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

Announcements Posted on
TSR looking different to you this week? Find out why here. 02-12-2016
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ABeingOnEarth)
    o sh*t, i didnt even know lool.
    i thought it was just a troll frog face.
    Well now that you know, remove it immediately or I'll report you for racism, islamophobia etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    Pepe is a Nazi white supremacist far-right meme

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/...-an-explainer/
    nah m8, your wrong

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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    Well now that you know, remove it immediately or I'll report you for racism, islamophobia etc.
    your a good troll tho, 9.9/10
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Trump Jr being silly. Like father, like son.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    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.
    Dropping the bombs on Japan was also a violation of international law - as it deliberately targeted civilians - but it saved potentially millions of lives.
    If laws are out of date, we can write new laws to supersede them, or clarify interpretations of existing laws to fit with the times. Do you have any particular reason to hold that current international refugee law is outdated or inapplicable here?
    Which takes time. A lot of time.

    You have a very odd username indeed for someone of your steadfast belief in the sanctity of written law.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    this isn't the same as a requirement on the asylum seekers themselves
    Correct; the UN is not sovereign, hence it cannot impose any such requirement on individuals regarding international travel and admittance into particular sovereign jurisdictions of (member) nations

    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
    Where does it say this, can you quote a relevant passage? All I can see next to the quote given is a(n inferred) suggestion that there ought to be "international co-operation" in such circumstances
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What's funny is that the skittles analogy started out as a feminist campaign, saying something along the lines of 'imagine all these skittles are men, if a few are poisoned would you still eat them', implying all men are rapists etc..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crijjkal)
    Pepe is a Nazi white supremacist far-right meme

    https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/...-an-explainer/
    The alt right are a bunch of attention seeking idiots. They're nothing but a joke.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "Put it this way, there's a bowl of Smarties in front of you. I tell you that one of them is poisonous. Are you going to eat them all?"
    no im not going to eat them all, but I can use a little bit of science.
    I can individually vaporise each individual Smartie and separate each compound using one of many different types of chromatography techniques. I can then use a wealth of instruments to determine each type of compound, and identify what the poison is and which specific Smartie it is in. I can then check all the other Smarties to see they haven't been poisoned before eating them.

    its the same with groups of people..... i.e. you know that one person in a large group of people is a murderer. You cannot therefore say everyone in the group are murderers. Instead, what you should do is open up an investigation and thoroughly research each person and apprehend whoever is the murderer.

    its just common sense!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Feminists used to apply this to men, calling them rapists and not a single notable person on the neo-left said a word.

    So why should i care in the slightest that they're now getting triggered over it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    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).
    I agree with what you're saying but would note that my point was slightly different. Basically, the analogy makes things more personal than they are to the person in the country that refugees are coming into. The analogy is more fitting to, for instance, indiscriminately taking refugees into your own home, provided we assume that a small percentage of the refugees would be 100% certain to kill you. Much more risk on a person-by-person basis than actually exists.
    Online

    3
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    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.
    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.


    He misleadingly tries to suggest the odds are 3 out of a small bowlfull maybe 1 in 500, when in fact the article states the odds are
    • 1 in 3,408 chance of choking to death on food
    • 1 in 3,640,000,000 chance of being killed by a refugee in a terror attack

    What does your mum say. Has she diagnosed the Skittles?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ABeingOnEarth)
    nah m8, your wrong

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-the-frog
    I think the poster was more making fun of how Clinton and others are treating Pepe as some secret communication method for neo-nazis. It's another example of people failing to understand memes.

    (Original post by 999tigger)
    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.".
    Online

    3
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)


    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.".
    The numbers are everything and in this case they have been used in a particularly disingenuous and misleading way. I'd prefer people to use them in an accurate way so we cna see things in proportion. One of my specialisms is in dealing with risk and risk management, so its always interesting to see perceived risk by the public and actual risk. Is this what you are attempting to teach me?

    Whats the chance of refugees being terrorists again when compared to the chance of being in a car accident or murdered in general?

    Do you have any ebidence to back up his claims? Do you have any evidence the USA does not vet the refugees? Its boring scapegoating them when in fact the risk if any from them appears to be very small and if you are looking for terrorists, then its much more likely to be a sleeper cell already libing and working here or even more likely somoene who is a US citizen but is radicalised off the internet.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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*
    The same analogy could equally be applied to anything that can cause deaths of others and that includes driving and drinking. Should we ban those?

    I'm not saying whether taking refugees in is necessarily a good or bad thing, that's up to each of us to decide. However the analogy in this case is rubbish.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The same analogy could equally be applied to anything that can cause deaths of others and that includes driving and drinking. Should we ban those?
    I'm pro-temperance cyclist; you're asking the wrong cat :ninja:

    the analogy in this case is rubbish
    Would you have preferred smarties?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    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.
    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?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    I'm pro-temperance cyclist; you're asking the wrong cat :ninja:

    Would you have preferred smarties?
    I always preferred sour skittles to be honest with you. Especially the pink ones.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's a bit of a bizarre analogy IMO but let's revisit Trump's original proposal on the matter. He said that they ought to bar Muslim immigration from countries where these conflicts are going on until there is a good vetting system in place. So he is opposed to accepting all these people despite having absolutely no idea who they are or their affiliations. The inference being that once we can vet them, they can come in. You've got to remember that this was after ISIS straight up announced that they will send Jihadis through Europe with the refugee influx. And they have. This is precisely how the Paris attackers came back from Syria. I don't necessarily support this proposal but it's not entirely without basis or reason. Not compared to what a lot of people think he said anyway, especially - again - when he stated it is only until they have a vetting system in place.

    But since most people forgot that's actually what he said or just plain couldn't be bothered to read past the headline in the first place, it doesn't really matter if he uses odd/simplistic statements like this because all bets are off anyway.............
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 22, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.