Comment by hagbard_c
1 month ago
>> Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.
> You might as well just say "I'm going to say some racist nonsense, but don't you dare call me a racist!" Preemption by gaslighting?
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Instead of hyperventilating the usual 'racist, racist, racist' mantra and shooting messengers - '...Project 2025! ...Fact Check!' - it would be enlightening to hear your reaction on the facts presented by those maligned sources.
Are they wrong? Not so much according to you but according to the cited sources - the Census bureau et al, see the end notes in the article. Show where they are wrong, don't just act like so many others who join in the chorus when prompted by their leaders.
If you can not show they are wrong you should really retract the above diatribe. Facts, after all, don't care about anyone's feelings?
Dumping an information capsule and demanding that it be debunked upon challenge is an age old misdirection tactic, that takes advantage of the fact that debunking statistics-based narratives take a lot of additional context. That's why the lack of credibility of the source is considered a valid reason to reject an accusation. If you didn't have a motivated agenda in this, you would have avoided this kind of singular source of such reputational dearth, instead of resorting to the tactic of inverting the burden of proof.
I never expected a meaningful response to a criticism of your comment. But I find it disturbing that you slipped in such an obscure and malicious source here without disclosing their conflict of interests. That's a genuine misdirection. The real intent of my reply was to point out this problem to the other readers. Having done that, your rhetoric and weak insults are a misguided effort that I don't find any value in addressing.
In other words you have no information which contradicts what is stated in the article so you turn to ad-hominem tactics. For what it is worth the same statistics can be found in many other countries, Denmark [1], Sweden (where I live) [2] and The Netherlands (where I'm from) [3,4] among them. You probably won't believe these either since they go against the desired narrative but I have to ask who you think is helped by this attitude. Are the governmental organisations which created these statistics just racist as well?
Here we're talking specifically about Somalis because people from that country have been in the news lately. The original tangent was that the lack of integration into host countries as well as the large dependency on social services together with the taboo on mentioning any of these issues - as you so well displayed here - are a large cause of the tensions around migration.
[1] https://fm.dk/media/5cnhiydz/indvandreres-nettobidrag-til-de... (page 14, the document is in Danish so you might need a translation engine)
[2] https://www.konj.se/media/kpgnt5iw/specialstudie-117-invandr... (page 30, document is in Swedish)
[3] https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=2011D22345 (page 29, document in Dutch)
[4] https://www.regioplan.nl/wp-content/uploads/data/file/rappor... (page 20, document in Dutch)
Thank you for pointing that out. I was unaware.
I like how these hacks like to pretend that we need to treat every engagement with them in a vacuum with their reputation intact and being given the opportunity of good faith after lying repeatedly. I don’t know the name for the fallacy but it’s like some expectation that we are in single events for game theory instead of an iterated game where we can respond to previous behavior.
For `hagbard_c1, you’re using a source that’s lied repeatedly, not gonna waste time debunking more of their information and I am going to assume any suggested solutions based off their data is also incorrect.
Famously statistics cannot be used to misrepresent reality. Incredible stuff, we should get this to Nick Shirley!