Trump Jr's skittles analogy causes a social media stir.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37416457

I mean come on(!!)...

It's a fair point. I honestly think people are more triggered by the person who posted it, not the post itself.

(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

renphobia

i like how this is the analogy he applies to syrian refugees (including children) but not guns? lmao

Reply 2

Betelgeuse-

Its an accurate analogy and as the poster above points out, equally applies to guns

Reply 3

Trinculo

Original post by renphobia

i like how this is the analogy he applies to syrian refugees (including children) but not guns? lmao

There's no constitutional right to refugees.

Reply 4

World_Federalism

Good, because his analogy is entirely wrong.

The ratios are wrong, a more accurate interpretation would be "I have a bowl of 30 skittles, and 0.001 of them will kill you".
The skittles killing the eater is incomparable to a handful of migrants killing some American citizens - it implies that America dies because of a few migrants, it doesn't - 9/11 showed that 2,996 people can die and America still lives on.

And this is completely ignoring the fact that refugees/immigrants as a result of the migrant crisis have killed ZERO American citizens. The San Bernardino shooting was done by American citizens, and the recent bombing in NYC was done by people who had immigrated decades before. Omar Mateen was also born in the USA. Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric does not account for home-grown extremists.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 5

MildredMalone

I'm sure several European countries wish they'd eaten fewer Skittles.

Reply 6

anarchism101

Original post by Trinculo

There's no constitutional right to refugees.

There are international legal refugee rights to asylum and a resolution of their situation though.

The problem with the analogy is obvious - refugees are people with rights, not skittles. There's no question of whether we have a moral or legal obligation to eat skittles.

Reply 7

Trinculo

Original post by anarchism101

This was in comparison to firearms, not the original skittles thing.

Reply 8

math42

I saw this on buzzfeed and found the indignation rather amusing when its followers and writers are the sorts of people who championed this very similar message:

Anyhow, the analogy is obviously flawed and simplistic, whatever it is used for. The problem is that it targets the individual, when it is the country that is bringing the refugees in. It makes something directly personal when it simply isn't, implying a more dangerous situation for people on an individual level than that which actually exists.

Reply 9

Betelgeuse-

Original post by World_Federalism

Sure the ratios are wrong thats true.. its more like dozens in a day produced in a skittle factory. Them skittles would be recalled and everybody told to throw them away. I dont think many people actually think like 1 in 5 are Jihadi John (Though they my beleive 1 in 5 sympathise with Jihadi John / ISIS)

People dont care about America surviving when their loved ones brains are splattered on the tarmac or club wall because they were gay, or were not muslim or were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The San Bernadino terrorists, one was Born in Pakistan, the other a second generation Pakistani immigrant. American citizens on paper only.

Thats where the skittle analogy differs - Non poisoned skittles have higher risk of spawning poisoned skittles and the last difference in the analogy is you cannot just shut down the factory or recall all skittles... because that would mean booting out Millions of American citizens (Muslims) which is simply not possible or legal

Where do you think these homegrown terrorists are coming from?? 99% of them are second and third generation immigrants, the other 1% are actual Western citizens radicalised by the immigrants or 2nd/3rd generation immigrants

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 10

anarchism101

Original post by Foo.mp3

As the PM said at the UN, they must seek refuge at the first safe country, as per UN asylum protocols. End of discussion

There's no rule saying refugees have to do this. There's a general protocol that *countries* don't have to accept asylum seekers that have already passed through a country of asylum, but this isn't the same as a requirement on the asylum seekers themselves.

More importantly, however, this rule is intended only to operate in 'normal' circumstances where the flow of refugees is relatively low and not a huge strain on 'first asylum' countries. While not providing a specific alternative, the 1951 Refugee Convention does say that if a refugee crisis is creating "unduly heavy burdens on certain countries", the wider international community is obliged to help out.

Reply 11

alexschmalex

It's a small minded oversimplification of the refugee situation. The fact that an adult (and with the type of education his money was able to pay for) would be this basic in thought is pretty sad imo. America had problems way before refugees started entering (even though it was basically founded by refugees) and it will have them long after the refugees stop coming. I think it'd be a better idea to fix those issues first than focusing on a vastly harmless group of people.

Reply 12

anarchism101

Original post by Mathemagicien

You can't justify all actions with legal "obligations"; mindlessly following rules is something I am sure you'd criticise the Germans and Soviets for in WWII.

You do realise the Nazis convicted at Nuremberg and other trials were convicted for violating international law, right? "Just following orders" wasn't itself a crime, merely an insufficient defence.

Laws are there to protect us, and must be applied with common sense; they do not exist solely for the purpose of being followed, word for word in every situation that arises, when those laws were not written to cover all possible situations that could occur decades after those laws were written.

If laws are out of date, we can write new laws to supersede them, or clarify interpretations of existing laws to fit with the times. Do you have any particular reason to hold that current international refugee law is outdated or inapplicable here?

I fail to see.how the general legal principle that refugees have rights under international law constitutes "word for word" following.

Reply 13

limetang

Original post by 1 8 13 20 42

I saw this on buzzfeed and found the indignation rather amusing when its followers and writers are the sorts of people who championed this very similar message:

I was just going to post this same thing. This idea, both from feminists and from Trump Jr is wrong. Fundamentally because as you say it essentially says that because you belong to a group that has x number of dangerous people in it, you can't be trusted. The problem of course with that is that it a) doesn't treat individuals as individuals and b) it's a reasoning that can be used to discriminate against any one person.

Now, this doesn't mean that we can't ask questions of how best to deal with differing cultures, ideologies etc. coming into a country. So there is a question to be asked of: Well IF Syrian refugees are shown to be committing disproportionately more crime etc. how do we deal with the societal impact of that *vs us actually wanting to help those who are in need. As we've seen it doesn't look like the answer is to swing open the doors and let anybody who wants to come come, as has essentially happened in germany, but it also doesn't look like it's a particularly good course of action to essentially ignore the needs of Syrian refugees either.

But there's a wonderful sort of clarity here when people think this is a perfectly acceptable argument for one group, but not for another. Demonstrating what we've known for a while to be true. For the feminists who shared this it's quite clear that what's going on is simply a hatred of men and the willingness to use an argument they find abhorrent in other circumstances to justify it (and regrettably vice versa with those who are okay with Trump Jr's argument).