spytap:

ericmortensen:

mikehudack:

asprettyasasong:

abbyjean:

The realities simply do not support the rhetoric about public safety in border states. As ColorLines’ graphic illustrates, crime in key cities near the U.S.-Mexico border is on the decline—just like it is all over the country. The murder rate in San Diego, Calif., dropped by 25 percent last year. Phoenix’s decreased by 27 percent. El Paso saw a 29 percent drop in murders, bested by Tucson, Ariz., which saw a 46 percent decline in murders. The national murder rate went down just 10 percent from 2008 to 2009. When it comes to violent crime more generally, all four of these border cities hover around four to six violent crimes per capita, just under the national average of 6.6. (via Racialicious)

Not to be callous, but considering that no amount of logic or reason is going into this rhetoric, do we think that logic and reason will get us out of it? Here’s the simple truth(iness): this argument is made because it “feels right” to that person - meaning if the facts don’t support it, it doesn’t matter because their gut is telling them it’s right. Put more simply: If you’re already an irrational bigot, no amount of statistics are going to change your mind.

There’s no logical case that can be made when someone is bound and determined to believe something - facts be damned. The only real recourse is to marginalize and mitigate their opinions. Stupid people and stupid opinions can’t and shouldn’t be argued with as if they are on equal intellectual ground as smart people and smart opinions. They should simply be called stupid people and stupid opinions and just as immediately dismissed in the process.

Disagree! Because there really are people in the middle who are busy and undecided and only hear voices on each side calling each other stupid/bigoted/evil/immoral/illegal or whatever. People who think all politicians are the same. People who don’t like to talk about politics because what’s the use anyway? So you’re ultimately turning off those people.

Why fight irrationality on its own turf? What’s so modern or reasonable about responding to name-calling with more name-calling? How will being unreasonable ever lead to an increase in the use of reason? etc.

If you’re making arguments in favor of what “feels right,” it’s in your interest to have a discussion based on passion rather than logic. But if you’re making arguments for something that is more complicated and takes some time to understand, it’s in your interests to try to have a reasonable debate. Discourage thought, and thoughtful arguments lose.