Immigration

[LeMansAid]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/03/exclusive-paris-migrants-blame-europe/

I have preconceived ideas about cultures in the countries that most refugees or "refugees" come from these days, and preconceptions about the likelihood of an individual therefore having suspect character traits. If I read that article trying to block any of those preconceived ideas though, the article really tells me bugger all. Without marrying it to other information or held views it's mainly just a selectively quoted opinion of some African refugee guy. Why would I put any stock in that? It needs to be meaningful in and of itself, to be valid - and it's not. If you think it's meaningful and valid, you should perhaps ask yourself if you tend to seek information full stop, or veer toward echo chamber information.

 

[UKMikey]

According to my mental list, TROP, the Daily Mail, Gatestone and now Breitbart can't really be used to prove a point. Are there any I missed?

IBTimes just took a drubbing on the Media Bias thread. It's a pretty crappy site though.

Not that the article posted actually proved a point, and if you actually think it did you have no idea what constitutes even the lowest standard of evidence.

When one relies on faith and gut feeling perhaps logic, rationality and evidence sometimes take a back seat.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

What a high quality rebuttal, packed with facts and sources to dismiss the points and concerns raised.

Your post was "Look another Breitbart piece"....

Not that the article posted actually proved a point, and if you actually think it did you have no idea what constitutes even the lowest standard of evidence.

You missed the tongue in cheek notion of my post (it focussed on the lovely Rolando - poor guy was so close to be called after legendary footballers). However if you look beyond Rolando:

Breitbart London spoke to several of the migrants at the camp, and all of them blamed the French government and Europe for their situation, demanding documentation and access to welfare.

He said fighting between migrants was normal, though the police presence that day was increased due to a lorry having overturned next to the camp. Last month, a mass brawl broke out during food distribution at the camp involving 50 migrants which ended with one man being seriously injured.

Formerly, the main migrant camp was located near the Stalingrad metro station, which saw mass brawls between the hundreds of migrants who lived there late last year.

And I mean, if you want proof of ungrateful migrants, sorry, "refugees" just head on over to youtube

I have preconceived ideas about cultures in the countries that most refugees or "refugees" come from these days, and preconceptions about the likelihood of an individual therefore having suspect character traits. If I read that article trying to block any of those preconceived ideas though, the article really tells me bugger all. Without marrying it to other information or held views it's mainly just a selectively quoted opinion of some African refugee guy. Why would I put any stock in that? It needs to be meaningful in and of itself, to be valid - and it's not. If you think it's meaningful and valid, you should perhaps ask yourself if you tend to seek information full stop, or veer toward echo chamber information.

How so? It highlights the violence and attitudes amongst some in the camp. Is it the general feeling in the camp - we don't know. But I never said it was in any of my posts

 

[Scaff]

Your post was "Look another Breitbart piece"....

And you can expand my answer to just about every piece from them you have chosen to post.

Look I get that you love the confirmation bias that they provide for your anti Muslim and anti immigration views, just don't be surprised when others treat it as propoganda rather than independent and unbiased news.

You missed the tongue in cheek notion of my post (it focussed on the lovely Roland). However if you look beyond Rolando:

How so? It highlights the violence and attitudes amongst some in the camp.

It cites one outside sources, fails to mention most of what that source says (and being in French will not be read by a large percentage of the Breitbart audience, hell the vast majority don't get passed the headline) and the rest is self citing.

It's not news, it's not journalism, it's out and out paid for propaganda.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Look I get that you love the confirmation bias that they provide for your anti Muslim and anti immigration views, just don't be surprised when others treat it as propoganda rather than independent and unbiased news

So now articles are "confirmation bias"....

It cites one outside sources

More actually....if you read the citations they include the source articles.

fails to mention most of what that source says (and being in French will not be read by a large percentage of the Breitbart audience, hell the vast majority don't get passed the headline)

OK well let's use google translate (is that on the no-go list of GTP?)

"It was ultra-violent!" Community activists or residents of the XVIIIth arrondissements of Paris who witnessed a generalized brawl between migrants on Thursday night around the shelter center at the Porte de la Chapelle all described scenes of a Extreme brutality. After initial incidents between refugees on the sidelines of a food distribution in the early evening in front of the center of Boulevard Ney, a brawl involving more than fifty migrants, Afghans on one side and Sudanese on the other, broke out towards 23 hours.

 

[Scaff]

So now articles are "confirmation bias"....

Nope, they have always been that. Nothing 'now' about it.

More actually....if you read the citations they include the source articles.

I have, they don't change the bias of the piece or the nature of the piece.

OK well let's use google translate (is that on the no-go list of GTP?)

No, however you can cut the attitude.

Now are you able to provide similar pieces from Brietbart that cover similar situations that do not involve minorities, immigrants or Muslims?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

So there's a new book out....

Reviews from the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/may/06/strange-death-europe-immigration-xenophobia

"Gentrification comes for everything eventually. Down-at-heel neighbourhoods, peasant cuisines, football: all have been polished up for middle-class consumption. So perhaps it was only a matter of time before someone gave xenophobia the same treatment."

And Entertainment Focus:

http://www.entertainment-focus.com/...as-murray-the-strange-death-of-europe-review/

"Immigration is not uncharted territory for Murray, but The Strange Death of Europe allows him breathing space to present a distillation of his thoughts and personal experiences on the topic. It’s a thoroughly rewarding experience: Murray’s style of writing is just as exhilarating over three hundred plus pages as it is over a thousand words. He’s a writer with a clear and distinctive voice."

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So there's a new book out...

Have you read it? Do you have extracts for us to read? Or are you just posting reviews as if they are self-evident?

 

[LeMansAid]

Or are you just posting reviews opinions as facts as if they are self-evident?

Move along, no hypocri-to-see here.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

We both know that if I posted extracts of a book review as evidence, people would be all over it.

 

[LeMansAid]

We both know that if I posted extracts of a book review as evidence, people would be all over it.

Just shaking my head in disbelief that you'd have the gall to use the word evidence at all at the moment.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Just shaking my head in disbelief that you'd have the gall to use the word evidence at all at the moment.

And I'm shaking my head in disbelief that you'd have the gall to use the word hypocricy at the moment. There are obvious problems with what DLR_Mysterion posted; if I had posted it, you'd be all over it, but DLR_Mysterion gets a free pass. So practice what you preach - you need to hold everyone to the same standard. Don't pick and choose who you hold accountable.

 

[LeMansAid]

And I'm shaking my head in disbelief that you'd have the gall to use the word hypocricy at the moment. There are obvious problems with what DLR_Mysterion posted; if I had posted it, you'd be all over it, but DLR_Mysterion gets a free pass. So practice what you preach - you need to hold everyone to the same standard. Don't pick and choose who you hold accountable.

Can you point out the claim that @DLR_Mysterion is making in that post? A claim as bold and absolute as....

"Men's rights groups" aren't interested in equality.

DLR is noting a book that deals with Immigration-related subject matter, in the Immigration thread. Seems logical. Granted, I think we do tend to prefer that members actually contribute some of their own words instead of a pure cut and paste job, but it's a long way from making a ludicrous, sweeping claim and not providing anything to support that claim.

Free pass? In post #1651 in this very thread, and only a couple of days ago, I did what you couldn't be bothered doing when it came to challenging DLR on Breitbart articles. I actually explained why it was not particularly valid.

Yes, the persecution complex suits you - but that doesn't mean it looks good on you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Can you point out the claim that @DLR_Mysterion is making in that post?

He's presenting the book as being representative of this discussion without having read it first. If he had read it, he would have discussed its contents. Instead, he posted a few reviews.

 

[Tornado]

We both know that if I posted extracts of a book review as evidence, people would be all over it.

Yes, you usually not even doing that much is where the hypocrisy comes into play.


Interesting, too, that DLR_Mysterion's "free pass" seems to be defined as "half the people who post in this subforum arguing against him at some point or another in every thread he visits."

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

He's presenting the book as being representative of this discussion without having read it first. If he had read it, he would have discussed its contents. Instead, he posted a few reviews.

I've got it on Kindle but haven't started reading it yet.

I put it up because Douglas Murray is a controversial figure and his views on immigration might be something to be discussed in the thread.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've got it on Kindle but haven't started reading it yet.

So you have no idea what he says, then. How exactly do you expect to be able to discuss it?

Douglas Murray is a controversial figure

Hardly. He's like Christopher Hitchens - too caught up in the apparent notoriety of his public persona. Three chapters of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It was all it took to convince me of that. He started out defensive and wound up confused as to why I was still reading instead of registering as a neocon, convinced of its merits on the back of his writing.

his views on immigration might be something to be discussed in the thread

But you haven't read it. And you haven't provided us with an extract to read ourselves. So where, exactly, did you think the discussion would go?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Hmm you come across very aggressive for a liberal!

I guess you can watch the video I posted.

Or there's this:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/ex...ge-Death-Of-Europe-Immigration-Identity-Islam

This one is behind a paywall
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/europe-signs-its-own-death-warrant-xpg36lnxl

 

[novcze]

I came across this article from our favourite source.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/16/czech-eu-penalties-forced-migrants/

And surprisingly, everything they wrote is true (as I heard original speech of Minister of the Interior), immigrants are not able to undertake security checks so they can not be accepted. And of course we have parliamentary elections upon us, so no sane politician will say anything about taking in refugees. Maybe people here are aware of advantages of monocultural (people with common european/christian heritage) society?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

I came across this article from our favourite source.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/16/czech-eu-penalties-forced-migrants/

And surprisingly, everything they wrote is true (as I heard original speech of Minister of the Interior), immigrants are not able to undertake security checks so they can not be accepted. And of course we have parliamentary elections upon us, so no sane politician will say anything about taking in refugees. Maybe people here are aware of advantages of monocultural (people with common european/christian heritage) society?

RAYCIST!

I say let everyone in!
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/24/6-million-migrants-now-heading-europe/

What harm can happen?

France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10404/france-no-go-zones

Sweden: Men of Foreign Origin Responsible for 90 Per Cent of Shootings
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/22/sweden-foreign-origin-90-shootings/


But then I've been told that living in cities mean I should expect terrorist attacks so that must be the case in Prague....

"Well that was that case where Islamists were trying to kill Jews in 2006"

"Shucks, that probably has nothing to do with religion"
Oops....💡

 

[TenEightyOne]

RAYCIST!

I say let everyone in!
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/24/6-million-migrants-now-heading-europe/

What harm can happen?💡

I don't know, I refused to pay for the article so I wasn't allowed to read it.

France: No-Go Zones Now in Heart of Big Cities
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10404/france-no-go-zones

You really should try editing your copy-pastes, that big writing is starting to look silly.

Not as silly as the article though, it quotes a source which doesn't mention "no-go zones" and which doesn't illustrate any such thing. Did you read the source or, gasp, just the headline? Again?

Newsflash - deprived council estates (or arrondissements) often aren't safe for lone women at any time of day or night. As the source article notes the area is full of long-term unemployed, traffickers, traders and, overall, is very deprived. The discomfort and alarm that lone women feel in the area is no doubt very real. However, it has nothing to do with immigration. The issue exists, always has existed and moves from place to place, in the case of Paris several tough arrondissments of a few years ago have gentrified and re-displaced the poverty. You put it in the Immigration thread to further the Breitbart agenda, I guess, one might say you could have used some common sense and just read the source and applied some thought to what it told you.

Sweden: Men of Foreign Origin Responsible for 90 Per Cent of Shootings
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/22/sweden-foreign-origin-90-shootings/

Back on your roundabout we go. Three articles from the same source with the same agenda and the usual pattern of contradicting the clickbait headline in what's actually written.

Once again (because the facts haven't changed, however much you'd like them to) we can see that the crime rise/rate isn't related to the immigration figure. In this article they quickly admit that they're not looking at all shootings by any means - only gun crimes in public places. Then they admit that half of that data set is innocent people (you've mentioned in the past that you believe in innocence until guilt is proven).

You're better than your apparently blind belief in this stato-nonsense might suggest.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

I don't know, I refused to pay for the article so I wasn't allowed to read it.

You really should try editing your copy-pastes, that big writing is starting to look silly.

That's me laziness for ya.

Not as silly as the article though, it quotes a source which doesn't mention "no-go zones" and which doesn't illustrate any such thing. Did you read the source or, gasp, just the headline? Again?

Oh youuu, is this another case of saying the article doesn't match the headline then being proved wrong.

"A few days ago, the simple fact of putting myself at my window triggered a flood of insults, and I had to lock myself in my apartment. Some time ago, I used the Boulevard de la Chapelle from Stalingrad, even late at night ... It's unthinkable today"

This doesn't count as a no-go area, or are women just meant to stay at home?

Newsflash - deprived council estates (or arrondissements) often aren't safe for lone women at any time of day or night. As the source article notes the area is full of long-term unemployed, traffickers, traders and, overall, is very deprived. The discomfort and alarm that lone women feel in the area is no doubt very real. However, it has nothing to do with immigration.

Where does the source article say it has nothing to do with immigration. You just said it!

The issue exists, always has existed and moves from place to place, in the case of Paris several tough arrondissments of a few years ago have gentrified and re-displaced the poverty. You put it in the Immigration thread to further the Breitbart agenda, I guess, one might say you could have used some common sense and just read the source and applied some thought to what it told you.

Yeah I know right, I'm the one lacking common sense
Molenbeek is a one off?

OOPS
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7961/france-salafists-molenbeek

Back on your roundabout we go. Three articles from the same source with the same agenda and the usual pattern of contradicting the clickbait headline in what's actually written.

Once again (because the facts haven't changed, however much you'd like them to) we can see that the crime rise/rate isn't related to the immigration figure. In this article they quickly admit that they're not looking at all shootings by any means - only gun crimes in public places. Then they admit that half of that data set is innocent people (you've mentioned in the past that you believe in innocence until guilt is proven)

So it's your belief that if we add in shootings not in a public place, the figure will magically resolve itself to mirror the demographic makeup of Sweden?


Before you answer bear in mind that one suburb alone had 22 murders in 2 years....

Your article also shows that there is no crime rise, but doesn't report on the ethnic makeup of the crimes committed. Theoretically there could be a rise in immigrant violence yet a decrease in those of the ethnic population - we don't have that information.

Next you'll be saying the rise of 122% of Muslim prisoners in the UK and the fact that:

"the percentage rise in Muslim prisoner numbers has been far greater than the Muslim population increase: Muslim inmates now account for 14.4% of those behind bars, compared with 7.7 % in 2002"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31794599

are likely due to "complex socio-economic issues"

 

[Scaff]

are likely due to "complex socio-economic issues"

Indeed.

I've asked you a number of times to demonstrate that's not teh case, and if you follow the few external links from your 'far-right' single issue propaganda you would see that the original articles are quite open in acknowledging so.

However that clearly doesn't fit with the confirmation bias required for your immigrants/Muslims are bad that you seem to require.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Indeed.

I've asked you a number of times to demonstrate that's not teh case, and if you follow the few external links from your 'far-right' single issue propaganda you would see that the original articles are quite open in acknowledging so.

However that clearly doesn't fit with the confirmation bias required for your immigrants/Muslims are bad that you seem to require.

 

[huskeR32]

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[Scaff]

Well, I'm convinced.

It's a quality rebuttal. Put me right in my place.

 

[UKMikey]

It's a quality rebuttal. Put me right in my place.

If only this were a televised debate.

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

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

But didn't we do this, like a few months ago? If not the UK Muslim population then another immigrant population? I mean we can go again if you want..

 

[Scaff]

But didn't we do this, like a few months ago? If not the UK Muslim population then another immigrant population? I mean we can go again if you want..

Yes we did, and you utterly failed to demonstrate that socio-economics were not a factor then either.

After all its not as if its an area lacking in scolerly reserach and information....

https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola...ocioeconomic+factors+on+immigrant+populations

...its just that your 'sources' like to utterly ignore it as it doesn't match the bias they have and what to push. That I can almost understand to a degree, after all they are getting well paid to do so (another topic you are quite happy to ignore), you however are wallowing in confirmation bias willingly, something I have a lots less respect for (actually I will just be honest here - I have zero respect for).

So feel free to carry on posting up meaningless noise in place of actual discussion, evidence or really any form of constructive point. Feel free to carry on ignoring what evidence shows is a factor in all of this. Feel free to carry on relying on the same sources, sources that are increasingly seen as less and less credible (Breitbart didn't get White House press accreditation for a damn good reason you know), hold a clear agenda and bias and are in reality nothing more than propaganda.

It's your membership to throw away in that regard not mine.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Yes we did, and you utterly failed to demonstrate that socio-economics were not a factor then either.

After all its not as if its an area lacking in scolerly reserach and information....

https://scholar.google.co.uk/schola...ocioeconomic+factors+on+immigrant+populations

...its just that your 'sources' like to utterly ignore it as it doesn't match the bias they have and what to push. That I can almost understand to a degree, after all they are getting well paid to do so (another topic you are quite happy to ignore), you however are wallowing in confirmation bias willingly, something I have a lots less respect for (actually I will just be honest here - I have zero respect for).

So feel free to carry on posting up meaningless noise in place of actual discussion, evidence or really any form of constructive point. Feel free to carry on ignoring what evidence shows is a factor in all of this. Feel free to carry on relying on the same sources, sources that are increasingly seen as less and less credible (Breitbart didn't get White House press accreditation for a damn good reason you know), hold a clear agenda and bias and are in reality nothing more than propaganda.

It's your membership to throw away in that regard not mine.

Cool let's do it then!