"objectively sounding" like erroneously stating that the younger demographic's population with a migrant background was above a third when it was actually 14%?

The argument is basically 'the native population is increasing at a slower rate than foreigners coming in so we're going to lose our culture and values'. Yet, he says he knows that the vast majority of immigrants do assimilate, so his own logic would confirm that the supposed cultural degradation from immigration is fiction.

A good microcosm of what I'm pointing out. He doesn't treat claims from the right with nearly the skepticism he uses on claims from the left.

You still dont understand the difference between "foreign-born" and "migration background".







You're completely misrepresenting what I was saying, plus also quite clearly not understanding some things, plus making things up.
Yes, the "majority" of immigrants do assimilate. No, not the "vast majority". Failed integration/assimilation is not as rare as you pretend it is. Furthermore, the native population is decreasing all across Western European states. If you think I ever claimed otherwise, you're fantasizing.


Again: I posted credible sources showing that 41% of the 0-5 year age cohort in Germany have a "migration background", with the term "migration background" following the official definition of the Federal Bureau of Statistics. And no, the situation in the UK is not thaaat fundamentally different when it comes to migration background, even if your Bureau of Statistics doesnt use the concept of migration background and only publishes official data on the smaller subset of foreign-born people.

Do you seriously think I'm such a gullible idiot?



1.: I refuse to stop using neutral words in good faith just because they are sometimes used as a dog-whistle by others. I'm really allergic to any attempts at policing speech.
2.: I like to look into prejudices and resentment and try to find out if these sentiments have a real basis or not.


Regarding your Karen-example: when I notice that the others are shunning Karen, I would prefer to look into it and check if Karen might be an annoying person or a bad collegue before jumping to the conclusion that the others are indeed mobbing her for no good reason. Then, but only then, will I start calling them out on their bullying and looking for ways to support Karen.



More generally speaking, to bring this off-topic discussion to a conclusion: the definition of racism, the list of stuff that is considered racist or dog-whistling or otherwise racially insensitive, has been greatly expanded in recent years. Roughly since 2012 or so. It is this more recent broadening of the category that I fundamentally disagree with and oppose. Simply put, I think that the United States was in a fairly good spot during the 2000s when it comes to racial relations and the public understanding of what does or does not constitute racism; and that the pendulum has started swinging too far in the other direction since then. And I am convinced that Trump's ascent on the political stage is a countermovement to this pendulum swing.

Which btw is a viewpoint that a lot of leftist commentators agree with iirc. So at its core, my disagreement with liberals is that they think the US is still a fundamentally and thoroughly racist society, and that virtually every instance of racial inequality is evidence for this. Hence, liberal pundits think that Trump is a reactionary figure which emerged on the heels of racist voters to stop the country from 'finally tackling the true racism in America', while I think that he is a figure which emerged as a counterbalance to political correctness and 'wokeness' running amok.

yeah right, like we haven't gone over your statistical 'great replacement / white genocide' hackery a thousand times (yes, yes... i know... you officially reject the 'replacement orchestrated by jews' part of it, you just think it's happening but the culprits are 'self-hating lefties'), like i haven't pointed out the flaws in your far right talking points just as often. if you were actually interested in a reasonably objective description and analysis of the situation, you would have done that with the sources i provided, but you keep ignoring them while regurgitating your disgusting and inaccurate fearmongering about immigrants / refugees / muslims... on a near daily basis.
you can only feign ignorance for so long. at some point it's just too obvious that you're deliberately engaging in propaganda.

you might have some people in this sub fooled, who probably don't know too much about the AfD, but i don't think that even those that want to give you the benefit of the doubt aren't aware of your stance on those topics...

I do understand it actually - it was the article you provided to as evidence to back up the claim that the UK foreign born population was '33% or even higher' that showed just 14% were.

What's more challenging for you though, which you haven't even attempted to do, is to provide a shred of evidence that the high number of kids with a migration background is ruining your country.

This post was edited by dro94 on Apr 25 2020 05:05pm

Of course this wont be a straightforward comparison, and a lot of factors will have to be taken into account.

Still: I dont see a convincing argument for why the somewhat higher amount of base cases at the moment lockdowns were implemented should make so much of a difference. Yes, Italy, Spain or New York were in a worse spot when they decided to shut down than Germany, Sweden or Florida. But we're not seeing exponential spread of the virus in places which have kept super lax rules for a long time (like Sweden, the Netherlands, or Florida in the US), nor did the much stricter lockdowns in Spain, Italy or New York reduce the spread of the virus as efficiently as the much softer lockdowns in countries with a high number of base cases like Germany or Switzerland.

Once contact tracing is no longer possible, the number of base cases with which you start the lockdowns should influence the level of the curve, but not its shape/curvature/how quickly it gets 'flattened' after the lockdown is started.
The specific lockdown measures should influence the curvature - but the countries with the strictres measures are struggling the most to flatten the curve. Now, stricter measures surely wont causally make things worse, that would be absurd. But at least at a first glance, I see little evidence for the efficacy of strict lockdowns as opposed to softer ones.

I will admit, however, that the data is indeed incomplete and murky right now, so yes, perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions too quickly.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 25 2020 05:11pm

wait what, seriously? because the reasoning behind stricter measures would be to limit the higher chance of proliferation in an area that has a higher density of infected people?!

if you want to test if a certain measure is effective or not, you'd obviously have to compare areas with similar starting conditions that applied different measures. am i somehow misreading your post? you can't possibly not understand that...

Yes, I genuinely do. You have shown time and time again that you just don't give the rhetoric from the right the same level of scrutiny you do as from the left.

The fact that it took a literal pandemic for you to start to see Trump's terrible leadership is proof enough of that.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 25 2020 07:24pm

Wait a second, that's complete nonsense. Why would the density of infected people affect the basic reproduction number of the virus? The risk of an individual to get infected will of course go up if he/she moves around in an area with a lot of infected persons. But that's irrelevant for the population at large.

Essentially, what you're saying it that ceteris paribus, the R0 of the disease (the expected number of new cases generated by one infected person) will be the higher the more cases there already are. Which is of course bogus.


I think you're confusing this with basic population density. Yes, in a crowded place like a big city, the average person will have more social contacts in his/her everyday life, so that the disease should spread more quickly in urban than in rural places. But if we compared two cities with similar population density, then the number of infected persons has no impact on the growth rate of the virus.
Say R0 = 2, and you start with 1000 cases in city A and 2000 cases in city B. After one reproduction cycle, city A would have 2000 cases and city B 4000. After another cycle, city A has 4000 cases and city B has 8000, and so on. The curves would look the same, just with a shifted timeline. The number of cases in city A would always lag behind that in city B by one cycle, just like it did at the very beginning.






Sure, to get a scientifically flawless experiment, you'd want such a setup. But in epidemiology or sociology, it's just not realistic to ever get data akin to a controlled experiment. In these fields, you will have to settle for similar cases and compare them by trying to factor out the differences in side conditions as best as possible. Which is what I was proposing.






Lol! Just for the record: my political views arent based around individual persons or personalities - they are policy- and ideology-based. Do I talk about Trump a lot? Of course. Because he, in fact, is at the center of almost every political debate and almost every news cycle. And I'm not the only one - Trump is the most talked-about person for virtually all PaRD regulars.

Btw, just because I view Trump more favorably than you does not mean that I got "duped". And just for the record: I was criticizing some of his statements and decisions throughout his entire presidency, basically whenever I really disagreed with him or thought that there was no excuse for his behavior in a specific case.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 25 2020 08:16pm