Political Correctness

[Scaff]

Oh I see what you mean.

I'm not sure that in 10 years non-whites under 25 would account for 38% of that population.

I didn't say it had, I said that it narrows it the point that other factors, you know like the socio-economic ones, are more likely to be the key driver.

....You can't say it isn't a Muslim problem - we don't have the information to reach that conclusion. We have no proof that there is a problem (a positive), or there isn't (a negative). The correct thing is to say: we don't know if there is a Muslim problem.

No, the correct thing to say is that no evidence exists that there is a Muslim problem. Which makes your obsession with it rather odd.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You'd expect

Let me just stop you there.

You're basing your conclusion on an assumption, and not solid evidence.

You have no evidence that white people would be the majority offenders.

Dr Cockbain disagrees. For the umpteenth time, it's an op-ed, not damning proof that there was some kind of whitewash which only affected this study. This is an extraordinary claim which requires more than a whispering campaign by a bunch of eurosceptics to support it.

No she doesn't - show me a quote where she says that. Instead she talks about the problem in classifying grooming gangs. She wasn't involved in the report (apart from her publication) so where is she disputing the veracity of the sources?

Why mention Muslims in the first place in that case?

Who, Dr Ella?

If other people are saying it's a Muslim problem and the report disagrees, shouldn't that be highlighted in the headline?

To say "there's still a chance that it could be Muslims all along despite the findings in the report pointing the other way" requires wilful opposition. Anything else is just semantics and how one reads the article. I'd go so far as to claim it's a misleading headline is verging on the pedantic.

My goodness. The report doesn't disagree.

Let me ask you a simple question:

Are grooming gangs a Hindu problem?

I didn't say it had, I said that it narrows it the point that other factors, you know like the socio-economic ones, are more likely to be the key driver.

I've stated several times that it is the factors apart from ethnicity that cause over-representation.

No, the correct thing to say is that no evidence exists that there is a Muslim problem. Which makes your obsession with it rather odd.

Yes....and no evidence exists that there isn't.

Same with white people.
Same with Japanese people.
Same with xyz

What you can't say is: evidence exists that means it is not a Muslim problem, which was the headline. Point me to where in the report this is stated. In fact, here's a little exercise for you. Go to the report and Control+F "Muslim" or "Islam". Go all out and Control+F "Christian" or "Hindu".

Look at the results.

Then say if it's appropriate to say it isn't a Muslim/Christian/Hindu problem.

 

[UKMikey]

Let me just stop you there.

You're basing your conclusion on an assumption, and not solid evidence.

You have no evidence that white people would be the majority offenders.

Why would white people not be the majority offenders given an absence of other factors? If on the other hand there are other factors then why do they not affect all Muslims or all Pakistanis equally? If on the third hand they don't affect all Muslims and/or Pakistanis equally then why would anyone want to present this as a Muslim and/or Pakistani problem?

Who, Dr Ella?

No, the people she is objecting who are seemingly looking to tar an entire ethnic group with the same brush. Fascists, to put it bluntly.

My goodness. The report doesn't disagree.

It doesn't support it.

Let me ask you a simple question:

Are grooming gangs a Hindu problem?

Isn't it a people problem? Can't you see why people would object to saying "Pakistani Muslims did this, let's round up all the Pakistani Muslims" when there are other socio-economic factors involved besides "being Muslim" or "being Pakistani"?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why would white people not be the majority offenders given an absence of other factors? If on the other hand there are other factors then why do they not affect all Muslims or all Pakistanis equally? If on the third hand they don't affect all Muslims and/or Pakistanis equally then why would anyone want to present this as a Muslim and/or Pakistani problem?

Why would white people not be the majority offenders of knife crime in London given an absence of other factors? If on the other hand there are other factors then why do they not affect all black people equally? If on the third hand they don't affect all black people equally then why would anyone want to present this as a black community problem?

Do you see where assuming gets you?

No, the people she is objecting who are seemingly looking to tar an entire ethnic group with the same brush. Fascists, to put it bluntly.

She wrote the article

It doesn't support it.

Yep.

Just like it doesn't support it not being the case

Isn't it a people problem? Can't you see why people would object to saying "Pakistani Muslims did this, let's round up all the Pakistani Muslims" when there are other socio-economic factors involved besides "being Muslim" or "being Pakistani"?

You didn't answer my question.

(Hint: the correct answer is we don't know)

Or I guess we could go on rants based on limited information

 

[Joey D]

I know y'all know what he meant. SMH
Not every Trump supporter is a Nazi.
But hey call him a Nazi anyways just so you can punch him.

Lefties and TDS people really are the delusional ones.
I don't recall a viral video of anyone saying they were going to kill themselves cause Biden won.

No of course, not all Trump supporters are Nazis, but it seems that most vocal/known Neo-Nazis in the US did support Trump.

As for Trump himself, he has many similarities with the Nazi party when it was in its beginning phases. While I never thought Trump would commit mass genocide, he was putting forth ideas that were very much in line with those of the 1930's Nazi Party.

Still, I stand by my position that you should be able to punch a Nazi, but then again my wife is Jewish, her grandparents were all in camps during the war, and she gets ridiculed for wearing a Star of David more often than I ever thought would happen.

 

[UKMikey]

Why would white people not be the majority offenders of knife crime in London given an absence of other factors? If on the other hand there are other factors then why do they not affect all black people equally? If on the third hand they don't affect all black people equally then why would anyone want to present this as a black community problem?

Do you see where assuming gets you?

Stopped and searched from the looks of things. Especially if nobody answers those questions.

She wrote the article

In response to the people I talked about in the passage you quoted.

Just like it doesn't support it not being the case

It doesn't have to. That would be the task of those opposed to Muslims.

You didn't answer my question.

(Hint: the correct answer is we don't know)

Because it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Noone is accusing Hindus of mass grooming based on their religion or ethnicity. It's a non-sequitur.

Or I guess we could go on rants based on limited information

Are we just going to introduce op-ed articles you don't agree with willy-nilly now? How does this disprove the Home Office report's conclusions?

 

[NotThePrez]

I was asked to explain why I think ethnicity are markers for behaviour.

It's...not. People aren't pre-wired to commit certain acts or act a certain way just because of the color of their skin. I can safely attest to that through my own personal experience. To argue otherwise is honestly kinda racist.

I then talked about the Mirpur community and grooming offences and the black population and knife crime.

I saw, but I do not understand why you're targeting specific ethnic groups involved in the crime, rather than the crime and the people who commit it in general. Again, your argument as I understand it is basically "Black people/Mirpur people are pre-wired to do X, so we need to stop them." And, again, it's kinda racist.

In this context, talking about Londoners is pretty vague and non-specific.

And referring to people as "Afro-Caribbeans" isn't? You make it sound like people from the Caribbeans just randomly fly over to the UK, get a shank or two in during their visit, then fly back. Referring to individuals as "Londoners" in the context of London knife crimes (or as "British people" with British knife crimes) casts a much more specific, yet all-inclusive net on a problem and, if I had to guess, probably opens up some greater commonality in crime besides skin tone.

Again, you're singling out a specific group by their ethnicity, with seemingly little regard to the other parties that are involved in the crime. You're basically saying that if you're an Afro-whatever in London, you going to be associated with criminals by default, or be pre-wired to commit criminal acts, even if you haven't done a damn thing. Once again, and coming from a African American, that's kinda racist.

With gangs in particular it is a problem for most communities in Britain, but especially so with the Black-Caribbean because of various factors.

See above. These aren't "Afro-Caribbean problems," these are people problems, and should be treated as such. Targeting just a specific ethnic group and ignoring all other perpetrators/victims is an extremely good way to build up resentment, that is, if you care about solving a problem without doing so.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It's...not. People aren't pre-wired to commit certain acts or act a certain way just because of the color of their skin. I can safely attest to that through my own personal experience. To argue otherwise is honestly kinda racist.

Hopefully if you read what I posted you'll see that I think it's the circumstances that ethnic groups find themselves in that is the cause.

I saw, but I do not understand why you're targeting specific ethnic groups involved in the crime, rather than the crime and the people who commit it in general. Again, your argument as I understand it is basically "Black people/Mirpur people are pre-wired to do X, so we need to stop them." And, again, it's kinda racist.

Nope.

It's the fact that it's more prevalent in certain communities rather than listing their ethnicity as a cause.

And referring to people as "Afro-Caribbeans" isn't? You make it sound like people from the Caribbeans just randomly fly over to the UK, get a shank or two in during their visit, then fly back. Referring to individuals as "Londoners" in the context of London knife crimes (or as "British people" with British knife crimes) casts a much more specific, yet all-inclusive net on a problem and, if I had to guess, probably opens up some greater commonality in crime besides skin tone.

Again, you're singling out a specific group by their ethnicity, with seemingly little regard to the other parties that are involved in the crime. You're basically saying that if you're an Afro-whatever in London, you going to be associated with criminals by default, or be pre-wired to commit criminal acts, even if you haven't done a damn thing. Once again, and coming from a African American, that's kinda racist.

It's not as vague, which was the point of my argument.

See above. These aren't "Afro-Caribbean problems," these are people problems, and should be treated as such. Targeting just a specific ethnic group and ignoring all other perpetrators/victims is an extremely good way to build up resentment, that is, if you care about solving a problem without doing so.

They are people problems, but it would be ludicrous to not target things according to demographics.

Can you imagine if we had a non targeted approach that equally focussed on young black females as it did middle class white men when trying to confront white collar crime?

Madness.

Stopped and searched from the looks of things. Especially if nobody answers those questions.


In response to the people I talked about in the passage you quoted.

It doesn't have to. That would be the task of those opposed to Muslims.

Because it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. Noone is accusing Hindus of mass grooming based on their religion or ethnicity. It's a non-sequitur.


Are we just going to introduce op-ed articles you don't agree with willy-nilly now? How does this disprove the Home Office report's conclusions?

Come on, man

 

[UKMikey]

They are people problems, but it would be ludicrous to not target things according to demographics.
Can you imagine if we had a non targeted approach that equally focussed on young black females as it did middle class white men when trying to confront white collar crime?
Madness.

What an absurd strawman. Target middle class white collar criminals. Why do they have to be white? Either they're people problems or demographic problems. If the former, then why focus on the latter?

See above. These aren't "Afro-Caribbean problems," these are people problems, and should be treated as such. Targeting just a specific ethnic group and ignoring all other perpetrators/victims is an extremely good way to build up resentment, that is, if you care about solving a problem without doing so.

So much this. It's conflating ethnicity with the socio-economic factors which drive crime.

Come on, man

 

[HenrySwanson]

What an absurd strawman. Target middle class white collar criminals. Why do they have to be white? Either they're people problems or demographic problems. If the former, then why focus on the latter?

They don't have to be white.

It's like saying MI5 should look at all populations equally for far right violence and Islamic extremist violence. Can you imagine the waste of resources that would result from this?

You have to target things sometimes.

The point about Hindus was that you can't reasonably conclude anything from that report about Hindus. The same as you can't about Muslims. That Dr Ella did is an indictment on her partiality

 

[UKMikey]

They don't have to be white.

That's exactly my point. But you specified the following:

middle class white men when trying to confront white collar crime

Why not just "middle class men"?

It's like saying MI5 should look at all populations equally for far right violence and Islamic extremist violence. Can you imagine the waste of resources that would result from this?

They should devote equal resources to both wherever they may occur. What does this have to do with ethnicity?

You have to target things sometimes.

Why?

The point about Hindus was that you can't reasonably conclude anything from that report about Hindus. The same as you can't about Muslims. That Dr Ella did is an indictment on her partiality

Or you could read the headline as saying that the report provides nothing to justify people who do want to target Muslims. The only way it doesn't absolve them as a whole is if you specifically want to blame them for something which many of them aren't guilty of.

The fact that you don't read it that way and choose instead to attack Dr Cockburn on an ambiguous interpretation of her headline speaks volumes to me about your own partiality.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Or you could read the headline as saying that the report provides nothing to justify people who do want to target Muslims. The only way it doesn't absolve them as a whole is if you specifically want to blame them for something which many of them aren't guilty of.

The fact that you don't read it that way speaks volumes about your own partiality.

You're not understanding how scientific reporting works.

The report looked at multiple studies and couldn't find a definitive answer as to the representation of ethnic groups as group CSE offenders. That means we can't conclude if there is or isn't a relationship between the two variables. We can't dismiss a potential positive association and then conclude that there must be no association. Neither are definitively proven.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[huskeR32]

Echo chambers saying what exactly?

Jesus Christ. That there are a bunch of "politically correct" people out there that will come after you and ruin your life if you say/do the wrong the thing. What the hell have we been talking about?

This makes sense when talking about the Twittersphere and how people work themselves up to convince themselves of political correctness where it doesn't exist but I don't think those are the people who would then bow to pressure to not offend certain communities.

What exactly prevents those two groups from being the same people?

It makes more sense to me that the same people who work themselves up about it are the ones more likely to life their life as if it's a real concern.

You seem to suggest that these echo chambers are comprised of bigots, but the people who are concerned enough to not act seem the opposite of bigots.

I'm suggesting that, for the most part, people who have convinced themselves of the boogeyman have done so because, at one point or another, they did or said something bigoted, and didn't like the consequences. So they shifted the blame to overly-sensitive "politically correct" types.

And again, how is it that the people concerned enough to not act are excluded from being bigots? What is your logic here?

With the Jay report it found that individuals didn't act both of their own volition and because of pressure from management.

Then management is also afraid of the same boogeyman? That still doesn't prove that "political correctness" is anything more than something these people impose on themselves.

 

[UKMikey]

You're not understanding how scientific reporting works.

The report looked at multiple studies and couldn't find a definitive answer as to the representation of ethnic groups as group CSE offenders. That means we can't conclude if there is or isn't a relationship between the two variables. We can't dismiss a potential positive association and then conclude that there must be no association. Neither are definitively proven.

I hope that makes sense.

This is the first paragraph of the article.

This week marks a watershed moment in a decade of discussion of “grooming gangs”: a much-anticipated Home Office report has concluded that there is no credible evidence that any one ethnic group is over-represented in cases of child sexual exploitation.

Does this suggest that grooming gangs are a "Muslim problem" or not? Would you rather the headline have read "Home Office report finds no evidence to suggest grooming gangs are a 'Muslim Problem'... but, you know, they still could be"? Because nothing in the report or article suggests this.

 

[NotThePrez]

Hopefully if you read what I posted you'll see that I think it's the circumstances that ethnic groups find themselves in that is the cause.

Upbringing and environment play a major role in how a person acts, that I do agree with. However, that doesn't mean that one's experience is set in stone just because of their ethnicity or the situation that people of the same ethnicity find themselves in (well, it can, but that would be extremely racist).

Correlation is not causation, etc.

Nope.

It's the fact that it's more prevalent in certain communities rather than listing their ethnicity as a cause.

So basically, because a person come from a certain ethnic community, they're likely to be involved in these specific crimes, regardless of who they actually are as a person.

I struggle to see how that's effectively any different than saying "He's black, so he's probably going to shank somebody." As such, I struggle to see how that's not kinda racist.

It's not as vague, which was the point of my argument.

It's still very vague, potentially opens up a group of people not even in the same postal code to be potential victims of persecution, and potentially opens up doors for unnecessary persecution for individuals who haven't committed any crimes, for no other reason than for what they look like. As an example:

Spoiler: Very NSFW language, N-word useage

While this particular clip is from a movie, it is based on the treatment that Black people have faced in this country for decades just because of what they look like. Looking into the history that the UK has in regards to race & crime, I'm noticing quite a few similarities between the UK and the US, including the use of stop-and-frisk, which (surprise, surprise) targeted Black males much more than other groups, yet showed that they were no more likely to be arrested than white people. I don't know the after effects of the policy in the UK, but here it (amnogs many other "targeted" masures) built up some very extreme tension between minorities and the police/government, tension that doesn't look like it'll go away anytime soon.

You've got your head buried so deeply in your "statistics" that you're completely overlooking the social aspect as well, and the repercussions that your (racist) targeted approach can/would certainly cause.

They are people problems, but it would be ludicrous to not target things according to demographics.

Can you imagine if we had a non targeted approach that equally focused on young black females as it did middle class white men when trying to confront white collar crime?

Implying that young, black females do not have the same potential to commit white-collar crimes, because they're young, black females.

Not only is that both racist and sexist, you'd actually be making it much easier for young black females to commit and get away with such crimes because they're not being looked at with as much scrutiny.

Come on, man

Actually talk to people and/or look outside of your bubble, man. I feel like that you have to have a very narrow world view if you're advocating for measures that have consistently failed over history and end up causing problems for all parties regardless of involvement.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Would you rather the headline have read "Home Office report finds no evidence to suggest grooming gangs are a 'Muslim Problem'

Note to Dr Ella: Don't make up things that aren't there.

 

[UKMikey]

I don't know the after effects of the policy in the UK

I think you can guess....

https://fullfact.org/crime/does-stop-search-work/

Whether or not stop and search is effective either as a deterrent or investigatory power, this needs to be considered alongside its possible negative effects.

The College of Policing says: “There are substantial risks associated with stop and search being used incorrectly or inappropriately.”

“Disproportionate use of stop and search against particular social groups—most notably black and minority ethnic groups and young people—may increase their perception that they are being targeted unfairly.

Black people are nearly ten times as likely to be stopped and searched as white people. Three in every 1,000 white people were stopped and searched in 2017/18, compared to 29 in every 1,000 black people.

The College of Policing continues: “Perceptions of the police making unfair decisions and being disrespectful are linked with lower levels of police legitimacy.

“This in turn reduces the public’s willingness to not break the law and cooperate with the police, eg, by not reporting crime, suspicious activity or providing information.

“This is likely to make the police’s job harder in the long run.”

Polling by Yougov on behalf of the Criminal Justice Alliance in 2017 found a significant proportion (36%) of young BAME people have less trust in the police because of what they know about stop and search.

---

Note to Dr Ella: Don't make up things that aren't there.

That doesn't even answer my question.

Does this suggest that grooming gangs are a "Muslim problem" or not?

Yes or no? I'm struggling to see how this headline is so wrong and misleading.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I think you can guess....

See my analysis of the studies. (Sorry @NotThePrez I will address your post later)

That doesn't even answer my question.

What you said is what the headline should have been.

Yes or no? I'm struggling to see how this headline is so wrong and misleading.

Correct answer:

We don't know.

Not that it definively isn't. I can give a medical analogy but I'm not sure if people are sick of them.

 

[UKMikey]

See my analysis of the studies.

I think you only analysed one of the studies. Not that that has anything to do with the passage I wquoted on how the policy has been received.

Correct answer:

We don't know.

Not that it definively isn't.

So you're saying it's still a toss-up as to whether CSE is a specifically Muslim problem despite the findings of the report? Because that's what the article was arguing against.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm suggesting that, for the most part, people who have convinced themselves of the boogeyman have done so because, at one point or another, they did or said something bigoted, and didn't like the consequences. So they shifted the blame to overly-sensitive "politically correct" types.

This is the part I'm not buying. You're saying they likely were, or still are bigots but when the chance comes to expose abuse that would validate their opinions to a wider audience they shy away because of the potential fallout?

That's pretty nonsensical to me.

Can you imagine Tommy Robinson shutting up about grooming gangs because of political correctness? No, he does the opposite and doesn't stop yapping about them and has laughably been made a "grooming gang adviser" for UKIP.

Then management is also afraid of the same boogeyman? That still doesn't prove that "political correctness" is anything more than something these people impose on themselves.

The bolded was saying it wasn't ever institutional, when in fact the Jay report proved in that instance it was. Unless you're talking about a wider institution??

Upbringing and environment play a major role in how a person acts, that I do agree with. However, that doesn't mean that one's experience is set in stone just because of their ethnicity or the situation that people of the same ethnicity find themselves in (well, it can, but that would be extremely racist).

Correlation is not causation, etc.

It's not set in stone. It makes certain things more or less likely, but it's not the ethnicity itself that is causing that (at least I don't think it is).

So basically, because a person come from a certain ethnic community, they're likely to be involved in these specific crimes, regardless of who they actually are as a person.

I struggle to see how that's effectively any different than saying "He's black, so he's probably going to shank somebody." As such, I struggle to see how that's not kinda racist.

They're more likely to be exposed to or influenced by certain factors that will lead them to criminality.

It's still very vague, potentially opens up a group of people not even in the same postal code to be potential victims of persecution, and potentially opens up doors for unnecessary persecution for individuals who haven't committed any crimes, for no other reason than for what they look like. As an example:

Spoiler: Very NSFW language, N-word useage

While this particular clip is from a movie, it is based on the treatment that Black people have faced in this country for decades just because of what they look like. Looking into the history that the UK has in regards to race & crime, I'm noticing quite a few similarities between the UK and the US, including the use of stop-and-frisk, which (surprise, surprise) targeted Black males much more than other groups, yet showed that they were no more likely to be arrested than white people. I don't know the after effects of the policy in the UK, but here it (amnogs many other "targeted" masures) built up some very extreme tension between minorities and the police/government, tension that doesn't look like it'll go away anytime soon.

You've got your head buried so deeply in your "statistics" that you're completely overlooking the social aspect as well, and the repercussions that your (racist) targeted approach can/would certainly cause.

I see the social impact. Living not far from @UKMikey I've been pulled over while driving and stopped and searched far more times than my white friends, but I always saw it as something to put up with for the greater good. Looking into the studies more deeply, I'm not sure how much I believe that anymore.

Implying that young, black females do not have the same potential to commit white-collar crimes, because they're young, black females.

Not only is that both racist and sexist, you'd actually be making it much easier for young black females to commit and get away with such crimes because they're not being looked at with as much scrutiny.

They have the same potential, but not the same likelihood.

Actually talk to people and/or look outside of your bubble, man. I feel like that you have to have a very narrow world view if you're advocating for measures that have consistently failed over history and end up causing problems for all parties regardless of involvement.

I've been doing that for pages in this thread (and others).

They should devote equal resources to both wherever they may occur. What does this have to do with ethnicity?

I think you misunderstood me here.

So you're saying it's still a toss-up as to whether CSE is a specifically Muslim problem despite the findings of the report? Because that's what the article was arguing against.

It's still unknown if it is a Muslim problem. Same as we don't know if it's a white problem - the evidence is equivocal.

Dr Ella's statement that it most definitely is not a Muslim problem is both wrong and misleading. You may even call it the result of political correctness.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm suggesting that, for the most part, people who have convinced themselves of the boogeyman have done so because, at one point or another, they did or said something bigoted, and didn't like the consequences. So they shifted the blame to overly-sensitive "politically correct" types.

This is the part I'm not buying. You're saying they likely were, or still are bigots but when the chance comes to expose abuse that would validate their opinions to a wider audience they shy away because of the potential fallout?
That's pretty nonsensical to me.

This sounds like nonsense to me too but not on @huskeR32's side. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he's saying that bigots are shying away from those cases where the facts appear to support their general political viewpoint.

I think it's more that, in the majority of cases where they rail against cancel culture and censorship they're refusing to deal with the consequences of, and reactions to, the divisive comments they make and instead want to blame liberal society or Big Tech or the media or the left in general because their political centre is so far to the right they don't realise that they are themselves a minority.

I guess it depends upon whether one generally sees the politically incorrect as the arbiters of inconvenient truths, or paranoid ranters who want to marginalise particular demographics or push particular ideologies and will grasp at anything that provides grist to that mill. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't make it an accurate way to tell the time.

This still doesn't answer his question as to why they're "the opposite of bigots" if they sign up to these echo chambers but stay quiet, by the way.

So you're saying it's still a toss-up as to whether CSE is a specifically Muslim problem despite the findings of the report? Because that's what the article was arguing against.

It's still unknown if it is a Muslim problem. Same as we don't know if it's a white problem - the evidence is equivocal.

Dr Ella's statement that it most definitely is not a Muslim problem is both wrong and misleading. You may even call it the result of political correctness

So yes, in other words. You talk about potential vs likelihood upthread and yet seem to be completely throwing it out here just to catch Cockbain out on a technicality while ignoring the thrust of her article that blaming the majority of CSE on the Muslim community is wrong if the report is to be believed, unless you disagree with that too.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So yes, in other words. You talk about potential vs likelihood upthread and yet seem to be completely throwing it out here just to catch Cockbain out on a technicality while ignoring the thrust of her article that blaming the majority of CSE on the Muslim community is wrong if the report is to be believed, unless you disagree with that too.

OK, it's clear you're not getting it.

Suppose I say "white bread has a higher propensity for becoming more mouldy more quickly than all other breads" and this causes controversy and a report is published to investigate the claim. This report finds the evidence is too ambiguous to draw a conclusion on the mouldiness potential of any bread - white, brown, multigrain etc.

Is it then fair to say this propensity to become mouldy is most definitely not a white bread problem?

Spoiler

The correct answer is to say "no, we don't know"

Honestly you should have a high degree of skepticism for anything that is written under that misleading headline.

 

[Scaff]

I've stated several times that it is the factors apart from ethnicity that cause over-representation.

No, you agree that it is when challenged, your starting point has always been race.

Yes....and no evidence exists that there isn't.

Same with white people.
Same with Japanese people.
Same with xyz

What you can't say is: evidence exists that means it is not a Muslim problem, which was the headline. Point me to where in the report this is stated. In fact, here's a little exercise for you. Go to the report and Control+F "Muslim" or "Islam". Go all out and Control+F "Christian" or "Hindu".

Look at the results.

Then say if it's appropriate to say it isn't a Muslim/Christian/Hindu problem.

You honestly don’t see why such a point needs to be made?

Maybe it’s because the right-wing press and mouthpieces have, for years, pinned it incorrectly on Muslims. Maybe it’s because people such as you have them uncriticaly parroted those claims, despite a lack of evidence.

Was the same avalanche of bull spread across the media about white people, or Japanese people or Hindus? No.

 

[HenrySwanson]

No, you agree that it is when challenged, your starting point has always been race.

You honestly don’t see why such a point needs to be made?

Maybe it’s because the right-wing press and mouthpieces have, for years, pinned it incorrectly on Muslims. Maybe it’s because people such as you have them uncriticaly parroted those claims, despite a lack of evidence.

Was the same avalanche of bull spread across the media about white people, or Japanese people or Hindus? No.

The point can only be made if the data supports it! This isn't how science works!!

Show me the proof!

 

[Scaff]

The point can only be made if the data supports it! This isn't how science works!!

Show me the proof!

Oh the deep, deep irony.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Oh the deep, deep irony.

In other words - there is none.

Thanks.

This sounds like nonsense to me too but not on @huskeR32's side. I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he's saying that bigots are shying away from those cases where the facts appear to support their general political viewpoint.

I think it's more that, in the majority of cases where they rail against cancel culture and censorship they're refusing to deal with the consequences of, and reactions to, the divisive comments they make and instead want to blame liberal society or Big Tech or the media or the left in general because their political centre is so far to the right they don't realise that they are themselves a minority.

I guess it depends upon whether one generally sees the politically incorrect as the arbiters of inconvenient truths or paranoid ranters who want to marginalise particular demographics or push particular ideologies and will grasp at anything that provides grist to that mill. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't make it an accurate way to tell the time.

This still doesn't answer his question as to why they're "the opposite of bigots" if they sign up to these echo chambers but stay quiet, by the way.

I think a good study to reference when explaining what I mean would be this one looking at implicit bias and rates of treatment for a "heart attack" in a simulated scenario

If you look at figure 3, you can see that the more egalitarian responses came from those with a relatively high IAT score (measuring implicit bias), and that anti-white results were found in lower scores and anti-black in higher ones. What I'm proposing is that those who felt constrained by the result of upsetting community relations would have scored low on the IAT, and were acting in a misguided sense of "protecting" the ethnic minority community.

 

[UKMikey]

OK, it's clear you're not getting it.

Suppose I say "white bread has a higher propensity for becoming more mouldy more quickly than all other breads" and this causes controversy and a report is published to investigate the claim. This report finds the evidence is too ambiguous to draw a conclusion on the mouldiness potential of any bread - white, brown, multigrain etc.

Is it then fair to say this propensity to become mouldy is most definitely not a white bread problem?

It's fair to say that the whiteness of the bread isn't the cause of its propensity to become mouldy. Especially if other people are putting about the idea that that is the cause. That'd make it a mouldy bread problem, not a white bread problem.

I think it's you that's not "getting it".

Spoiler

The correct answer is to say "no, we don't know"

Honestly you should have a high degree of skepticism for anything that is written under that misleading headline.

Honestly, you might as well be arguing with yourself as you seem determined to provide me with the answers you want to hear.

 

[Scaff]

In other words - there is none.

Thanks.

You have literally spent years here promoting lies in an attempt to target groups in both racial and religious terms, and now someone uses a report to correct one of those myths you suddenly give a toss about the scientific method!

Where was that when you were claiming black people were genetically inferior in intelligence, where was that when you were claiming Muslims had a predilection to child abuse?

Now you may (I hope) have turned a corner in that regard, that doesn’t however mean the damage done by attitudes such as those doesn’t need to be undone.

 

[UKMikey]

Where was that when you were claiming black people were genetically inferior in intelligence, where was that when you were claiming Muslims had a predilection to child abuse?

He still seems to think it's a Muslim problem (or "not not" a Muslim problem) despite the vast majority of Muslims not being involved in child abuse.

 

[HenrySwanson]

But then, logically, you have to treat her arguments with the same skepticism you approach mine with....

You can't give her a pass because it fits your world view.