44% of Democrats would accept refugees from Agrabah (Aladdin)

[Kraenen]

News at 10; people don't know geography

I doubt you know every single city in the middle east. I'd expect most of them to clue on to the Aladdin reference though.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not exactly equivalent. It's a perfectly reasonable position to say "I'd accept refugees from anywhere. I don't know where this city is but if it has refugees we'll take em in." It's not reasonable to say "If a city has an arabic sounding name we should bomb it." So the democratic poll reveals that a good percentage of democrats are ignorant of disney films, and are compassionate enough to take in refugees regardless of where they're from. The conservative poll reveals that a good percentage of republicans are ignorant of disney films and are idiotic enough to bomb any city which sounds foreign.

Well not exactly - it's fairer to say they'll take them in if their place of origin sounds muslim, just like reps would bomb them if it sounds muslim.

[Paranoid Android]

I doubt you know every single city in the middle east. I'd expect most of them to clue on to the Aladdin reference though.

- - - Updated - - -



Well not exactly - it's fairer to say they'll take them in if their place of origin sounds muslim, just like reps would bomb them if it sounds muslim.

Which is why 44% is not a majority.

[Thage]

If anything, this is more a testament to how badly we educate our citizens about the Middle East than anything--it's a testament to ignorance, not stupidity.

And as other posters mentioned, what one should really take home is the responses themselves. A rather large chunk of participating Republicans were in favor of bombing a city because it had an Arabic name, while a large chunk of Democrats were in favor of bringing in refugees (which matches the general behavior of the parties in question).

It's a false equivalence to drum one up as being as bad as the other--removing Agrabah's fictional status from the equation (as again, this speaks more to the general geographical ignorance of Americans than the stupidity of respondants), one group wants to indiscriminately bomb a city just because it sounds Arabic, the other wants to help people fleeing and seeking asylum. Call me crazy, but helping people sounds a lot less stupid than wanting to bomb their homes into the dirt and giving terrorists a propagandist's wet dream.

[-Nurot]

I think O'Reilly has someone who asks same questions to young people to show how dumb Dems are supposed to be. He (O'Reilly) stole it from Jay Leno. Jimmy Kimmel does his Pot Quiz.

On Bill O'Reilly show, that's Jesse Watters you are thinking of in a segment he does called "Watters' World". That segment generally doesn't have a bias, especially the ones that ask things like history questions or about made up events, it more showcases stupidity in general. His segment is probably one of the least biased things on that channel.

[Paranoid Android]

On Bill O'Reilly show, that's Jesse Watters you are thinking of in a segment he does called "Watters' World". That segment generally doesn't have a bias, especially the ones that ask things like history questions or about made up events, it more showcases stupidity in general. His segment is probably one of the least biased things on that channel.

Yeah no bias at all. /chuckle

Yes. He shows the overall stupidity of people not know real world events. Of course all his people and places he asks questions are highly "liberal" or democratic. So its the "oh look at the dumb liberal" segment.

[Zamfix]

Of course stupidity is universal, but what's worse, wanting to bomb a fictional country or help people from a fictional country?

[Super Kami Dende]

It's not exactly equivalent. It's a perfectly reasonable position to say "I'd accept refugees from anywhere. I don't know where this city is but if it has refugees we'll take em in." It's not reasonable to say "If a city has an arabic sounding name we should bomb it." So the democratic poll reveals that a good percentage of democrats are ignorant of disney films, and are compassionate enough to take in refugees regardless of where they're from. The conservative poll reveals that a good percentage of republicans are ignorant of disney films and are idiotic enough to bomb any city which sounds foreign.

It is exactly equivelent, idiots agreeing to something happening based around an imaginary place.

Doesn't matter what the question was they are still the same sort of idiot.

[-Nurot]

Yeah no bias at all. /chuckle

The ones where he asks a history questions and people don't know the answer. Some of the people even recognize him, which would be a strong indicator they might be Republican. What about a made up super bowl do only Democrats like football now? Where's the slant in that? Yes some of his things are slanted, but it asks about opinions rather than facts, segments where he asks people facts can't have a slant, they either know it or they don't.

This isn't true for as many people as you'd think given all that's transpired in Europe.

Then by definition they aren't refugees. The poll asked strictly about refugees, not whether or not they were suspect of people posing as refugees to gain access to another specific country, for financial gain or for other nefarious reasons.

[Touch of Anarchy]

These polls, I swear to god...

The survey was done for about 1000 democrats (out of about roughly 75 million in the United States), and 44% of that 1000 (440 people) said that they'd support this.

440 out of 75 million.

These posts are obnoxiously misleading by saying that 44% of "democrats" support this nonsense, just like it's equally obnoxious to say that 30% of republicans support bombing this fantasy city. Both parties are dumb and the people running these "polls" are dumb.

[Deleted]

It is exactly equivelent, idiots agreeing to something happening based around an imaginary place.

Doesn't matter what the question was they are still the same sort of idiot.

Well it proves that both groups are ignorant of middle eastern geography. But other than that the democrats are willing to take in refugees even if they don't know where they're from, and the republicans are willing to bomb people even if they don't know where they're from. The latter is far more idiotic. Knowing the politics of a location is crucial in deciding whether it's okay to bomb it. With taking in refugees, there's not much more to it than "let's help people in trouble."

[satimy]

Universally wanting to take care of people in need.

vs.

Universally wanting to bomb everything that sounds foreign.


The latter is a lot more ... hangman worthy than the former.

Helping people with someone else's money isn't noble, it's rape.

[Deleted]

Well not exactly - it's fairer to say they'll take them in if their place of origin sounds muslim, just like reps would bomb them if it sounds muslim.

Well to determine that we'd need to do a study asking people about Arrendale or wherever. Somewhere with a less Arabic sounding name. Would you bomb Arrendale? Would you take in refugees from Arrendale? I would guess that both affirmative responses would go down, but that democrats would still be quite willing to take in refugees from a city they don't know about. Whereas I think the moment the city no longer sounds Muslim, republicans would no longer want to bomb it.

[Deleted]

Well. People want to see a whole new world. 44% agree with them.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I said this in the last thread. We cannot take the Agrabans lightly. They are a backward people known to dabble in black magic. This would be a disaster.

[Kraenen]

Then by definition they aren't refugees. The poll asked strictly about refugees, not whether or not they were suspect of people posing as refugees to gain access to another specific country, for financial gain or for other nefarious reasons.

Right, but it's a fair guess democrats would overestimate refugees or take a more liberal definition. That'd be another poll they could do.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Universally wanting to take care of people in need.
vs.
Universally wanting to bomb everything that sounds foreign.
The latter is a lot more ... hangman worthy than the former.

When the original questions were posed the city to be bombed was indicated as hostile whereas the city for refugees was simply "Arab sounding".

A lot of these trick question endeavors don't do the method justice.

They'll lead in off camera or off tally with an opener like "pardon me would you like to answer a few question about terrorism?" which sets the premise for the rest of the interview.

Then they'll ask a question like "would you be in favor of bombing city X" and the person being asked is highly likely to assume it's a city engaged in terrorist activity.

Then they report the results minus the opening premise and run to the world saying "see see, look at all these silly racist people".

It's quite pathetic actually, both the methodology and the fact so many people are fooled by the data.

[Deleted]

When the original questions were posed the city to be bombed was indicated as hostile whereas the city for refugees was simply "Arab sounding".

A lot of these trick question endeavors don't do the method justice.

They'll lead in off camera or off tally with an opener like "pardon me would you like to answer a few question about terrorism?" which sets the premise for the rest of the interview.

Then they'll ask a question like "would you be in favor of bombing city X" and the person being asked is highly likely to assume it's a city engaged in terrorist activity.

Then they report the results minus the opening premise and run to the world saying "see see, look at all these silly racist people".

It's quite pathetic actually, both the methodology and the fact so many people are fooled by the data.

Even with such an opening statement, it still shows a lot of ignorance and bigotry if someone is willing to bomb a city which they know nothing about. If they actively lied and said "Aggrabah is a centre of ISIS activity, would you bomb it." then you would have a point.

Both polls prove some ignorance of Disney - which is pretty irrelevant - and some ignorance of middle eastern geography. Which is more relevant, but let's not get high and mighty about that. Who in this thread knows every city in the the middle east? The difference between the polls is that one shows republicans in favour of bombing anywhere which sounds like it might contain brown people and the other shows that...Democrats are willing to take it refugees.

[Frogguh]

I swear, I would heavily question the intelligence of anyone who thinks the Republican poll meant they would bomb a city just because it sounds Arabic. Obviously, they would assume it was a city that was an ISIS stronghold or a valid military target, and are trying to hide their ignorance . It proves that Republicans aren't shy about supporting military strikes. That is all.

That neither side has a clue about the world was known well before these polls, but good lord. People's anti-conservative bigotry is overwhelming their reasoning apparently.

[Deleted]

I'm all for bombing cities where ISIS is hiding, even if there are civilians there. What I don't get is why people would say yes to bombing a specific city they don't haven have clue about on whats in it.

[Maxilian]

http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...in--W1lsPaM_jg



Well I guess stupidity is universal.

You say it like most people know the names of 10 different middle east countries... (So why are you surprised, i'm pretty sure the same could be done to you with another country name)

- - - Updated - - -

I'm all for bombing cities where ISIS is hiding, even if there are civilians there. What I don't get is why people would say yes to bombing a specific city they don't haven have clue about on whats in it.

2 reasons:

Because is not their city

Because they are the "good" guys