Mass Attacks on Women in Germany

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

Check the racist on white bread dancing with glee, a couple of asylum seekers are scumbags so they all must be. I think he just creamed his sheet.

[TheContrarian]

Check the racist on white bread dancing with glee, a couple of asylum seekers are scumbags so they all must be. I think he just creamed his sheet.

Step 1: Make a bullshit assertion
Step 2: Cry racism when your assertion is refuted

I wish I had your skills when it came to social justice XD

[TheContrarian]

Check the racist on white bread dancing with glee, a couple of asylum seekers are scumbags so they all must be. I think he just creamed his sheet.

Well, if I have a bowl with a thousand M&Ms in it and I tell you 34 of them are poisoned...do you take a handful when I offer?

#shrodingersprogressive

[Askold]

Check the racist on white bread dancing with glee, a couple of asylum seekers are scumbags so they all must be. I think he just creamed his sheet.

Well, if I have a bowl with a thousand M&Ms in it and I tell you 34 of them are poisoned...do you take a handful when I offer?

#shrodingersprogressive

Since you are parroting racist memes I'll parrot some memes as well:

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2014/07/05/poisonous-mms-the-irrational-monstrosity-of-bigotry/

There are many reasons why the poisonous M&Ms analogy does not work. Here is a short survey of some of the more egregious flaws:

Little to no specificity: because the argument has essentially no specificity, we can revert the argument back to the group making it. If white supremacists use it to support their indefensible stereotype of African-Americans as criminals, we can apply it back to white supremacists. If conservatives make the argument against liberals, the argument can be sent back with the corresponding stereotype of conservatives. Here is how it would look when it is reverted back against white supremacists: “You say that I am overgeneralizing about white supremacists being criminals? Imagine a bowl of M&Ms. 10% of them are poisoned. Go ahead, eat a handful of them. After all, they are not all poisonous!” No white supremacist would accept that argument as reasonable, which means they cannot reasonably deploy it against ethnic minorities either.

Base rate neglect: a rational risk analysis must take base rates into account, not just the consequences. Even if the consequences of an event is large and negative, the probability of the event might be low. The “poisonous M&Ms analogy” does state a non-empirical base rate (10%), but it never figures in the risk evaluation because of the way the analogy is constructed. It tries to make the case that you should not eat M&Ms even if the base rate of getting a poisonous one is small. In fact, the analogy does not just neglect base rates, it ignores its relevance completely.

Assumes that “risk-free” is possible: the analogy also tries to exploit the human tendency to think that it is possible for an event to be risk-free. After all, the moral of the analogy is that even if there is a small risk of getting poisoned, it is reasonable to not take one. You only want to eat M&Ms if there is virtually no risk of getting poisoned, right? Most people would probably not eat one of the M&Ms even if there was a 1% or a 0.1% chance of being poisoned. In reality, any event such as walking across the street, traveling in a car or drinking a glass of water is not risk-free. However, proponents of this analogy would never argue that you should not drink water because of a small risk of choking.

Not poisonous to you: even if you happen to come across an individual from group X that fits with the stereotype does not mean that you are in danger. For instance, most crimes are committed by a small number of criminals and so most criminals commit very few crimes. Thus, even if the person of group X you come across happens to be a criminal, it does not automatically mean that you are in any particular danger. However, in the analogy, the poisonous M&Ms are obviously poisonous to humans in general.

Not a random sample: base rates apply to a random sample. Your friends, colleagues, dates or people you walk past in the night do not constitute a random sample from the underlying population. So even if we accept a given base rate (such as 10% in the analogy) does not mean that a given person of group X has a 10% probability of being a criminal. However, the analogy want us to believe that a given M&M has a 10% risk of being poisonous. In reality, a bowl of M&Ms usually come from the same bag or batch, so even that does not qualify as a random sample. So the argument essentially tries to compare two non-random samples and say the two situations are analogous.

Predictors exists: it is commonly believed that you cannot tell criminals apart from non-criminals. However, this is not true as there exists several predictors of criminal behavior: childhood maltreatment, failing school, poor moral reasoning and empathy, excessive alcohol and drug use, certain personality traits such as impulsivity and insensitivity as well as hanging out with criminals and extreme commitment to traditional masculinity (Bernard, Snipes and Gerould, 2010, p. 353). However, the analogy assumes that all M&Ms look the same whether or not they are poisonous or not. If there was a way to distinguish the two, it would not matter that a certain proportion are toxic as you could just not pick them.

Conclusions

The Poisonous M&Ms analogy is an irrational monstrosity as it can be deployed in an effort to dismiss any criticisms of flawed stereotypes. However, it has numerous flaws: it can be used against any group without specificity, it ignores base rates, it assumes that risk-free existence is possible, it fails to grasp the important of a random sample and promotes several false claims about criminology. In the end, the poisonous M&Ms analogy is just a dishonest tactic to whitewashing bigotry.

[TheContrarian]

That's odd, the "Poisonous M&Ms analogy" is one I most frequently hear parroted by feminists as a rationale for treating all men as potential rapists.

It's just fun to contrast this when the people actually committing the rape come from a group progressive types are ideologically bound to protect.

#schrodingersrapist !!!!one!

So yeah you can decry it as racist, but you have to take all the fembots making drivel like this:

(click to show/hide)

and castigate them for it too.

[Sigmaleph]

Yes, sometimes feminists say dumb things about men. This is not news.

[TheContrarian]

Yes, sometimes feminists say dumb things about men. This is not news.

And you don't find it interesting that the same people who spend ages blogging and derping on about rape culture magically evaporate when it comes to light that a wave of mass immigration has caused a noticeable spike in the numbers of rapes being reported?

Commitment to the cause is racist.

[Sigmaleph]

I do find it interesting, yeah (to the extent that it's true, which is not universal). I think you draw certain specific conclusions from it beyond finding it interesting, though.

[Askold]

I haven't seen anyone defending the rapists. It's just that the people who have talked about the dangers of rape and supported rape victims are enraged that the racists are only now talking about Köln despite similar rate of attacks happening there before. Some people are just using this particular incident to blame the refugees.

For example, in Finland a female reporter talked about few guys who tried to take underskirt pictures of her while she was hosting some show and the same folks who talk about how "mocha cocks" and "bearded babies" are forcefully invading Finland and raping "their" women but since the offenders in this instance were Finns they are instead blaming the woman.

Just because she is a former porn star they claim that she should have been "proud" that men are still interested in seen her pussy and that she has no right to deny them that. (Honestly, there has been SO much slut shaming over this incident... Some people apparently think that just because a woman has previously had sex [because she liked her partner or got paid to do it on film] she no longer has the right to deny other men from seeing her nude or more...)

So do women have the rights over their own body or not? Is sexual harassment only bad when certain people do it? Contrarian claims that his bogeymen are defending the assaulters in this occasion because of their ethnicity, but has anyone actually done that?

[Ultimate Paragon]

I wouldn't say "defending," but there have been some denials.

For example:

[pyro]

Is nothing real?!

[RavynousHunter]

Yes, sometimes feminists say dumb things about men. This is not news.

And you don't find it interesting that the same people who spend ages blogging and derping on about rape culture magically evaporate when it comes to light that a wave of mass immigration has caused a noticeable spike in the numbers of rapes being reported?

Commitment to the cause is racist.

Do they teach math where you come from?  Increase the size of a population and the number of any incident increases, even when the odds are the same.

[Stormwarden]

Any nation that would turn away refugees out of fear of Daesh isn't fit to call itself a nation. Any American who would do the same is unfit to call themselves an American.

Didn't know you were such a little bitch, Contrarian.

[mellenORL]

He's a little Pommy, not an American. And, no, he don't rep UK worth a shit, unless you're an Anglophilic Torry Toadie.

[Askold]

Has the amount of rapes increased significantly?

The statistics in Sweden went up when they revamped their laws and all sorts of sexual harassment is now sentenced as "rape." ...Which is not to say that sexual harassment would be ok, but since their laws use the same title for all of it it means that stats look like it has become the rape capital of Europe when in reality it simply is not. (Also, if a wife goes to police and says that her husband has raped her then every single instance of it happening will be considered a separate rape which has made the stats go up significantly when marital rapes began to get reported.)

So it's not that there are a lot of rapes in Sweden, they are simply more likely to report rapes AND consider harassment and assaults that in other countries would be recorded under different laws and different names.