|
Cardiac posted:Edit: lol, trust V to provide. For as head-turning as the headings used to describe this motion are the actual content of it is not that radical. http://www.vansterpartiet.se/assets/A-motioner-kongress2018.pdf quote:...
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 14:29 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 17:33 |
|
By that measure, then we should also agree with M and SDs proposal, because if imcertain demographics are mote prone to commit crime then we should take actions to pre-empt and help these people.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 14:58 |
|
McCloud posted:By that measure, then we should also agree with M and SDs proposal, because if imcertain demographics are mote prone to commit crime then we should take actions to pre-empt and help these people. 'if we are doing one thing, then we should also do this completely different other thing' - McCloud, Feb 11, 2018 13:58 MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 11, 2018 |
# ? Feb 11, 2018 15:34 |
|
McCloud posted:By that measure, then we should also agree with M and SDs proposal, because if imcertain demographics are mote prone to commit crime then we should take actions to pre-empt and help these people. lol yeah, that sure sounds like what M and SD are after here.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 16:00 |
|
MiddleOne posted:'if we are doing one thing, then we should also do this completely different other thing' - McCloud, Feb 11, 2018 13:58 Well my arguement is that it's not so different, in that both can be used to help us localize vulnerable people and offer assistance and help to them Cerebral Bore posted:lol yeah, that sure sounds like what M and SD are after here. This is true, but just because they are jackasses doesn't mean that S or V can't make good use out of it.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 16:07 |
|
Leader of the Social Democrats, Mette Frederiksen, September 19, 2015: "I'm convinced that the time where you could get away with symbolic policy, proposals for refugee camps in Kenya, slamming the brakes [on asylum] and quick fixes, is a thing of the past. Kristian Thulesel-Dahl. Lars Løkke. Welcome to reality." (actual quote) Leader of the Social Democrats, Mette Frederiksen, present day: "Yes, we're now running on a platform of completely eliminating asylum applications at the border, shipping refugees to camps in Northern Africa, mandating pork in public daycare and schools, and banning exactly 23 women from wearing the niqab. Why do you ask?"
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 16:50 |
|
SplitSoul posted:Leader of the Social Democrats, Mette Frederiksen, September 19, 2015: "I'm convinced that the time where you could get away with symbolic policy, proposals for refugee camps in Kenya, slamming the brakes [on asylum] and quick fixes, is a thing of the past. Kristian Thulesel-Dahl. Lars Løkke. Welcome to reality." (actual quote)
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 17:02 |
|
McCloud posted:Well my arguement is that it's not so different, in that both can be used to help us localize vulnerable people and offer assistance and help to them There's something very different about doing a voluntary census to get a more complex image of discrimination and a wholesale combing and re-definition of crime-data to support racist beliefs and policy proposals. Try to figure it out why won't you. There's also the minor moral quibble, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg but then again who cares about that these days. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Feb 11, 2018 |
# ? Feb 11, 2018 17:07 |
|
They'll be suggesting the establishment of a neo-Freikorps later this year to celebrate 100 years of class treason.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 17:15 |
|
MiddleOne posted:There's something very different about doing a voluntary census to get a more complex image of discrimination and a wholesale combing and re-definition of crime-data to support racist beliefs and policy proposals.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 17:46 |
|
People are very eager to forget that intent does matter when gathering data.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2018 17:49 |
|
that is also true. but before we completely reject the validity of the social sciences i think it is important to consider the consequences of abandoning the search for objective truth in favor of entrusting individual voters to find their own truth in russian state propaganda
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 05:40 |
|
Objective truth in politics is dead, if it ever existed. The right/the russians has very much succeeded in making this so. Any such study would be attacked or misinterpreted by one side or another. The right have fewer scruples and are generally have their heads up their asses when it comes to stuff, which is among the reasons why this is a victory for them. Still, even with a ridiculously hypothetical "brown people actually are evil" result, the best you could hope for from a leftist politicians would be for them to simply ignore it. Disseminating truth is not what politics are about, and the left needs to be more concerned with providing a compelling ideological alternative than quibbling over statistics with people who do not give a gently caress.
thotsky fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Feb 12, 2018 |
# ? Feb 12, 2018 09:30 |
|
I personally love the "we must find out the True Cost of immigration" rhetoric of M. What does it even mean? And what shall I, as a Concerned Voter (Not Racist, I like the pizza baker!!), do with the resulting numbers? If immigration is Bad and should be restricted because it's expensive; is birth, sickness, lethargy, growing old, etc. Bad too? Death or banishment to all who do not present instant sufficient revenue to the state? With exceptions for the rich, obviously. In short:
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 10:02 |
|
The year is 2022. M launches its campaign to turn all brown people into soylent in order to sell at a profit.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 10:05 |
|
For comparison purposes 'the true cost of smoking' is a net positive for society. Because while smokers have more complications than non-smokers, they die a lot quicker from those complications, and more importantly, they live much shorter lives. Conveniently typically dying off from cancer and coronary implosion shortly after retirement age, and thusly isn't a burden on society as people who live to they are 100, and are a net negative for the last 30 years. I can't wait for all the 'start smoking, it's never too late' campaigns to start, because 'economics'. It's almost as if it's a completely retarded place to start. If we really want to bring up the economic issues, everyone who has actually studied the effect of migration on the economy have agreed that it's a net positive. You'll find few lone paid shills and racists who think otherwise though. It's basically like climate change research (except a little more fragmented when it comes to reasons/causalities why it is the case). In particular, racist assholes typically point to one, incredibly flawed and highly problematic, piece of research on how diversity is bad. Comically ignoring that the vast consensus of research on both migration and diversity shows the exactly opposite.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 10:22 |
|
i wouldnt compare economists to real scientists but i obviously trust them when they say immigration is good for a declining birth rate. doing a cost benefit analysis of rescuing starving orphan refugees seems obvious to me as a consequentialist. its also probably pretty obvious to those with nationalist morals, ie most people. its a bit more complicated than just racism
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 12:34 |
|
Talking about economic benefit I think you need to separate asylum seekers and other immigration, they're very different things. We can't really tell what the long term economic effects of the last few years massive migration wave. I have seen conflicting arguments for economic benefit and it hurting the economy. If you want to take in refugees, the humanitarian argument is better than trying to argue that its a net positive for the economy.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 12:54 |
|
Mercrom posted:doing a cost benefit analysis of rescuing starving orphan refugees seems obvious to me as a consequentialist.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 12:55 |
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:If we really want to bring up the economic issues, everyone who has actually studied the effect of migration on the economy have agreed that it's a net positive. You'll find few lone paid shills and racists who think otherwise though. It's basically like climate change research (except a little more fragmented when it comes to reasons/causalities why it is the case). In particular, racist assholes typically point to one, incredibly flawed and highly problematic, piece of research on how diversity is bad. Comically ignoring that the vast consensus of research on both migration and diversity shows the exactly opposite. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Feb 12, 2018 |
# ? Feb 12, 2018 13:33 |
|
Looks like starting in July it's 2000 kroner per class (module?) to learn Danish, just FYI. Apparently they tossed in "no more free Danish lessons" to get the folkeparti to agree to a 5 billion kroner tax cut?
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 14:13 |
|
evil_bunnY posted:What the gently caress is wrong with people.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 16:19 |
|
Fader Movitz posted:Talking about economic benefit I think you need to separate asylum seekers and other immigration, they're very different things. We can't really tell what the long term economic effects of the last few years massive migration wave. I have seen conflicting arguments for economic benefit and it hurting the economy. Every case is widely different so no matter how many times we've succesfully integrated an immigration wave in the past skeptics will always be technically correct in arguing 'you can't know this time when it's the fins/italians/balkans/iraqis/somalis/syrians won't be different'. It's the same tired iteration every time but from a strictly academic viewpoint it's not an incorrect argument. It doesn't matter how many times the assertion is incorrect because the next time it might not. Of course that's also why strict cost-benefit analysis has very little to do in most actual questions of policy of this nature. Modern economics have fooled people into believing that policy can be divided into good/bad when in reality it's more like this is likely good/this is likely bad. Current academic consensus in economics on immigration is that it's very likely good, but the actual reasons that we do it and have done it so many times are ideological.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 18:45 |
|
The solution is obviously just to get rid of all immigration laws and regulations and leave it in the divine hand of the free market.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2018 23:29 |
|
Poil posted:The solution is obviously just to get rid of all immigration laws and regulations and leave it in the divine hand of the free market. Literally Centerpartiets proposal
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 00:04 |
|
MiddleOne posted:Current academic consensus in economics on immigration is that it's very likely good, but the actual reasons that we do it and have done it so many times are ideological. Which time frame? Ie short-term is obviously a loss, 2nd generation seems like a loss (lower employment numbers than natives), 3rd generation is positive. But then we are speaking about a time frame of 30-40 years. Sanandaj elaborated on this in Massutmaning with citations.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 07:49 |
|
Oh so he used citations, that makes everything different. Pack it up scientists, this one guy released another questionable book on a topic he has published literally nothing peer-reviewed on through his entire academic career (because his specialty is still loving entrepreneurship Cardiac, if you thought we had forgotten) but oh boy this time he used citations. This is totally how academia works. I mean I'd push through his entire book, if I literally had nothing else going on in my life, but even just going through some parts of it there are some laughable displays of analysis going on (pages 13-14 really say I all). I mean just look at that those citations you wanted to bring attention to. Almost nothing from academia and or state reports when it comes to the economical side of the argument. And that makes sense because Tino's analysis is not built around any kind of theoretical framework, model or even a falsifiable hypothesis. He haphazardly uses data from SCB (mostly unemployment data) by entirely robbing it of context, both regional, historical and for the economy as a whole, cherry picking whatever fits his pre-supposed conclusion. These chapters wouldn't even pass as a bachelor thesis because they make unsourced claims sometimes 2-5 times per page. Massutmaning is not an academic critique of the current consensus in economics, it's a sloppily cobbled together consumer product to profit off the current anti-immigration sentiment. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Feb 13, 2018 |
# ? Feb 13, 2018 08:58 |
|
Massutmaning and its reception is literally one of the top reasons why rightwingers should be laughed out of the room when they talk about anything related to statistics.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 09:48 |
|
MiddleOne posted:Oh so he used citations, that makes everything different. Pack it up scientists, this one guy released another questionable book on a topic he has published literally nothing peer-reviewed on through his entire academic career (because his specialty is still loving entrepreneurship Cardiac, if you thought we had forgotten) but oh boy this time he used citations. This is totally how academia works. As always with you, there is only scapegoating the messenger and cherrypicking. I note that you picked one of the chapters without any form of academic citations as well as not having a single example where the data is wrong. But admittedly (by Tinos own words) this is not a rigorous academic work (since no one outside academia reads those) but popular science anthology. As for falsifiable hypothesisis in social sciences, lol. SvD published one criticism from 2 researchers from KTH, where their critic was based on a rather specific topic than nitpicking over the entire book. If the book was so full of faults, then there should be plenty to choose from. BTW, would you consider the infamous Sandviken report as good (especially, lol, the current situation for Sandviken)? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 10:24 |
|
Cardiac posted:As always with you, there is only scapegoating the messenger and cherrypicking. Case in point, this here epic dunderhead whose reaction to people pointing out the book's shoddiness is "how dare you call it inaccurate, don't you know that it's supposed to be inaccurate" without ever stopping even a moment for any self-reflection.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 10:27 |
|
Check out this authorative work supporting my beliefs, it is like totally science. ... Oh, I never said it was academic, also like social science can ever be science and anyway I was joking trolled much
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 10:37 |
|
It's such a weird phenomenon; how people otherwise fairly reasonable and able to demonstrate some level of reflexivity and critical thought, just completely loose all sense of perspective, and become utterly pants on head retarded, when the topic is immigration. Suddenly even the most obvious hack opinions becomes 'worth considering' and clearly ideologically driven arguments, are taken at face value. Grossly misconstrued, and completely transparently cherry-picked data and methodology, is suddenly fine, and defensible, because of ((((((reasons)))))). I guess it's just subconscious racism or something, but I really think it's weird. It's like the one topic where it consistently happens. Well, actually, I guess the gun debate in the US is similar. Revelation 2-13 fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Feb 13, 2018 |
# ? Feb 13, 2018 10:38 |
|
hey friends serious questions how do we actually as a society solve the social issues arising in the wake of migration because if your solution is "nothing is wrong" or "it'll solve itself", you're just setting yourself up to get ganked by the right wing every fourth year
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 11:48 |
|
Retarded Goatee posted:hey friends serious questions Before we continue, please be more specific as to what issues we are talking about. It seems to me that one big problem today is that people lump all kinds of issue into one universal "immigration!"-explanation regardless of actual cause.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 11:59 |
|
I guess I'm refering to the general malaise of alienation from society in the "ghetto", and all the violence and crime that comes with it. The perceived and/or real safety situation in särskilt utsatta områden and the ethnically coded re-emergence of some pretty hardcore misogyny.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 12:48 |
|
Colour blind and anonymous job applications, demanding any private contractor working for government, municipal or state has to have a minimum number of apprentices or trainees
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 13:31 |
|
Maybe, just maybe, it's time that we start trying to deal with the causes of our growing inequality on the structural level instead of the individual.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 13:34 |
|
But... But I thought there was no such thing as "society"?
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 13:38 |
|
MiddleOne posted:Maybe, just maybe, it's time that we start trying to deal with the causes of our growing inequality on the structural level instead of the individual.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 13:52 |
|
|
# ? May 9, 2024 17:33 |
|
The Swedish minister of environment argues that it should be legal to steal something if you can't afford to pay for it. As long as you're the state, of course. https://www.svd.se/ar-det-for-dyrt-att-folja-grundlagen-ministern
|
# ? Feb 13, 2018 19:02 |