IMMIGRATION thread

[Fisherking]

Here is an answer provided by reddit.

I do hope you are not trying to defend the actions of those perhaps half civilised creatures just because of their race!

Denying that racism classes colour and cultural lines on perpetuates it and exacerbates it.

[Beskar]

I do hope you are not trying to defend the actions of those perhaps half civilised creatures just because of their race!

My post doesn't defend anything.

[Fisherking]

My post doesn't defend anything.

Good!

Can you tell us what logical fallacy is being used in that post from reddit? It's pretty subtile.

[Fisherking]

Somewhat objective analyses but several F bombs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJCLSZm4-LA

[Montmorency]

Can you tell us what logical fallacy is being used in that post from reddit? It's pretty subtile.

What do you see?

[Beskar]

Good!
Can you tell us what logical fallacy is being used in that post from reddit? It's pretty subtile.

What do you see?

I got to agree with Monty here as I am curious as to what you are seeing in the post. But since you asked first, I will say my opinion then answer your question.

If I am honest, I have only read "cultural enrichment" as tongue-in-cheek remark as depicted by Myth above, and used in posts from Fragony, and not used in any kind of serious discourse from a proponent who actually believes in it as a term. My understanding of the term is that is used ironically by people, usually referring to people who believe in cultural discourse in a derogative manner because they dislike the other culture entirely on an almost xenophobia level for many reasons which range from legitimate concerns to misconstrued facts.

Just for definition purposes, I view cultural discourse as being where cultures interact with each other, and generally benign aspects of them are incorporated into another culture, ranging from things such a curry houses, pyjamas, blue jeans, and jazz music, or the introduction of political concepts such as freedom/liberty/democracy, welfare state, and unfortunately sometimes negative concepts (such as fascism) can enter a culture consciousness as well. Either way, a culture may adapt and change due to the discourse, but they are not dominated (that is something else).

But back more on topic, I was interested in other opinions and this was linked to a basic google search by myself on the subject where I found a proponent who ended up explaining the meaning, including the tongue-in-cheek version as well.

From what I gather from the reddit post directly, I will break it down as followed:

Even in a world filled with many cultures, not everyone has experience with them. Due to reasons, this could involve someone making a statement which is unfortunately comes across as either: ignorant or very uninformed. Proponents of the terms suggest that such people should "culturally enrich" themselves so they are better informed.
- I agree, the term 'cultural enrichment' sounds horrible, which is probably part of why I thought it was only ironically used, however, the sentiment behind it is that people who are ignorant/uninformed should go out of their way to have a better understanding of it. I think it is fair to say, this not a bad principle.

With the second paragraph, it is saying that there are those who disagree with proponents use the term tongue-in-cheek to say they are better informed than those who suggest otherwise, suggesting they should 'culturally enrich' themselves with the negatives.
- There are some legitimate concerns being raised. If you are homosexual for example, I don't think by 'cultural enriching' yourself openly in a hostile environment such as Russia or Iran for example would be a good idea.
- However, again, there are people who are ignorant of others, who make statements which are simply not true and just plain offensive to innocent people. There are many people I know for example who are Muslim and they are very tolerant of other people, they work hard, they pay their taxes, they don't stigmatise others, and they don't want to implement sharia law or impose their faith on others. Should these people get through into a grouping which doesn't reflect them or their values in the slightest? This is not rejecting the fact there are those of extreme opinions, just like there are non-muslims of extreme opinions, but it is worrying when people use these extreme examples such as being the 'norm' for people who are assigned an abstract social category they have no say in.

As for the second part of the second paragraph, this goes more indepth explaining there are time that people use extreme examples, or '5 minute clip of a violent incident' to start attributing labels to people who are not even linked with the incident as being their typical behaviour.
- I think Myth's post is a perfect example of this. He linked a video of a group of black teens harassing a woman with antisocial behaviour, then he clearly says "Cultural enrichment in France". What is really being said here? What is being heavily implied is that "Black people/Immigrants/Label-Here (whole) are antisocial". (I will go for first for sake of brevity)
- Finding an issue with this statement "Black People (whole) are antisocial" does not condone the behaviour of those individuals involved in this incident, or defending the individuals of the people involved in the clip (as you very eagerly suggested FisherKing, you jumped fast into making that a point). The behaviour in the clip is not warranted or acceptable, and if you look in the Backroom video topic, I recently made a post which explicitly stated that being from another culture/label does not make certain behaviour acceptable.
- What 'finding an issue with the statement' really means is finding an issue in that statement, the main issue being a very gross misrepresentation of black people as a whole being made on the basis of a minute clip. The clip does not represent day-to-day life, it does not represent the views of a people or their culture. It is an extreme.

The 3rd paragraph then goes into what I mentioned earlier, yes, there are problems in different cultures, yes, there are incidents and challenges that people face, but these are not the majority. Then it expands that people should get to know the issues involved in the relative societies.
- It could be as someone commented earlier, that in another country they don't see women in such revealing clothes and they don't understand the social norms of a different culture so they act inappropriately towards them, and as such, that Norwegian article explains how education helped people understand the differences so they know how to act and in what way.
- Above example is identifying the problem, and it gives a solution to the problem which addresses it.
- Saying that they should be shot out of the water and their villages bombed to the ground does not address the issue or is a solution to the problem.


Now, to the fallacies part... there isn't much of one by any measure, but you even say as such with statement "subtle", which makes me curious to what you think it is, and why you jumped very eagerly to suggest I was making a point which i wasn't approaching.
Only ones which come close as a streeeeetch from guessing what you may be looking for are the following: Strawman, Black-or-White, Composition/Division, Anecdotal, Personal Incredulity.

[Montmorency]

if an employer gets wind of a rape allegation that employee is prone to being jettisoned just to make sure future developments cant damage the company.

And how does the employer get wind?

Could you explain what your problem with that is? Four posts later I still have no goddamned idea, nor why you are still going on about it.

My point is that police crime labs test rape kits, although if they're out of money they try to find ways to bill insurance providers, not test the kit, or just not collect materials for a kit at all. A rape kit itself is just some bags, sleeves, folders, cotton swabs, documents, and glass slides. There is no meaningful "free-market" component.

Not that any of this matters, if the FBI reports include rape the statistics Don Corleone used are too broad to be of use as I said earlier. If it doesnt include rape: it is fundamentally useless in determinining the existance of rape culture.

Rape is a subset of sexual assault. Figures given regarding rape are distinct from figures given regarding sexual assault. Here is an FBI link indicating that 74K rapes were "cleared", with a 40% clearance rate for reports, giving fewer than 200K reports for that year. "Clearance" is, crudely speaking, when a police department calls it 'case closed', whether or not an arrest is involved. This is to say nothing of charges filed, court sessions held (i.e. prosecutions), and finally, convictions or sentences laid down. What is absolutely clear is that the number of defendants contesting (usually among other) charges of rape is always in the low tens-of-thousands.

The real problems in assessing the issue come at many levels:

• Individual states have their own definitions of rape. Individual police departments have their own individual policies on how to handle reports and proceedings, which they may or may not follow depending on discretion.
• A couple of years ago, the federal government began to collect rape data where cases involved anal or vaginal penetration, or oral penetration with a sexual organ; the old standard was 'unwanted carnal relations with a woman'.
• The federal government always included cases of attempted and "incomplete" rape in rape figures.
• In other words, even the number of allegations of rapes within the legal system is incalculable at any level, regardless of what definitions one uses.
• Statutory rape is not usually included in rape statistics. It is often treated under sexual assault statutes, or as a lower degree of rape if rape is divided into degrees for a given state. Typically, fewer than a thousand individuals are convicted on a statutory rape charge in any given year.
• What is "consent"?

Here is an article touching on why all attempts to provide an estimate for "false reports" have been meaningless.

In essence, rape appears with striking rarity in the justice system, largely due to the complete inability to agree on epistemological or legal or procedural standards, due to the deeper philosophical questions around consent and the nature of law.

No, it's not rape, except yes it is" Which is it?

Ask the legal philosophers. Any answer is bound to have profound consequences for the wider role of consent in law, so be careful.

To make this simpler for you, here is the general direction of feminist agendas:

1. Libertarian emphasis on "consent" and "autonomy".
2. More stringent definition rape.
3. Conformity toward reevaluated conceptions of consent and rape as well as institutional support such that reporting is encouraged.
3. Cultural change away from beliefs and attitudes that lead individuals to fall afoul of the above.

Please try to understand on what grounds you contest feminist narratives. The idea that the narratives should be contested because accusations of rape are especially likely to be damaging, or spurious, or open to public discovery, is what we call an utter moron horseshit lie.

[Greyblades]

And how does the employer get wind?

Does it matter? Whether through the machinations of a vindictive accusor, the digging of a sensationalist press or the failure in legal confidentiality the very knowledge that one is accused of rape is enough to lose a person thier job in western society.

That those accused will be ostracised or punished by most who hears of it, regardless of evidence presented, puts a great hole in the idea that our society is one "trivializes, rationalizes, or even condones rape and other acts of sexual violence" which is the core of the idea that is rape culture.

My point is that police crime labs test rape kits, although if they're out of money they try to find ways to bill insurance providers, not test the kit, or just not collect materials for a kit at all. A rape kit itself is just some bags, sleeves, folders, cotton swabs, documents, and glass slides. There is no meaningful "free-market" component.

Don said:

Until a federal spending bill 2 years criminalized the practice, hospitals used to bill the victim for their rape kits in most jurisdictions.

No mention of crime labs or the composition of the kit, only that the hospitals charge victims for thier use.

I asked if this was really proof of a rape culture or an example of privatised medicine, aka that the hospitals charged out of a desire to make money, not to hurt rape victims.

Is there a problem with his very premise of hospitals charging for rape kits? Did it never happen at all? Take it up with him. I'm pointing out that even taking it as fact it does not clearlt indicate rape culture as he presents it. Your responses have been so irrelevant to that as to nearly constitute non sequitur.

Rape is a subset of sexual assault. Figures given regarding rape are distinct from figures given regarding sexual assault[...]

[...]In essence, rape appears with striking rarity in the justice system, largely due to the complete inability to agree on epistemological or legal or procedural standards, due to the deeper philosophical questions around consent and the nature of law.

Way to waste 5 paragraphs worth of space by addressing none of my issues with Don's figures.

Or have I misread and you agree with me and just suck at expressing approval?

Ask the legal philosophers. Any answer is bound to have profound consequences for the wider role of consent in law, so be careful.

To make this simpler for you, here is the general direction of feminist agendas:

1. Libertarian emphasis on "consent" and "autonomy".
2. More stringent definition rape.
3. Conformity toward reevaluated conceptions of consent and rape as well as institutional support such that reporting is encouraged.
3. Cultural change away from beliefs and attitudes that lead individuals to fall afoul of the above.

Please try to understand on what grounds you contest feminist narratives. The idea that the narratives should be contested because accusations of rape are especially likely to be damaging, or spurious, or open to public discovery, is what we call an utter moron horseshit lie.

I take back "nearly" in nearly a complete non sequitur. I have no goddamn idea how any of that relates to my post.

Do you even read what I say any more?