5 ms·
The rhetorical and alarmist tone of your comment and the absurd sounding statistics you quote were what prompted me to check the background and bias of the reso
by goku12 9mo ago
The rhetorical and alarmist tone of your comment and the absurd sounding statistics you quote were what prompted me to check the background and bias of the resource you cited: CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) [1]. And oh boy! Isn't that an interesting and fun find!
Here is what Wikipedia says [2]:
> The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is an American anti-immigration think tank . It favors far lower immigration numbers and produces analyses to further those views. The CIS was founded by historian Otis L. Graham alongside eugenicist and white nationalist John Tanton in 1985 as a spin-off of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
> CIS has been involved in the creation of Project 2025
> Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers and news outlets, and immigration-research organizations. The organization had significant influence within the Trump administration, which cited the group's work to defend its immigration policies . The Southern Poverty Law Center designated CIS as a hate group with ties to the American nativist movement .
All emphasis are mine. So to explain the reason behind a problem, you chose a resource that caused the problem in the first place. Hilarious! That too, an organization with a known history of hatred and bigotry against the population you're 'criticizing', and of producing fake research.
At this point, that resource alone is enough to suspect that everything you argued is false - especially the statistics. There is no better way to discredit yourself than to choose such a pathologically biased source.
Media Bias/Fact Check service [3] rates them with 'low' factuality (7.0), 'extreme right wing' bias (8.9) and an overall 'low credibility' rating. Here are some quotes:
> Overall, we rate CIS a questionable source based on publishing misleading information (propaganda) regarding immigration and ties either directly or indirectly to the John Tanton Network, a known White Nationalist.
> A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news.
Whenever we look for sources to quote for some facts, we try to find well known publications or at least something that turns higher up in the web search, so that nobody will outright reject our claims for lack of credibility. How do you all instead find such obscure sources on such specific topics? Do you refer some resource list or similar?
> Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise.
This really is the cherry on the top! You might as well just say "I'm going to say some racist nonsense, but don't you dare call me a racist!" Preemption by gaslighting?
> ... tensions quickly arise.
The tensions due to hateful behavior are already so high that the minor inconveniences caused by calling it out are well worth it.
[1] https://cis.org/ https://cis.org/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies
[3] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studies-cis/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studie...
- hagbard_c 9mo ago>> Combine this with the practice of calling out any criticism of these facts as 'racist' and tensions quickly arise. > You might as well just say "I'm going to say some racist nonsense, but don't you dare call me a racist!" Preemption by gaslighting? Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Instead of hyperventilating the usual 'racist, racist, racist' mantra and shooting messengers - '...Project 2025! ...Fact Check!' - it would be enlightening to hear your reaction on the facts presented by those maligned sources. Are they wrong? Not so much according to you but according to the cited sources - the Census bureau et al, see the end notes in the article. Show where they are wrong, don't just act like so many others who join in the chorus when prompted by their leaders. If you can not show they are wrong you should really retract the above diatribe. Facts, after all, don't care about anyone's feelings?
- cherry_tree 9mo agoFamously statistics cannot be used to misrepresent reality. Incredible stuff, we should get this to Nick Shirley!
- goku12 9mo agoDumping an information capsule and demanding that it be debunked upon challenge is an age old misdirection tactic, that takes advantage of the fact that debunking statistics-based narratives take a lot of additional context. That's why the lack of credibility of the source is considered a valid reason to reject an accusation. If you didn't have a motivated agenda in this, you would have avoided this kind of singular source of such reputational dearth, instead of resorting to the tactic of inverting the burden of proof. I never expected a meaningful response to a criticism of your comment. But I find it disturbing that you slipped in such an obscure and malicious source here without disclosing their conflict of interests. That's a genuine misdirection. The real intent of my reply was to point out this problem to the other readers. Having done that, your rhetoric and weak insults are a misguided effort that I don't find any value in addressing.
- hagbard_c 9mo agoIn other words you have no information which contradicts what is stated in the article so you turn to ad-hominem tactics. For what it is worth the same statistics can be found in many other countries, Denmark [1], Sweden (where I live) [2] and The Netherlands (where I'm from) [3,4] among them. You probably won't believe these either since they go against the desired narrative but I have to ask who you think is helped by this attitude. Are the governmental organisations which created these statistics just racist as well? Here we're talking specifically about Somalis because people from that country have been in the news lately. The original tangent was that the lack of integration into host countries as well as the large dependency on social services together with the taboo on mentioning any of these issues - as you so well displayed here - are a large cause of the tensions around migration. [1] https://fm.dk/media/5cnhiydz/indvandreres-nettobidrag-til-de-offentlige-finanser-i-2019_revideret-september-2023-a.pdf https://fm.dk/media/5cnhiydz/indvandreres-nettobidrag-til-de... (page 14, the document is in Danish so you might need a translation engine) [2] https://www.konj.se/media/kpgnt5iw/specialstudie-117-invandrades-nettobidrag-till-de-offentliga-finanserna-1983-2022.pdf https://www.konj.se/media/kpgnt5iw/specialstudie-117-invandr... (page 30, document is in Swedish) [3] https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=2011D22345 https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=2011D22345 (page 29, document in Dutch) [4] https://www.regioplan.nl/wp-content/uploads/data/file/rapporten-2000-2099/2015-Somaliers-in-Nederland.pdf https://www.regioplan.nl/wp-content/uploads/data/file/rappor... (page 20, document in Dutch)