NationStates

Vassenor wrote:

Cascadian Vinland wrote:The source of the data is the 2014 federal budget.

So why not just link to that rather than various alt-right blogs claiming it says that?

I linked an article that has references from the Social Security Administration, the US Census, the US budget and many more sources. You might want to actually look at it.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/ind ... hispanics/

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:Oh, Graffitti from a rebellious kiddo? Time to wipe off this crap. None of that shall crapflood NS with it's bogus hoaxes.
*Swish and clean movement as the graffitti is wiped off into nothing more than smudges*

I'm happy you aren't in charge of anything.

Uh, guys, can we re-rail this thread?

Xmara wrote:Uh, guys, can we re-rail this thread?

Sure. The premise of this thread is that racism is wrong. My position is that racism is moral, just, and good.

Let us continue....

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

Xmara wrote:Uh, guys, can we re-rail this thread?

Sure. The premise of this thread is that racism is wrong. My position is that racism is moral, just, and good.

Let us continue....

No it isn't. Look like someone needs to re-read the OP...

Everyone, just ignore CV's attempts to derail the thread into a topic on white-supremacism. The topic's about Jair Bolsonaro.

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:Yawn. Ran outta arguments or anything worthwhile to say?

You didn't make an argument. You pointed out that racists are racists and expected what from me, exactly?

I am a racist. I think racism is moral, just, and good. Saying, "But dat's way-cist" has zero effect on me. Pointing out that someone from Red Ice knows someone from AmRen makes sense to me as I like both entities. American Renaissance is a fantastic institution, and I love watching Red Ice TV. There was absolutely zero point to your post, so I summarized it as Communist noises.

Or maybe you are just forgetting or denying that your source has a immense bias, is from "your man", did not succeed in any legitimate factcheck session, and thus not supported by a impartial or independent oversight, or even supposed to be taken seriously. Besides, strawmanning other debate opponents or outright refactoring their comments leads nowhere and is a lazy trick for when you don' t have anything new to say other than "BUT MUH RACISM IS SO GOOD, JUST, AND MORAL THAT WE NEED GOOD OL FEUDALISM WHERE YOU USUALLY DIED BY THE TIME YOU WERE 40 AND THERE WAS NO WAY TO CURE SYPHILIS MEEEEEHHHHHHH", and serves nothing constructive. And have you ever heard about the concept of cherrypicking or selective data manipulation? Yeah, here it is:

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.[1][2] Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. This fallacy is a major problem in public debate.[3]

The term is based on the perceived process of harvesting fruit, such as cherries. The picker would be expected to only select the ripest and healthiest fruits. An observer who only sees the selected fruit may thus wrongly conclude that most, or even all, of the tree's fruit is in a likewise good condition. This can also give a false impression of the quality of the fruit (since it is only a sample and is not a representative sample).

Cherry picking has a negative connotation as the practice neglects, overlooks or directly suppresses evidence that could lead to a complete picture.

A concept sometimes confused with cherry picking is the idea of gathering only the fruit that is easy to harvest, while ignoring other fruit that is higher up on the tree and thus more difficult to obtain (see low-hanging fruit).

Cherry picking can be found in many logical fallacies. For example, the "fallacy of anecdotal evidence" tends to overlook large amounts of data in favor of that known personally, "selective use of evidence" rejects material unfavorable to an argument, while a false dichotomy picks only two options when more are available. Cherry picking can refer to the selection of data or data sets so a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality.[4]"

Definition of a strawman fallacy (For dummies):
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3]

The New California Republic wrote:

Cascadian Vinland wrote:Sure. The premise of this thread is that racism is wrong. My position is that racism is moral, just, and good.

Let us continue....

No it isn't. Look like someone needs to re-read the OP...

So are you willing to end all discussion of Bolsonaro's alleged racism then? It has been intrinsic to discussions about him.

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:No it isn't. Look like someone needs to re-read the OP...

So are you willing to end all discussion of Bolsonaro's alleged racism then? It has been intrinsic to discussions about him.

We can still discuss Bolsonaro’s racism because Bolsonaro is the subject of the thread!

This has been a discussion about racism in general, how much races contribute to society, and whether racism is good or bad. Let’s just talk about Bolsonaro’s racism now.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:Or maybe you are just forgetting or denying that your source has a immense bias

Every source has a bias. If you want to attack his facts, then attack them.

Here they are:
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/ind ... hispanics/

Xmara wrote:

Cascadian Vinland wrote:So are you willing to end all discussion of Bolsonaro's alleged racism then? It has been intrinsic to discussions about him.

We can still discuss Bolsonaro’s racism because Bolsonaro is the subject of the thread!

Then I will be here to say that racism is moral, just, and good.

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:No it isn't. Look like someone needs to re-read the OP...

So are you willing to end all discussion of Bolsonaro's alleged racism then? It has been intrinsic to discussions about him.

Re-read the OP. You claimed that the premise of the thread is that "racism is wrong". You are way wide of the mark. The subject is Bolsonaro, not the morality/immorality of racism. Let's get back on track.

The New California Republic wrote:

Cascadian Vinland wrote:So are you willing to end all discussion of Bolsonaro's alleged racism then? It has been intrinsic to discussions about him.

Re-read the OP. You claimed that the premise of the thread is that "racism is wrong". You are way wide of the mark. The subject is Bolsonaro, not the morality/immorality of racism. Let's get back on track.

So do you think racism is off-topic for this thread?

According to a Forbes article, Brazil's new Pres. has half a year to reform the pension plan. If he fails, foreign investments into Brazil could dry up. And if that happens, Brazil could be economically in trouble. If he does reform the public pension plan, chances are what happened to Ortega in Nicaragua will happen to him. Pres. Ortega of Nicaragua was cutting that nations social security payments in order to make sure it would be solvent. In the end, they he had to hit the reverse button and scrap that idea after large riots in some of the major cities. Found out from the article that the new Pres. of Brazil could split off funding of the military pensions which is currently tied to the public pension fund. This kind of smells like favoritism if he does it.

Article - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... c37737a20d

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Re-read the OP. You claimed that the premise of the thread is that "racism is wrong". You are way wide of the mark. The subject is Bolsonaro, not the morality/immorality of racism. Let's get back on track.

So do you think racism is off-topic for this thread?

Not if the discussion of racism is tied to Brazil’s new president.

Rio Cana wrote:According to a Forbes article, Brazil's new Pres. has half a year to reform the pension plan. If he fails, foreign investments into Brazil could dry up. And if that happens, Brazil could be economically in trouble. If he does reform the public pension plan, chances are what happened to Ortega in Nicaragua will happen to him. Pres. Ortega of Nicaragua was cutting that nations social security payments in order to make sure it would be solvent. In the end, they he had to hit the reverse button and scrap that idea after large riots in some of the major cities. Found out from the article that the new Pres. of Brazil could split off funding of the military pensions which is currently tied to the public pension fund. This kind of smells like favoritism if he does it. '

Article - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... c37737a20d

If I was him I would definitely want to keep the military happy.

Xmara wrote:

Cascadian Vinland wrote:So do you think racism is off-topic for this thread?

Not if the discussion of racism is tied to Brazil’s new president.

He should be racist. Racism is moral, just, and good.

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:Or maybe you are just forgetting or denying that your source has a immense bias

Every source has a bias. If you want to attack his facts, then attack them.

Here they are:
http://thealternativehypothesis.org/ind ... hispanics/

"Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is? Insanity is doing the exact... same fucking thing... over and over again expecting... shit to change..." Perfectly sums up this whole ridiculous back and forth tug of war, and a effective propaganda tactic is deployed here too created by none other than Joseph Goebbels himself:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Aren't gonna sway or persuade anyone in this thread though, so "Mission failed, we get em next time" for you, it seems.

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

The New California Republic wrote:Re-read the OP. You claimed that the premise of the thread is that "racism is wrong". You are way wide of the mark. The subject is Bolsonaro, not the morality/immorality of racism. Let's get back on track.

So do you think racism is off-topic for this thread?

In the long run it really isn't for me to decide...

---

Rio Cana wrote:According to a Forbes article, Brazil's new Pres. has half a year to reform the pension plan. If he fails, foreign investments into Brazil could dry up. And if that happens, Brazil could be economically in trouble. If he does reform the public pension plan, chances are what happened to Ortega in Nicaragua will happen to him. Pres. Ortega of Nicaragua was cutting that nations social security payments in order to make sure it would be solvent. In the end, they he had to hit the reverse button and scrap that idea after large riots in some of the major cities. Found out from the article that the new Pres. of Brazil could split off funding of the military pensions which is currently tied to the public pension fund. This kind of smells like favoritism if he does it. '

Article - https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/ ... c37737a20d

Hmm. Looks like the road over the next few months is going to be bumpy...

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:More Communist noises. Still questioning own gender. Wonders what will fit up anus.

Maybe you should just concede that I am superior to you.

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So why not just link to that rather than various alt-right blogs claiming it says that?

I linked an article that has references from the Social Security Administration, the US Census, the US budget and many more sources. You might want to actually look at it.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/ind ... hispanics/

And what is stopping you linking directly to those references then?

Cascadian Vinland wrote:

Xmara wrote:
Not if the discussion of racism is tied to Brazil’s new president.

He should be racist. Racism is moral, just, and good.

No he shouldn’t. Racism is wrong. To say that you hate someone just because they look different than you is shallow, judgmental, and goes against everything I am for.

The New California Republic wrote:

Cascadian Vinland wrote:So do you think racism is off-topic for this thread?

In the long run it really isn't for me to decide...

Well, I'm not here to beat a dead horse. I would like to see a Brazil that is more aligned with the US, opposed to Communism, and a strong supporter of nationalism.

That appears to be what Bolsonaro is sold as, but reality will be what reality is.

Cascadian Vinland wrote: More stroke-induced and incomprehensible rambling and grunting from a unfortunate soul exposed to the Black Sun that is unable to ascend into purgatory and has thus no choice but to repeat over and over what drivel the Ahnenerbe tells him to.

Or maybe you should just accept that nobody is buying your drivel and recognize your little "kampf" is lost.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia wrote:

Cascadian Vinland wrote: More stroke-induced and incomprehensible rambling and grunting from a unfortunate soul exposed to the Black Sun that is unable to ascend into purgatory and has thus no choice but to repeat over and over what drivel the Ahnenerbe tells him to.

Or maybe you should just accept that nobody is buying your drivel and recognize your little "kampf" is lost.

Nobody is whining about Bolsonaro's racism are they?