it?

I've watched it, I know the guy they are interviewing and I've watched his entire series on youtube.

Try not making assumptions if you want to comment.

Not only does it contain a good number of factual inaccuracies a large amount of what he claims to have happened in Sweden is unsupported by his own footage and his back catalog of work shows a quite clear liking for conspiracy.

 

[mister dog]

Not only does it contain a good number of factual inaccuracies a large amount of what he claims to have happened in Sweden is unsupported by his own footage and his back catalog of work shows a quite clear liking for conspiracy.

Resorting to ad hominem attacks again? Please do elaborate about all the factual inaccuracies and his 'liking for conspiracy'.

 

[Scaff]

Resorting to ad hominem attacks again?

Nope, unless you are redefining what ad-hominem means.

Please do elaborate about all the factual inaccuracies and his 'liking for conspiracy'.

Well central to his argument (across his range of videos) is that crime (particularly sexual related crime) is an immigrant biased problem, which is not backed up by any evidence what so ever (as has been shown in this thread over the last few days), that violent criminal activity is somehow a new issue brought about by immigrant gangs (which is not true as I have covered in numerous threads in great detail), that his videos offer almost no supporting evidence that is able to be independently verified.

As for conspiracy, well Clinton is really ill and the Dems are stealing the election would be a good start.

His body of work for the last year has a very, very clear pro-Trump and anti-immigration bias, yet you think he shoudl be accepted as an honest broker?

 

[mister dog]

Well central to his argument (across his range of videos) is that crime (particularly sexual related crime) is an immigrant biased problem, which is not backed up by any evidence what so ever (as has been shown in this thread over the last few days), that violent criminal activity is somehow a new issue brought about by immigrant gangs (which is not true as I have covered in numerous threads in great detail), that his videos offer almost no supporting evidence that is able to be independently verified.

Yet the video is about what the reporter experienced on the ground, and how he describes the fear and political correctness in Sweden. Rise in crime isn't even half the story.

 

[Scaff]

Yet the video is about what the reporter experienced on the ground, and how he describes the fear and political correctness in Sweden. Rise in crime isn't even half the story.

And its all anecdotal, and I am discussing his entire body of work with regard to Sweden, and his past body of work in regard to his Pro-Trump and anti-Immigration bias.

Does it not entire your mind at all that via editing, selective questions, etc a view can be presented to confirm an existing bias? You seem happy to accept that the 'MSM' can do it, so why give a free pass to him?

 

[mister dog]

Does it not entire your mind at all that via editing, selective questions, etc a view can be presented to confirm an existing bias? You seem happy to accept that the 'MSM' can do it, so why give a free pass to him?

And still you're avoiding the points raised in the video...

 

[Scaff]

And still you're avoiding the points raised in the video...

No I'm not, I've just answered it repeatedly.

Its anecdotal opinion that we have no way of verifying has not been selectively edited or manipulated, produced by someone who has in the past demonstrated a clear pro-Trump and anti-Immigration bias (evidence of which is in his own back catalog of work).

Its not as if hard facts are being thrown out with supporting independent evidence that can be analysed and reviewed is it.

Lets take one look at his 'facts'

He says he did not pull out a camera and that he is not the camera operator, if that's the case then who the hell is filming this:

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

So 0.4% of rapes, according to your links? What does that have to do with immigration if 99.6% of rape offenders in Sweden are Swedish-born?

That 0.4% could be even less, of course, the assessment of "foreign origin" was down to "foreign-sounding names" (your source again) so there's no way of knowing if the artificial dataset includes Swedish-born Swedish nationals of Swedish parents. That's inconvenient and returns to the "what does this have to do with immigration?" question.

Wrong thread?

So you're coming to the conclusion that because gang rapes are a small percentage of rape in Sweden, we cannot draw inferences from them.

Despite what the whistleblower cop says about the demographics involved in violent crime and rape are
Despite what the facts about the attackers in sexual attacks in NYE across Europe in 2015/16 were
Despite the gang rape coverups in the UK
Despite what the rape statistics in other countries in Europe are saying.

In your world it's pretty much, carry on as normal?

You also state that it could also be likely that 99.6% of rape offenders in Sweden could be Swedish-born, but deflect from the actual statistics of gang rapists....

Interesting

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yet the video is about what the reporter experienced on the ground, and how he describes the fear and political correctness in Sweden.

Which is a perfect example of what Ted Koppel criticised the media under Trump for: they ignore the veracity of individual items and instead prioritise ideology. People will accept something as "truth" if it comes from a source aligned with a particular ideology rather than critically examining the individual story. If a conservative publication claims that Sweden's immigration policy has failed and cites the increase of instances of sexually-motivated violence as evidence of this, then conservative voters will accept it as truth despite the gaping holes in the argument simply because the argument as a whole fits their political beliefs. And that is clearly happening here. It's a mix of confirmation bias and selectively presenting evidence to support a pre-determined outcome. Ordinarily, someone should investigate the situation and come to a conclusion based on the evidence uncovered. But here the conclusion has been formed in a void and in line with a particular ideological construct - in this case, immigration is bad - and so the composer only goes looking for evidence to support it. If they find anything to the contrary, they disregard it and never acknowledge that they encountered it.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

You're actually using Info Wars as a source?



Info Wars!

Oh that has made my day, oh well at least they have a better track record of apologies and retractions than Breitbart, only by one, but at least they have made one.

That is not a credible or unbiased source of information, never has been.

And yet we can use the Guardian with impunity, despite having articles written by a known Islamist:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/sayeeda-warsi

I think it's always better to attack the content rather than the source. We could stretch this further and say Winston Churchill cannot be used as a source because of his unfavourable remarks about minorities

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And still you're avoiding the points raised in the video...

There are no points in the video. There's just an agenda so blatantly transparent that it invalidates everything being said. Anyone with half a brain can tell they're being manipulated.

I think it's always better to attack the content rather than the source

Let's talk about the content, then: the article says MUSLIM MEN RAPE. IF YOU LET MUSLIMS INTO YOUR COUNTRY, THEY WILL RAPE YOUR WOMEN. It can dress it up with statistics as much as it wants, but it's decided in advance what it wants to say.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So you're coming to the conclusion that because gang rapes are a small percentage of rape in Sweden, we cannot draw inferences from them.

Yes. Drawing an inference from 35 of nearly 7000 is poor, poor judgement.

Despite what the whistleblower cop says about the demographics involved in violent crime and rape are

One datum, stats don't work.

Despite what the facts about the attackers in sexual attacks in NYE across Europe in 2015/16 were

All the sources that have supported (cherry-picked) your rather blinkered argument haven't held up to even mild scrutiny yet - as demonstrated in this thread.

Despite the gang rape coverups in the UK

You're still a long way from showing that the crooked dealings of Social Services offices were limited to a particular case or, indeed, cases with perps of a particular ethnicity. The facts are way against you there, of all the child abuse cover ups perpetrated by Social Services and the remainder of the state the vast majority are by white, christian males in christian establishments. Go figure.

Despite what the rape statistics in other countries in Europe are saying.

Short of laying it out for you in Big Writing I'm not sure how much more obvious the nature of Sweden's rape statistics can be made for you. You could research Bra's own statistics yourself, you could consider why Sweden's rape/assault rate was rising so "high" (relatively) against other countries so many years before immigration, but you won't if your previous approach to critical assessment is anything to go by.

In your world it's pretty much, carry on as normal?

Open GTP, see another one-side KSaiyu/Mysterion argument, revisit own source, spray coffee in amazement. Yup, carry on as normal.

You also state that it could also be likely that 99.6% of rape offenders in Sweden could be Swedish-born, but deflect from the actual statistics of gang rapists...

They were your stats. You showed 30 (or 31) cases where there were two-or-more offenders. Some of those weren't even necessarily "gang" attacks, I was being kind.

And yet we can use the Guardian with impunity, despite having articles written by a known Islamist:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/sayeeda-warsi

I'm no fan of super-Tory Warsi but I can think of few other politicians who've spoken out so strongly against Christian persecution. The problem for you, of course, is that she's statistically very likely (in your world) to also be a rapist. Hmmm.

I think it's always better to attack the content rather than the source.

I'm not convinced you mean that.

 

[Scaff]

And yet we can use the Guardian with impunity,

Odd I don't recall saying that?

despite having articles written by a known Islamist:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/sayeeda-warsi

Citation required.

I think it's always better to attack the content rather than the source. We could stretch this further and say Winston Churchill cannot be used as a source because of his unfavourable remarks about minorities

I have attacked the content of Brietbart and InfoWars more times that I can remember, as such an inference that I don't is quite honestly inaccurate.

I'm also not aware that Chirchill ever presented himself as a news source, so yes it would be a stretch to say the least.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Maybe watch the video first if you want to make comments about it?

A better idea would be if you provide your own summary of the points from the video you want to be made.

If every post in this forum took 20 minutes to read, I'd probably stop coming here pretty quickly, and I suspect many others would do too.

 

[mister dog]

A better idea would be if you provide your own summary of the points from the video you want to be made.

If every post in this forum took 20 minutes to read, I'd probably stop coming here pretty quickly, and I suspect many others would do too.

Save it for later and take your smartphone to the John whilst taking a nr. 2 for example. The forum won't run away .

 

[JKgo]

If every post in this forum took 20 minutes to read, I'd probably stop coming here pretty quickly, and I suspect many others would do too.

...Agreed. Although interested, I can't be arsed to spend 20+ minutes on a Youtube video.... Especially when I'm supposed to be at work!!

 

[TenEightyOne]

If every post in this forum took 20 minutes to read, I'd probably stop coming here pretty quickly, and I suspect many others would do too.

Save it for later and take your smartphone to the John whilst taking a nr. 2 for example. The forum won't run away .

...Agreed. Although interested, I can't be arsed to spend 20+ minutes on a Youtube video.... Especially when I'm supposed to be at work!!

It's alright, Scaff's got this one... hopefully it's the end of seeing long videos posted to make a point that a poster can't be bothered to summarise/quote properly.

 

[mister dog]

It's alright, Scaff's got this one... hopefully it's the end of seeing long videos posted to make a point that a poster can't be bothered to summarise/quote properly.

Nope it won't be. I'm free to share videos relevant to the thread for those people that are genuinely interested in watching them. You might not like them, not want to watch them or not like the people that make said videos, but that does not matter really.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nope it won't be. I'm free to share videos relevant to the thread for those people that are genuinely interested in watching them. You might not like them, not want to watch them or not like the people that make said videos, but that does not matter really.

It matters if, as you often do, you're going to reply "you didn't watch the video". @Scaff was pointing out that people might not want to watch a twenty minute video as an alternative to you writing your point and that such posting isn't the way GTP runs. That doesn't mean videos of interest have no place, I'm sure, it's just that they're not a substitute for discussion. That was my take on it at least.

 

[Scaff]

Nope it won't be. I'm free to share videos relevant to the thread for those people that are genuinely interested in watching them. You might not like them, not want to watch them or not like the people that make said videos, but that does not matter really.

You are free to share the videos, but you will explain the context and relevance of them, it's not exactly an odd request. Quite the opposite, it's been a norm for any quoted material here for as long as I have been a member.

If you have the time to watch it, then you have the time to offer a brief explanation of it.

As I have said in the other thread this is not optional, not open for debate.

 

[Scaff]

And the Mail almost certainly doesn't see the irony in this.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/04/daily-mail-discovers-attacking-asylum-seekers-bad

Describing those who attacked a refugee, or stood by doing nothing as savages, while seemingly failing to understand they are a part of the reason who those savages may see such behaviour as acceptable.

 

[LeMansAid]

And the Mail almost certainly doesn't see the irony in this.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2017/04/daily-mail-discovers-attacking-asylum-seekers-bad

Describing those who attacked a refugee, or stood by doing nothing as savages, while seemingly failing to understand they are a part of the reason who those savages may see such behaviour as acceptable.

A person could be ignorant, bigoted and hateful, and still restrain themselves from violence.

I'd say that the Daily Mail has shown itself as a great example of where ignorant, bigoted and hateful people should draw the line.

 

[Scaff]

A person could be ignorant, bigoted and hateful, and still restrain themselves from violence.

I'd say that the Daily Mail has shown itself as a great example of where ignorant, bigoted and hateful people should draw the line.

Given that a mail column once advocated shooting refugees to stop them crossing the Med, I'd have to disagree.

 

[LeMansAid]

Given that a mail column once advocated shooting refugees to stop them crossing the Med, I'd have to disagree.

They didn't do a very good job with the article then, and ended up with a position not unlike the nonsense from some (one?) that sought to dilute the responsibility of the people that attacked the 60 Minutes crew in Sweden.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Oops.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...sts-flee-suburbs-due-islamic-fundamentalists/

 

[Scaff]

Oops.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...sts-flee-suburbs-due-islamic-fundamentalists/

You are aware that the article title and strap-line don't actually match the body text of the article or the source material?

Opps.

Oh and the point made above about members not posting videos, links or articles without context or explanation, that applies here as well.

 

[stonesfan129]

They should be much more selective about who they allow into the country.