←back to thread

You Are Still Crying Wolf

(slatestarcodex.com)
104 points primodemus | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
SamBam ◴[] No.12978054[source]
1. Kudos to him for putting in the "Edit" about the inaccuracies in exit-poll data, but it's a really big "Edit" and casts doubt on most of his initial premise.

2. No mention of Bannon? This article was written yesterday, and we knew Trump had chosen Bannon to be his right-hand man long before then.

3. No mention that Trump believes that an American judge of Mexican heritage can't judge him? Of the birther claims? Or of playing to white fears with completely make-believe images of "inner cities" being war zones?

4. The jiu jitsu over saying that banning "All Muslims" from entering the country isn't really racism because "most Muslims are white(ish)" is nonsense.

5. And yes, it is special pleading. The author goes out of his way to explain things in a way that is unique to Trump:

> 15. Don’t we know that Trump supports racist violence because, when some of his supporters beat up a Latino man, he just said they were “passionate”?

> When Trump was asked for comment, he tweeted “Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country”.

> I have no idea how his mind works and am frankly boggled by all of this, but calling violent protesters “passionate” just seems to be a thing of his. I think this is actually a pretty important point. Trump is a weird person.

Oh. Ok. He doesn't support beating up people. He's just "weird."

----

Edit: Also the author seems to have confused two statements of "passion." Trump's tweet about "small groups of protesters" was made just the other day. Instead, after the beating up of the Latino man, he said

"I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate, they love this country, they want this country to be great again."

Note that not only is he calling those men "passionate," he is essentially justifying their actions by bringing up their "love of country," which is particularly telling in the case of men beating up an immigrant.

replies(4): >>12978127 #>>12978225 #>>12978234 #>>12978638 #
tptacek ◴[] No.12978225[source]
How seriously are we meant to take an article on Trumpist racism that includes:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Note how totally non-racist this statement is. I’m serious. It’s anti-illegal-immigrant. But in terms of race, it’s saying Latinos (like every race) include both good and bad people, and the bad people are the ones coming over here. It suggests a picture of Mexicans as including some of the best people – but those generally aren’t the ones who are coming illegally.

It's not just that Alexander chooses as the first words following Trump's most famous racist quote "note how totally non-racist this statement is", but also the degree to which his logic insults the reader's intelligence. Mexicans "include some of the best people" (note that Trump didn't say that --- he said that their best people don't come here), just not the ones who come here illegally (note that Trump didn't say that --- he's talking about all Mexican immigrants). Alexander's own paragraph isn't even coherent on this point!

replies(4): >>12978292 #>>12978496 #>>12978518 #>>12983822 #
wongarsu ◴[] No.12978518[source]
The author reads more into Trump's words than he actually said, but I agree with the sentiment. I never thought that what you call Trump's "most famous racist quote" was racist at all.

In immigration you never get a representative set of the source nation's citizens. Sometimes you get lucky, like the US around WW2 and you get mostly the intellectuals and people who are well of. It's no secret that Syrian refugees in Europe are disproportionately physically able males. And sometimes people look back at some immigrant influx and decide to make a movie called Scarface.

Shutting any discussion of that topic down as "racist" speaks not well of America.

replies(1): >>12978749 #
1. SamBam ◴[] No.12978749[source]
> It's no secret that Syrian refugees in Europe are disproportionately physically able males.

What? I never heard that before, so took exactly on minute to Google "Syrian refugee demographics" and found that this myth originates with Ben Carson.

In fact about 49.5% of Syrian refugees are male, and only 21.8% of them are males ages 18-59.

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/09/stretching-facts-on-syrian...

replies(1): >>12979203 #
2. wongarsu ◴[] No.12979203[source]
That article just cites UNHCR data [1], which is for immigrants registered in middle east (not immigrants in Europe). That's a completely different set of refugees than those that managed to arrive in Europe.

Numbers for Europe look different. Lukily eurostat (the statistics department of the European Commission) has a great statistics tool. [2] shows that about 60% of Syrian refugees registered in Europe are male (a bit less in the last three months, more in the past). Of these males, about 50% are between 18 and 34 years old (again, it was more extreme, is becoming more normal in recent months) [3].

Compare this to the Syrian population (for example with data from the CIA world factbook), and you find that the people arriving in Europe are more likely to be male, and more likely to be young males, than the average Syrian population. It's not the gigantic trend that some people make out, but that's why I said "disproportiantely", not "exclusively". In any case it's no myth but a very real trend.

1: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

2: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMA...

3: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMA...

replies(1): >>12980901 #
3. Steel_Phoenix ◴[] No.12980901[source]
Men between the ages of 18 and 34? Otherwise referred to by the Obama administration as enemy combatants[1] I'm not sure what it says about a conflict when the people most likely to be able to defend their homes leave, while their families remain. 1: http://www.juancole.com/2012/05/how-obama-changed-definition...