Forum menu
Fourbanger - I think that is the issue. I remain unsure on the solution. But yes nationalism, xenophobia, racism, etc - they're on the rise due to the way capitalism has evolved and need nipping in the bud. I just can't see a good way of doing it.
"One week after a Muslim murdered 90 people"
One week after a deranged and highly disturbed person with ultra-extremist views(who happened to be Muslim) murdered 84 people.
Tell me what that's got to do with the woman on the beach, being targeted, harassed and deliberately publicly humiliated by police who don't apply that same 'law'* to others French citizens (Nuns aren't required to remover their head coverings in public)?
*As for this 'law'; French courts have deemed this particular type of application unlawful:
Please explain why you're attempting to justify racial profiling and deliberate (and unlawful) harassment of someone purely based on their apparent cultural practices?
That is why I hope that Trump election is the bottom and the only way is up.
Given what we know about Trump's character, what do you think his reaction will be when the people turn against him? Will he take it with good grace or take everyone down with him? Everything I've ever read about him suggests the latter. He will see it as a personal betrayal, and one that must be avenged. This could be the high point not the bottom.
Roughly 180 million out of 240 million who were eligible chose not to vote against Trump. The 'educated' minority who are aghast at the actions of the 'stupid' majority need to apply their Marvinesque brains to genuinely reflect upon how their actions got us here and how to ensure better decisions in future. Is there a constructive consensus on how to do this?
clodhopperTell me what that's got to do with the woman on the beach, being targeted, harassed and deliberately publicly humiliated by police who don't apply that same 'law'* to others French citizens (Nuns aren't required to remover their head coverings in public)?
How many mass murders or terrorist attacks were carried out by nuns on the same stretch of beach during the previous week?
Please explain why you're attempting to justify racial profiling and deliberate (and unlawful) harassment of someone purely based on their apparent cultural practices?
Just call me a racist. It'll make you feel better and you'll have won.
Thanks jimjam and igm.
It is interesting that Standard of Living has remained stagnant for so many when the polls tell a very different story:
e.g. [url= http://www.gallup.com/poll/183536/standard-living-index-ties-high.aspx ]The Gallup poll from June 2015[/url] reported that over 80% of Americans we happy with their Standard of Living:
[img] 
[/img]
And 64% thought their Standard of Living was improving:
[img] 
[/img]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183536/standard-living-index-ties-high.aspx
Perhaps another example of over-reliance on polls and models that don't accurately reflect how people feel?
How many mass murders or terrorist attacks were carried out by nuns on the same stretch of beach during the previous week?
Perhaps a better question would be: if a Christian [i]had[/i] carried out similar attacks then would the nuns be force to remove their head gear?
"How many mass murders or terrorist attacks were carried out by nuns on the same stretch of beach during the previous week?"
How many were carried out by women wearing headscarves?
"Just call me a racist. It'll make you feel better and you'll have won."
I'd much rather you explained your comments and viewpoint.
Just call me a racist. It'll make you feel better and you'll have won.
Well, first of all, Islam is a religion, not a race (isn't it surprising how this needs to be repeated?) so you're not a racist. Possibly.
You are, however, someone who isn't able to avoid conflating two incidents that have absolutely nothing to do with each other to try and support a spurious argument.
Well done.
Graham - I think for any given individual on average SoL has improved as they progressed though their career but for the population as a whole it hasn't because people join at a lower point. That squares the polls, the stats and why older people are more concerned about it than younger (the oldies remember a different way).
I'm planning trip to France next summer. Is it OK to wear my knotted hanky on my head?
[quote=GrahamS ]Thanks jimjam and igm.
It is interesting that Standard of Living has remained stagnant for so many when the polls tell a very different story:
e.g. The Gallup poll from June 2015 reported that over 80% of Americans we happy with their Standard of Living:
And 64% thought their Standard of Living was improving:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183536/standard-living-index-ties-high.aspx
Perhaps another example of over-reliance on polls and models that don't accurately reflect how people feel?
Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted May 1-31, 2015, on the Gallup U.S. Daily survey, with a random sample of 3,178 adults
3,178 people
They're using the opinions of 3,178 people to represent a nation of 318 million.
Piss poor analysis. Really laughably bad.
You don't really understand how polling works do you. You don't just take anyone's input you do your utmost to ensure that your sample is representative. It's not perfect but just asking more people is the way to make it better.
Edit. is not the way.
jimjam - MemberHow many mass murders or terrorist attacks were carried out by nuns on the same stretch of beach during the previous week?
There is no statistically significant difference, is the answer. The odds of any given muslim in the west being a terrorist are fundamentally the same as any given christian or atheist being a terrorist, ****-all. Hassling innocent people over their choice of clothes or colour of their skin doesn't prevent terrorism. (and ask yourself, does diverting police resource away from other duties prevent it? Does making some of your citizens feel mistreated and resentful and mistrusting of the police?)
It's not just a question of racism and xenophobia, it's also a question of effective policing. You don't need to give a shit about the individuals to think it's a stupid idea. I'd like these decisions to be made by people who care about both personally.
gonefishin - Member - Block User - Quote
You don't really understand how polling works do you. You don't just take anyone's input you do your utmost to ensure that your sample is representative. It's not perfect but just asking more people is the way to make it better.
Actually I was an analyst for the UKs largest market research company for many years, so I know perfectly well how polling works...
You don't really understand how polling works do you. You don't just take anyone's input you do your utmost to ensure that your sample is representative. It's not perfect but just asking more people is the way to make it better.
[url= http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN1322J1 ]Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation[/url]
Not perfect? You may have a point.
Maybe it is because you are new to France, but army patroling the streets is nothing new.
Indeed, 20-odd years ago I went to visit my brother and family (who were resident just outside Marseilles).
I took my three year old niece to nursery school and I was met at the gate by a rifle toting gendarme at the school gate and was not allowed to go any further. this was a fairly ordinary school in a only slightly dodgy area.
In fact, now I remember, when I flew in to the airport it was ringed by the CRS! Funnily enough, my Norwegian SiL and her two blonde haired children were not held up on the way in...
Actually I was an analyst for the UKs largest market research company for many years, so I know perfectly well how polling works...
Then explain why using that sample size is Inherently bad.
Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
Not perfect? You may have a point.
Given there was only one election, how do you know the probability was wrong?
There is a 1 in 14 million chance of winning the lottery (or whatever it is now) but people still win it.
Edit: too slow, nevermind.
They're using the opinions of 3,178 people to represent a nation of 318 million.
Piss poor analysis. Really laughably bad.
As I understand it, it is tracked monthly BoardinBob with randomly-selected representative samples. 3,178 was just how many people they sampled on those questions for that month.
e.g. [url= http://www.gallup.com/poll/180449/standard-living-index-climbs-highest-years.aspx ]the Jan 2015 poll[/url] was conducted in Dec 2014 with "a random sample of 13,165 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia" and showed very similar results.
They state a ±2 percentage point sampling error at the 95% confidence level. That's not bad.
Gallup polls 1,000 people a day, 350 days of the year.
http://www.gallup.com/174155/gallup-daily-tracking-methodology.aspx
Mr WoppitSo you're not a racist. Possibly.
You are, however, someone who isn't able to avoid conflating two incidents that have absolutely nothing to do with each other to try and support a spurious argument.
Well done.
Yeah, these incidents are completely separate. No way related. Nope. Absolutely stupid to imagine an increase in security and/or tensions in Nice mere days after a massive terror attack.
I'd much rather you explained your comments and viewpoint.
Please explain why you're attempting to justify racial profiling
In drawing up potential suspects for a violent murder police will almost certainly rule out children and infants, the elderly, the profoundly disabled....profiling happens all the time. It's a practical necessity. But hey, you better throw "racial" in there....really gets people's blood boiling doesn't it. Now I'm supporting racial profiling. I must be a vile racist.
deliberate (and unlawful) harassment of someone purely based on their apparent cultural practices?
It was legal at the time. Imagine if you will, Irish people being harassed and arrested after the Birmingham pub bombings. Is this deliberate and unlawful harassment of someone based purely on their apparent cultural practices? Racial profiling? Evidence of endemic racism in English police forces towards Irish people? Effective policing? something somewhere in the middle?
".....and the impression I get from reading threads like these on American forums is that it has gotten to the point where people simply don't give a * anymore. That's not to say they don't give a * about racism, it's that "racist" "sexist" misogynist" "homophobe" "transphobe" etc are thrown around so quickly and with such deliberate intent to shut down debate that they have actually lost all effect and are basically back firing."
This.
It's visibly failed twice in a year now. It makes me think there's a massive number of people who would rather lose and complain about it than present their case and perhaps win.
outofbreathThis.
And clodhopper is doing a beautiful job of illustrating my point.
"And clodhopper is doing a beautiful job of illustrating my point"
Yup, and I'm guessing it's utterly failed to change your mind....
".....and the impression I get from reading threads like these on American forums is that it has gotten to the point where people simply don't give a * anymore. That's not to say they don't give a * about racism, it's that "racist" "sexist" misogynist" "homophobe" "transphobe" etc are thrown around so quickly and with such deliberate intent to shut down debate that they have actually lost all effect and are basically back firing."This.
It's visibly failed twice in a year now. It makes me think there's a massive number of people who would rather lose and complain about it than present their case and perhaps win.
The case was presented it was dismissed as project fear & that the opinions of 'experts' was worthless
it was also pointed out that VL were painting turkish people and assylum seekers/ refugees as criminals, in an appeal to racists and xenophobes.
likewise in america, Clintons costed economic plans were rejected as more of the same (which isnt necessarily untrue), while Trumps 600bn infrastructure spree & simultaneous 4.5tn tax cuts, eliminating the deficit, bringing all jobs back from overseas were taken as perfectly deliverable 😯
and its not just that Trump is racist and sexist and people were endorsing these huge character flaws, some of his main policies were extremely racist Banning all Muslims and throwing out millions of illegal mexicans and building a **** off wall to stop them coming back was all about keeping brown folk out, and banning abortion likewise sexist.
They're using the opinions of 3,178 people to represent a nation of 318 million.Piss poor analysis. Really laughably bad.
That gives a margin of error of +/- 1.74% at 95% confidence, or +/- 2.29% at 99% confidence.
"The case was presented it was dismissed as project fear"
If the case was properly presented and dismissed by voters then clearly the case was wrong or at least unpersuasive.
As it happens I think the case, if it had been made, was strong, but most remainers preferred to shout "racist" and quote facts that could be debunked with 30 seconds on google.
any examples of these easily debunkable facts preferred by 'remainers'?
(it's always entertaining to be told what one thinks)
If the case was properly presented and dismissed by voters then clearly the case was wrong or at least unpersuasive.
Or, people only heard what they wanted to hear.
"In drawing up potential suspects for a violent murder police will almost certainly rule out children and infants, the elderly, the profoundly disabled....profiling happens all the time. It's a practical necessity. But hey, you better throw "racial" in there....really gets people's blood boiling doesn't it. Now I'm supporting racial profiling. I must be a vile racist."
So please explain how forcing a woman on a beach to remove her clothing, helps when drawing up potential suspects for violent murder?
"It's a practical necessity"
Is it? Please explain how and why, preferably with examples.
"And clodhopper is doing a beautiful job of illustrating my point."
Your 'point' appears to be that calling someone out when they're being racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic, is somehow 'shutting down debate'.
Please explain this. Again, some examples/citations would be helpful.
As it happens I think the case, if it had been made, was strong, but most remainers preferred to shout "racist" and quote facts that could be debunked with 30 seconds on google
I dare you to go and look at the start of the EU referendum thread, (its a good 10 pages that I could be arsed to go through) of reasoned debate about trade and international, relationships, immigration, preventing war etc, no one shouts racist at all, zombie maggots come up a few times though
"any examples of these easily debunkable facts preferred by 'remainers'?"
The two that stick in my mind are a FB friend who posted that his pharmaceuticals company would close because the UK would leave a scheme of some sort - I Googled the scheme - wasn't an EU scheme at all.
Another was a bloke who told me the UK would be leaving the ECHR after brexit. Utter bullshit - it's nothing to do with the EU.
"Or, people only heard what they wanted to hear."
In which case how does calling them racist help?
"Your 'point' appears to be that calling someone out when they're being racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic, is somehow 'shutting down debate'."
Your definition of racist is "having a slightly different opinion to you" on topics that have nothing to do with race.
"Imagine if you will, Irish people being harassed and arrested after the Birmingham pub bombings. Is this deliberate and unlawful harassment of someone based purely on their apparent cultural practices? Racial profiling? Evidence of endemic racism in English police forces towards Irish people? Effective policing? something somewhere in the middle?"
I knew Irish people who were targeted, harassed, arrested and even assaulted/abused by police officers, during the 1980s. None of these people were remotely connected to 'terrorism'. The police/security services gained absolutely nothing at all, by profiling such people. Indeed, innocent people were jailed, had convictions subsequently overturned, and paid large amounts in compensation. Endemic police racism? More than definitely. This has actually been proved on a number of occasions.
Still no evidence of how forcing a woman on a beach to remove her clothing actually achieves anything positive. And as for shutting down debate; quite the opposite. I'm encouraging you, Jamba or anyone else, to explain their position on appearing to advocate xenophobia.
"Your definition or racist is "having a slightly different opinion to you" on topics that have nothing to do with race."
I'm quite sure you have bugger all idea of what my actual definition of a racist is, as so beautifully demonstrated by your post.
outofbreath - Member
The two that stick in my mind are a FB friend who posted that his pharmaceuticals company would close because the UK would leave a scheme of some sort - I Googled the scheme - wasn't an EU scheme at all.
you mean the EMA? then you googled wrong
trust me its a huge concern to UK pharma and life science industries, jobs will be lost, the pharma companies are just waiting to find out where to go, I know a few people whove been warned things are moving, one is even a poster on here
http://sciencebusiness.net/news/79994/European-Medicines-Agency-feels-Brexit-effect
That gives a margin of error of +/- 1.74% at 95% confidence, or +/- 2.29% at 99% confidence.
It's limited to people with telephones, who are prepared to engage with a polling company.
It's limited to people with telephones, who are prepared to engage with a polling company.
Agreed, but sample bias is a different problem. Anyone who complains about sampling a few thousand people to represent a population doesn't understand how large numbers work.
"you googled wrong"
I posted a PDF from his own company debunking it and he accepted it so I'm guessing my googling was spot on.
If I had got my fact checking wrong, so what? Replace all reasoned debate with name calling because OOB once got his fact checking wrong on one fact?
People really are like WW1 generals over this. Crying racist has failed twice. How many more times are you gonna try it? 50?
If I had got my fact checking wrong, so what? Replace all reasoned debate with name calling because OOB once got his fact checking wrong on one fact?People really are like WW1 generals over this. Crying racist has failed twice. How many more times are you gonna try it? 50?
Its OK I can multitask;
produce reasoned argument, factcheck and point out bigotry when I see it 😀
Unless you think racism should just be shrugged off as political bantz?
Unless you think racism should just be shrugged off as political bantz?
Well ok, let's test you. Have you actually been calling out any racism? Can you link to the most extreme bit of racism on STW you've called out recently.
Another was a bloke who told me the UK would be leaving the ECHR after brexit. Utter bullshit - it's nothing to do with the EU.
Interesting. Because I heard a lot of quitters stating this but no remainers. Except perhaps Enola May who said I think that she [i]wanted[/i] to leave the ECHR - someone check that one for me.
Well ok, let's test you. Have you actually been calling out any racism? Can you link to the most extreme bit of racism on STW you've called out recently.
hangs head in shame for not doing enough to maintain the appropriate levels political correctness on stw...... 😯
tbh Im not sure what point you are trying to prove here?
Interesting. Because I heard a lot of quitters stating this but no remainers.
In which case pointing out why they were wrong would be far more likely to change their mind than shouting racist idiot.
Broke it out into a separate thread to save hijacking this one, but if you want to see a good example of what the alt-right would class as stupid SJW shutting down a debate in a "safe space" then go here:
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/science-must-fall
Another was a bloke who told me the UK would be leaving the ECHR after brexit. Utter bullshit - it's nothing to do with the EU.
Was it Jamba? He's quite keen on leaving the ECHR and the idea that it is tied into the EU. Some selected quotes of his from the massive EU thread:
ECJ/ECHR withdrawl should have been done last year but Cameron was well aware that the EU would block it ("refer it for discussion ... ie bury it in bureaucracy) and thus be another big weakness in the Remain case. Its time for a UK Bill of Rights with the UK courts being the final arbiter
..
we have discussed the ECHR at length, I have no problem with a HRC however the final arbiter should be UK courts an also the EU insists we treat any EU citizen as though they where a UK citizen, somwe cannot easily deport criminals
..
It was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment to withdraw from the ECHR and replace it with a British version. They have kicked that into the long grass as they are well aware that the EU will block any attempt to do so