SSCReader
10d ago
Because the median example is of people not doing their jobs. We're talking about tens of thousands of police officers and case workers over some 30 years. There are examples of worse things (one police officer was a relative of an offender and may have actually raped some of the girls directly), and so on.
But for the vast, vast majority of people who should have helped these girls they simply didn't.
As for why is important, well you hit the nail on the head. Right now in England there are still thousands of working class and underclass girls at risk, because unfortunately the demand for the prostitution of underage girls never goes away. If we want to protect those girls and protect them in the future we MUST understand why cops and social workers failed them. The racial part is important but gets lots of publicity, and while Asian offenders are massively over-represented (they make up about 20%) they are still not the major ethnicity grooming and raping girls throughout England. Simply on numbers most offenders are white, and my concern is that by focussing so heavily on race and not the demographics of the victims and how that impacts their vulnerability and makes the system that is supposed to protect them fail, there will be more girls having their lives destroyed.
SSCReader
11d ago
Eh, let's not go that far. We called the Netherlands Holland back in my day in the UK , so I sometimes use it even nowadays, same with the Ukraine. The Netherlands themselves only officially dropped support for using Holland in 2019.
There is no way that qualifies as being culpably ignorant. Likewise I have lost track of the number of people in the US who equate British with England (and indeed Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland). As Wikipedia itself says:
"Holland" is informally used in English and other languages, including sometimes the Dutch language itself, to mean the whole of the modern country of the Netherlands.[5] This example of pars pro toto or synecdoche is similar to the tendency to refer to the United Kingdom as "England",[9][10] and developed due to Holland's becoming the dominant province and thus having the majority of political and economic interactions with other countries.[11]
If the Dutch themselves sometimes still use Holland and only officially stopped using it with in the last 5 years, then I struggle to imagine that anyone outside of the country can be called culpably ignorant or malicious, for not keeping updated on that.
It's technically incorrect but it is entirely understandable in all of your examples. Especially for anyone over 30. And I am a Northern Irish Brit who quite often gets called either English or Irish depending. For most people outside of the UK, there just isn't any need to learn that that is technically incorrect. It has no impact on their lives at all.
SSCReader
11d ago
Right, even the drunken guy on Anderson Cooper's New Years show (which was terrible by the way), called it the Ukraine while very definitely being on their side. And back in the 90's we certainly called it the Ukraine as well. Even nowadays I'll go back and forth without (as far as I can tell) being impacted by Russian propaganda.
SSCReader
11d ago
I initially agreed with you back in the day, but I think in the end the change was for the better, if we are accepting the 40K universe is about more than just the tabletop game. If you want stories based in that universe, every single necron just being mindless is a problem. Like Tyranids, who struggle to be anything but almost a force of nature when written about in novels because there isn't a perspective in there that allows them to be protagonists in their own story.
And from the pov of the average guardsman all the basic infantry necrons are still mindless, remorseless, killing machines, it is only the higher echelons who have maintained sentience (Much like the Tomb Kings of course.)
SSCReader
11d ago
What is your point? What does a deliberate action against the people of Britain mean beyond what i have said?.
It's deliberate certainly, the people involved are making decisions. They weren't accidently not doing their jobs. They were making awful callous choices.
The people affected are definitely primarily British ( though at least 15% of the victims were British Pakistanis, and some small number were Eastern European immigrants).
I guess i'm confused as to what you actually mean beyond that. I'm not arguing this was accident. I'm explaining why they did what they did. None of that suggests people should not be held responsible.
SSCReader
12d ago
Then you're just wrong I am afraid. Just to point out, I am not endorsing these things as good, but I am telling you as someone who was there that this IS part of the explanation.
I worked closely with the police in adjacent areas in this time frame. This IS what they were like and why.
If you want to say they still should have done better, and that there should have been much better oversight, I agree!
But this is how a combination of systemic and personal biases and experience enable terrible acts. Moloch in action. Because the people doing them don't see them as evil. They see the 30th underclass drug addict they dealt with this month and their reserves of caring in the slightest are gone. They are jaded and developed emotional callousness to protect themselves. If some underage skank wants to trade drugs for sex, why bother stopping her when she'll just have another "boyfriend" or go back to this one tomorrow? Just stop whatever nonsense is going on right now the easiest way possible.
Read the case studies about 14yo girls who ran away from home to be with their older Pakistani "boyfriends", every time they were brought home, they ran back to them again even though they were abusing her, and pimping her. They reflect from an older age that they thought they were desperately in love, and would do anything to be with him. Thats what the grooming part gets you, you see.
So after you drag back the same girl 5 times, you start to wonder, is it worth it? She just goes back again. If she wants it why are you bothering wasting your time. You're already underfunded, you've got real crimes to deal with, not stupid sluts who run back everytime. If she wants to sell herself for drugs, why then why the fuck should you care? Why should anyone?
Its so easy to slide though that thinking. Hell we see it here where people call immigrants or Indian lower classes or whatever vermin or animals. Kulak talking about they aren't even people really. Its so insidious once you start thinking that way. They're scum, they don't matter, in fact you'd be better off, no, they'd be better off if they didn't exist. And most people here are not even dealing with those underclasses day in day out!
Let me put it this way 2rafa lives in England now and has for a number of years. I not only lived in England for decades I lived in the Midlands through the 80s and 90s, and worked for the local government, alongside with the police, not very far from Rochdale, Telford, and Rotherham. if we are both telling you, who doesn't live in England, that this is part of why this happened, then shouldn't that be some level of evidence?
The Jay report also makes the exact same points. How the police referred to these girls as undesirables and up until 2007 seemed to be not really bothered if girls were underage as long as they claimed it to be consensual. Have a look at page 75 where it gives a list of excuses the police would give for not taking action including, how the victim dressed, that they used alcohol or drugs and were therefore sexually available, that it was a relationship therefore a willing partner, that children can consent. Indeed she covers examples where detectives AT child safeguarding meetings argued that the 12yo girl did and could consent. You can read the case studies starting on page 38 for more examples.
Notably it was Kier Starmer who listed all these excuses that had actually historically been used in order to debunk them as part of his revamp of tackling CSE as Director of Public Prosecutions in 2013. You can also find more criticisms of the police on page 84 and beyond, again reiterating what I am telling you. ""Seen by the police as being deviant or promiscuous. The adult men with whom they were found were not questioned." "Some, especially the Police made personal judgements about the young women involved"
This combination of factors, alongside the racial factors that most of the perpetrators were Pakistani IS why these gangs got away with it for so long.
There are also other reasons, interagency squabbling, higher ranking police officers siding with their beat officers rather than detailed reports about the abuse and so on, then people trying to cover their own asses and the like, but attitudes towards the victims and attitudes towards the perpetrators are the two biggest.
The Jay report is very thorough and covers many of the contributing factors. But at 153 pages with some harrowing examples it is not exactly light reading I concede.
Again I want to point out i am not saying that these factors are good, or that officers and workers acted well or in the best interests of these children. Just that being aware of how this malpractice comes to pass is important in stopping it happening.
SSCReader
12d ago
that still does not explain the police returning the girls into the custody of a known brothel.
Because they saw these girls as criminals not victims. Prostitutes, drug addicts, habitual liars. The police has a vast exposure to the underclass and most of that exposure is to put it mildly not positive. Add in sexism, classism and police simply did not have any empathy for these girls. In essence they were blaming the victim. It's just what girls like this do. Exchange money and drugs for sex. Terms used by cops about the victims included "undesirables", "druggies", "habitual liars" and that's in official notes! That they were sluts and whores was taken to be axiomatic. While solicitation, pimping and operating a brothel are technically illegal and prostitutions itself was not, the attitude of police to sex workers was, well not great. As an example this is them publicly talking about a serial killer(!) of prostitutes in the 80's in Yorkshire, the same county as Rotherham.
"has made it clear that he hates prostitutes. Many people do. We, as a police force, will continue to arrest prostitutes. But the Ripper is now killing innocent girls. That indicates your mental state and that you are in urgent need of medical attention. You have made your point. Give yourself up before another innocent woman dies."
"Some were prostitutes, but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women."
Some of his attacks were on victims as young as 14. Yet the only ones they cared about were "innocent girls" (i.e. not prostitutes).
Cops long exposure to underclass behavior (whether white, black or otherwise), makes them develop certain attitudes, and social workers are often no different. They may have 30 kids on their books, half of them run away, another half are sneaking out to go to night clubs at 13, some are addicts, some are thieves, some are having sex for drugs or money, and the idea this is all just normal behavior for these people is insidious. Social workers becoming jaded and burning out is ubiquitous. However it was also left wing social workers who were responsible for blowing the whistle. And many did in fact make reports to the police which were ignored.
Half of the issue was the race of the perps, but the other half is a combination of classism and sexism and the fact that for many of these girls were seen more as troublemakers and criminals than victims.
SSCReader
13d ago
Wait, are you missing context here? The grooming gangs were grooming the girls into prostitution using the tried and tested "boyfriend" method. Some of Muslim men in question WERE their pimps, while some were "johns". The "boyfriends" would then sell access to them to other men for drugs and money. Which is how the police often came in contact with the girls, and wrote them off as drug addicted prostitutes, undesirables, and habitual liars.
So strong coordination by a pimp is exactly what we had here. The "boyfriend" model (for grooming) and the so called "party" model for groups of men with coerced girls is common throughout the world, unfortunately. From Epstein to Diddy probably.
About 20% of members of these gangs in England are Asian (which is a strong over-representation compared to demographics, just to be clear) but simply due to numbers most grooming and prostitution gangs in England are mostly white, largely with the exact same MO. The actual methods used are not unusual at all within the CSE playbook.
So there was coordination here, that is in fact the whole point. If there wasn't they wouldn't be grooming gangs. The pimp would bring a girl to one "party", then the next and so on.
SSCReader
13d ago
he story hasn't really "broken" as much as non-institutional actors are making the story go viral, forcing the issue on a media and legal apparatus that wants to sweep it under the rug.
The story was broken in 2011 in a big way by a standard journalist in a newspaper. That journalist won a national award for his work and is working for The Times. There is no way to frame him as a non-institutional actor. Jayne Senior the social worker who attempted to raise the issue with police was working for the local government, and was awarded an MBE in 2016 for her efforts. Convictions even started in 2010.
The story going viral now is a decade late, so it certainly cannot be said that non-institutional actors were the ones who broke it. It was broken already. They are rehashing it sure, making it go viral internationally absolutely. But it was exposed years ago.
None of that is to say it shouldn't have been broken earlier, but it was traditional media which broke the story into the UK public consciousness, 14 years ago. Just like with the Catholic abuse scandal with the Boston Globe in 2002.
SSCReader
13d ago
Isn't it worse because law enforcement and media are highly motivated to scrutinize i.e. the Catholic Church
Well the whole point was they weren't highly motivated for quite some time right? There were cover ups and priests were allowed just to be moved around rather than arrested etc. I heard jokes about "pedo" priests in the 70's after all, and it didn't start coming to a head until the 2000's. And indeed the reports go back through the 50's and before. With: .."government, police, and church had colluded in an attempt to cover up the allegations"
So back in the 80's to 90's the media and law enforcement weren't really highly motivated to scrutinize the Catholic Church either. Despite some stories throughout the 80's, Sinead O'Connor raising it on SNL in 92, it wasn't really until a decade later anything much came of it, with the Boston Globe story in 2002.
The grooming gang story broke in a big way just 9 years later in 2011. The very earliest the media at least could have been on the grooming gang story was maybe 2001, more likely ,through 2006 with Heal's study. Before that the main issue preventing discovery of the activity was the cops treating the victims as drug addicted, lying prostitutes rather than victims (as very evident in some of the note's taken at the time, even when they had no idea who the pimps and so on were).
If anything the consensus broke much faster with the Pakistani gangs than it did with the Church.
SSCReader
13d ago
Most of the perpetrators followed the "boyfriend" model. They ply vulnerable girls with alcohol, drugs, and attention (for why that is important consider the idea that strippers often have Daddy issues), and pretend to be their boyfriends, before pushing them into more and more extreme acts, initially with themselves. Then they use that, the "relationship" and threats against the girls and/or their family to pimp them out. Remember these are first and foremost prostitution gangs.
To the police jaded with contact with the underclass, contact with these girls makes them look like prostitutes. Ones with drug addictions, who sneak out to go to bars underage, and who given their backgrounds likely have behavioral issues as well. To the police they were criminals and scum not victims.
It was the perfect intersection of left and right blind spots, suppress it due to the race of the perpetrators, ignore it due to the perceived immorality (and class) of the victims. Remember this started in the 80's into the 90's when police approaches to rape as a whole was pretty unsympathetic, particularly for those who were in theory in some kind of relationship with the rapist.
Beat cops in that time frame were not a beacon of racial harmony, so the race issue only came into play when things began to bubble up to higher (and therefore more political levels).
SSCReader
14d ago
- Far from the fever dream of immigrants doing useful labor such as building new housing, the new arrivals are competing aggressively for the same sort of high wage sinecures and government benefits that native-born Canadians previously thought they were entitled to.
There's a disconnect here no? If you are using a points based admission system to get the best qualified immigrants, they aren't going to be building houses. For that you want low skilled immigration (or work visas). You can't expect to only get the highest quality immigrants AND that they will do construction.
SSCReader
14d ago
Just to point out BG3 is a bad example. The RPG setting it is based on: the Forgotten Realms is explicitly designed to be much more diverse than Europe at the same rough time frame would be, which is called out in universe in the setting, outside of BG3 itself.
"There was a time when any fool could have told you where the folk of this land or that came from, but now we sail or ride so far and often that we’re all from everywhere. Even the most isolated villages hold folk who hail from they know not where. Yet you can still tell something of where someone hails from by their hair and build and skin and manner, though any traveler knows not to assume too much from a quick glance. Remember that, and hearken"
This is from a Doylist perspective so that DnD players who want to play a Chultan halfling shaman or a Kozakuran samurai or whatever on the Sword Coast (the Europe equivalent and most popular part of the setting) don't have to have convoluted back stories to justify it. From a Watsonian perspective the historical presence of portals from the Realms to different areas of Earth plus being a high magic setting with fairly easy access to teleportation, flying ships and even spacecraft to visit different worlds is a justification. Bits of the planet were also exchanged with nations on an entirely (but not really, it's complicated) world which led to random cultures popping up elsewhere as well.
On top of all that Baldur's Gate and environs is called out explicitly as being the most multi-cultural place on a very multi-cultural world due to being the biggest and most cosmopolitan city (no matter what Waterdhavians might say). And had absorbed several huge waves of refugees from various nations in the prior several hundred years.
"Baldurians took great pride in the inclusiveness of their city. It was a place anyone could call home, or start a new life within, regardless of race, creed or personal history."
Something like The Witcher or similar may be a better example.
As for the rationale? It's simple (which doesn't mean correct of course!) games and books and movies are made to entertain people as they are at the time they are created. A deliberate choice can be made to portray historical (or pseudo-historical) situations with more modern demographics to make it more palatable or relatable or attractive to a modern audience. My wife greatly prefers shows or games which have (or allow to be created) a black woman character, In RPGs I am almost always a white man with red hair. Even outside of any social engineering one might want to do, having the broadest set of characters is probably the way to go unless you are appealing specifically to the accuracy of your historical setting as a specific selling point.
My wife loves Bridgerton, she is aware it is not historically accurate but it allows her to watch and enjoy people like her in pretty dresses dealing with English high society in a way that really never happened. Then she buys Bridgerton themed coffee creamer (which is quite good actually), and so on and wants to attend a fancy tea party in costume, so buys corsets and lace and learns to sew. It creates an aspirational fantasy of a sort.
SSCReader
17d ago
Why did so many of these girls so easily turn themselves over to these men?
That's why they were called grooming gangs. They offered them money, alcohol, drugs and attention, often by starting off by acting as "boyfriends" then they would leverage that into sexual acts with them, then use blackmail of those and threats of violence against the girls and their families (if any) to turn them into prostitutes. Many of these girls were from broken homes, with little or not family support, so getting any form of attention can be attractive at least initially.
It's a very common (and unfortunately successful) model for prostitution gangs which target vulnerable girls in pretty much every country.
SSCReader
17d ago
There are only 55 cities in England. Rotherham isn't even one of them. There are barely 150 towns OR cities the size of Rotherham or bigger. Unless you are thinking places like Bury St Edmonds which have a total of about 100 male adult Muslims has 25% of that population being in grooming gangs, there simply cannot be hundreds of places like this. Your understanding of the scale of England is clearly terrible.
SSCReader
17d ago
No they would groom them using the standard methods. Offer them food, alcohol, drugs and attention. Posing as "boyfriends" at first before coercing them into more and more extreme behaviors. Blackmailing them with those previous acts and threats to them and family. It's a tried and tested method across the world for those grooming vulnerable young people into prostitution (which is what most of these gangs were doing).
Grooming is the term we would use in social care at the time. Remember this started in the 80's and onward. The grooming term used in the online era is derived from the terms we used at the time for the more "old school" methods. But the initial context for almost all these girls was luring them in to what they thought was a relationship before then taking advantage of that. That's why grooming is the correct term. A gang which simply outright kidnapped girls off the street would be picked up much more quickly.
SSCReader
17d ago
And how do they repay this generosity (remember, the hedge fund could just have summarily dismissed them which based on "these people have no idea how a domain controller works" basically seems like the right decision)?
It's not generosity, it is a business decision. The chances are these smaller shops have got some kind of weird IT kludge mess of stuff going on that only the people running it know how it works. You could fire them and bring someone else in but then they have to untangle someone else's work, which will take time, and money. Training someone isn't that expensive and allows you to hit the ground running from day 1.
That some of the employees will then leverage that training into a better job is just the cost of doing business. It's not a friendship it's a transactional relationship. The hedge fund wasn't providing training out of the goodness of their heart it was based upon the cost/benefit. They got 6 months of time where the IT person was keeping everything running, presumably starting to apply their new skills. The employee owes them nothing beyond the work they were paid for. And if the hedge fund can get someone else in for less than the IT person would stay for later it's a win win. They got through the transition period (which is the toughest part with all new IT staff, when assimilating a new company/branch) successfully.
Successful hedge funds aren't stupid, if they are using this model it is because in general it is maximizing the chances of success.
SSCReader
18d ago
I find it a priori very plausible that there was a good reason for Duke Power hiring executives to believe that some level of prior familiarity with these fields of knowledge was important for determining eligibility for transfer to those departments.
Sure, that's why I said that the government holding Duke responsible for accounting for the admitted failure of the school system is potentially problematic. But it does mean those tests can't be held to be representative of cognitive ability on its own.
There do also appear to be questions that are easier and harder, and there are diagrams which is probably why the explanation made little sense without them. There are some electrical diagrams I would struggle with without reviewing what i was taught some 40 years ago. I don't know enough about the test to know what the spread of answers was expected to be.
SSCReader
18d ago
Do you have specific reason to believe that both the Wonderlic and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test were wildly mis-measuring the relative cognitive abilities of black employees vis-a-vis white employees?
We've kind of got multiple questions here: Assuming it was being administered fairly (as you pointed out above we may not be able to trust the people doing so we can't be sure if that 6% is accurate), is it reasonable to assume in 1965 that an average black person of equal g to a white person would have the same chance to score on the tests even assuming it measures both accurately? Wonderlic themselves say that knowing the syllabus and having a study guide help your score. So it is not just a test of cognitive ability. The verbal questions require vocabulary, which is learned. A smart person with a lack of schooling will struggle with those questions. Someone who has not taken tests before may not have the test taking skills that help. As for the Bennett, looking at the example questions it appears to be measuring your education not cognition at least some of the time. Again there are practice flashcards and so on, indicating it is not just a cognitive test.
Here is the explanation for one of the answers on a sample question:
"You know that the tangential speed of meshed gears is the same. Also, the rotational speed and radius of gear are inversely related to constant tangential speed. In mechanism A, the driving gear (on the left) meshes with a larger gear. The smaller gear which moves the chain is connected to the same shaft as the larger gear, which means that the rotational speed of the smaller gear is equal to that of the larger gear. However, in mechanism B, the driving gear directly meshes with the small gear, which drives the chain. This means that the smaller gear will rotate faster compared to the larger gear in mechanism A, which implies that the chain will move faster in mechanism B."
Is this measuring cognition or is it measuring something you have been taught? Or is it measuring cognition assuming you have been taught the underlying principles?
In 1965 the average black and white person have very different educational and socio-economic backgrounds as to whether they have been taught anything about "the rotational speed and radius of gear are inversely related to constant tangential speed" or the conceptual formulas about pressure and force moment as the test says you require to know. So the first answer is that those tests are only measuring cognition assuming you meet certain standards about the level of knowledge you have. It might be that 6% of black people taking those tests met those standards, but it doesn't show they didn't have the cognitive abilities to meet those standards. It was mis-measuring cognitive abilities because it wasn't purely measuring cognitive abilities. Indeed that is exactly one of the arguments used by the court:
"Basic intelligence must have the means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a testing process. Because they are Negroes, petitioners have long received inferior education in segregated schools, and this Court expressly recognized these differences.."
To be clear I am kind of agnostic on whether it should be up to companies to make up for prior government discrimination (poor segregated schools) at the direction of the government. But it is clear the tests they were using were not just measuring cognition. They had built in assumptions about what level of knowledge people taking the tests had at a very minimum.
All of that is entirely separate as to whether there is some type of ability that is different between black and white people that such that IQ tests get the same result for people with very different levels of apparent intellect.
SSCReader
18d ago
If the company that runs the power grid for an entire region demands it, that strikes me as a reasonable failsafe.
Well it depends on the job right? They are going to have janitors and office managers and truck drivers and sales reps and the like. If they have the test for all jobs then it is a problem, because not all jobs do require that level of thought even in a power company.
Regardless of that again, if you use a test which "assigns the same IQ score to a glue-eating retard and a more-or-less functional person" and that test also happens to misdiagnose mainly black people into the glue eater category AND you have been previously refusing to employ black people, then there isn't much reason for people to believe you when you say that actually it really does correctly weed out people who can't design power plants. They are going to see that it weeds out the people you were previously choosing to weed out and that it appears to be wrong in at least some regard. You defense of "Yes we know it is wrong, but it still weeds out who we want" is going to pattern match to exactly what you were doing before, only more sneakily. You don't have enough credibility to convince them you will use an admittedly flawed test correctly.
SSCReader
18d ago
If you met one of these people as an adult, it might be very difficult to clock him or her as intellectually deficient; this person could carry on a normal conversation, could be charming, could drive himself or herself to the job interview dressed like a normal person, etc.
That might mean that the IQ test is failing to capture some element of intelligence. If someone can drive, be charming, carry on conversations and so on with a measured IQ of 72 and some other person with the same IQ cannot, then it is reasonable to wonder if the IQ test itself is flawed. Those people should not have the same scores if it is actually measuring general intelligence. If someone can learn to drive which is a complex skill requiring hand-eye coordination, spatial analysis and lots of other things, the chances are their real g is not 72. If they can keep track of conversation topics, be charming, to the extent that you can't tell their IQ is 72, then probably their real g is not 72.
The first person will regardless of their IQ be able to carry out a good chunk of jobs (because being able to drive, talk to people, be charming and the like describes all that is required for a good number of jobs), the second will not. If your test is excluding both, that is likely to be an actual issue. That it happens to break down on racial lines that were previously discriminated upon is then suspicious.
"Yes we used to discriminate, now we just happen to be using this test that says you have the same IQ as someone with an intellectual disability, even though you do not act in anyway the same and have capabilities they do not, and sorry bad luck that means we can't employ you just like we didn't want to before, but we promise we are on the up and up this time."
It shouldn't really be a surprise if the affected people don't really believe you. The fact you can be telling the truth but the test itself is perhaps flawed is just the cherry on top.
SSCReader
20d ago
If it helps I both predicted publically here Trump would win due to the fundamentals (the economy) and believe that means a generic Republican would also have won.
Inflation hit too hard across the board for Democrats to have won absent some other major factor (war, big terrorist attack etc.).
The fundamentals were good enough for the Republicans I have a hard time seeing any decent candidate of theirs losing. Especially with switching Biden out late making Democrats look weak.
You are correct though that a lot of people here were predicting the opposite. Either out of doomerism or listening to the media/polls I suppose.
SSCReader
23d ago
Well, there are different approaches. The US did start with such a document to outline the shared expectations. Which didn't prohibit immigration for example.
Now I do agree, the problem with that is everyone who wrote and agreed to it, is dead. Should it have any force on people hundreds of years later who happened to be born in that "house"? Or not?
I agree practically might (or voting/influence) is what will impact how much immigration is allowed, but that isn't actually creating an argument to convince others. You did at least (which SS didn't do) mention some actual things you saw as negatives. That is much better. I completely agree there are likely to be negatives with large scale immigration. I'm not an open borders advocate.
I'm just pointing out might makes right isn't an actual argument for or against any specific position AND you cannot assume everyone has the same fundamental assumptions about things like whether the status quo is good or should be taken into account at all.
To be fair the book the movie is based upon is much the same in this regard and is written by a white ex Marine, high school dropout from the Ozarks in Missouri. Whether it is accurate or not I do not know but those elements don't come from Hollywood. It's similar to Vance's Hillbilly Elegy in that regard, in that it is written about a group by someone from the group. Though a fictional story in this case.
More options
Context Copy link