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

Well now that you know, remove it immediately or I'll report you for racism, islamophobia etc.

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.

Pepe is a Nazi white supremacist far-right meme

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

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).

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.

nah m8, your wrong

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog

Its not really a fair point, but the fact you think it is says more about you. Its a typicla disingenuous simplification of what is a complicated situation.

While the numbers are off, it points out that just because #notallmuslims, it doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't be concerned. If you were hiring for a teacher position, and were told that one of them was a paedophile, you would want to ensure you don't hire them (I would assume).

In the case of refugees, knowing that some are either potential or actual terrorists, you would (I would assume) want to ensure that they are not the ones that enter the country. This doesn't mean disregarding all of them, but establishing the correct checks and balances to ensure you know who you are letting into the country. Rather than this twisted logic of "not all refugees are terrorists, therefore none of them are.".

Fairplay, tbh. Point we've been making for some time: quite apart from the inherent incompatibility of hard Islamic ethno-cultures with our soft, Western societies, we simply cannot negate the risk of bad apples making it into the mix, even if we apply vast resources (we don't have) to vetting these poor souls. As the PM said at the UN, they must seek refuge at the first safe country, as per UN asylum protocols. End of discussion

Gun owners*

Call him out for being a tosser, which he is, or point out that he is a hypocrite, which he may be, but this analogy is pretty much 100% my thinking. I really don't see how it's difficult to understand. It you had the means to shelter 10 homeless people, but you knew that one of them would either try to rape you or bomb you, would you do it?

Also, another 6 of them will tell you they want better food, hiss at your wife, and not thank you for anything.

I'm pro-temperance cyclist; you're asking the wrong cat

Would you have preferred smarties?

"If I gave you a bowl of skittles and three of them were poison would you still eat them?"
"Are the other skittles human lives?"
"What?"
"Like. Is there a good chance. A really good chance. I would be saving someone from a war zone and probably their life if I ate a skittle?"
"Well sure. But the point-"
"I would eat the skittles."
"Ok-well the point is-"
"I would GORGE myself on skittles. I would eat every single ****ing skittle I could find. I would STUFF myself with skittles. And when I found the poison skittle and died I would make sure to leave behind a legacy of children and of friends who also ate skittle after skittle until there were no skittles to be eaten. And each person who found the poison skittle we would weep for. We would weep for their loss, for their sacrifice, and for the fact that they did not let themselves succumb to fear but made the world a better place by eating skittles.
Because your REAL question...the one you hid behind a *****y little inaccurate, insensitive, dehumanizing racist little candy metaphor is, IS MY LIFE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF MEN, WOMEN, AND TERRIFIED CHILDREN...
... and what kind of monster would think the answer to that question... is yes?"

I always preferred sour skittles to be honest with you. Especially the pink ones.

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.

It's not a good analogy though because it can equally apply to driving. In fact far more people are killed in road traffic accidents than from refugees, should we ban driving?