Actually I disagree that true answers may be found in the middle of two conflicting views. One of those may be wrong, and it may also be the case that both views are astounding wrong and that the true answer lies some way away down a fantastic tangent. What I'm wondering is whether we are asking the right questions. We started this particular issue by focusing on Moroccans, which immediately constrained the issue, and perhaps unjustifiably so. What are the crime rates of other groups? What are the causes of such criminal activity? Are the causes common to all or many groups? And if it does turn out that those circumstances are affecting Moroccans disproportionately, why is that, and what can be done about it?
See, if we let ourselves go too far down the road before stepping back and evaluating our priorities, then the issue does become one about social prejudices. Which, to be fair, was the original discussion anyway. But while we're on this one, clearly the only purpose of discussing an issue like this is to eventually find a resolution, ie cut those crime rates and any other injustices that may be hiding there. But if we start assigning blame instead of properly studying the issue then prejudices crop up and it becomes a fight between draconian measures targeting the blamed group and liberal attitudes that don't want to go along with it. And then we've already lost sight of the original purpose. Perhaps Moroccans really are to blame. But if blaming them does not solve the issue, or causes further problems, then the utility of blaming them is at best zero. If it make it worse then it has negative utility, which makes it a fucking stupid thing to do. So I'm asking: having we (which does not mean just us here on the boards) actually done anything even like all the work required to truly understand the problem so it might actually be solved at some point? Put that way, the answer is immediately obvious.
Put yet another way: are the tabloids helping?
__________________
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ)
|