He's a powerful player behind the scenes; he'll be swept out with other Neo-Nazis. Unless he's indicted. In the meantime, I'm afraid we're stuck with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
He's a powerful player behind the scenes; he'll be swept out with other Neo-Nazis. Unless he's indicted. In the meantime, I'm afraid we're stuck with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Swept out of what? What scene is he playing behind? His erstwhile boss fired him some time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
If he neither holds nor works for someone in elected office, how can he be voted out? He’s a private citizen whose influence is limited to people listening to his preposterous views. How do you propose to silence him without using methods a Nazi would approve of?
Yes, this is what I find puzzling and sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
The community of people I exist in is very sex-positive and accepting. The folks in these various groups you mention, and others like them on all parts of the spectrum, I find alien and disturbing.
Eventually, his patrons will be out of fashion, and he along with them. Then he can bay at the moon, for all I care.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
What patrons? Is there another conspiracy theory I need to keep track of?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I won’t mind seeing the back of lackwits like Trump or Bannon, but all this talk of some righteous reckoning makes me think there are some others to worry about.
I'm not aware of any conspiracy. Bannon was "fired," because he talked to Wolff, but he's still in contact with Trump as far as I know, and certainly with Miller, Spencer at al, who all have Trump's ear. Spencer is heavily involved in immigrant issues. They're all despicable.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
On 10/31/2018 Don Lemon repeated and clarified his earlier statement.
He cited a 2017 report from the Office of Government Accountability which states the majority of incidents of domestic terrorism 2001-2016 was committed by right-wing extremists.
Lemon also cited a report by The Nation Institute's Investigative Fund, looking at both plots and attacks: 201 domestic terrorist incidents on U. S. soil from January 2008 to the end of 2016. The database shows 115 (57%) cases by "right-wing extremists" … and 63 (31%) by "Islamist extremists". The total death toll on U. S. soil was 169 persons, 79 (47%) killed by right-wing extremists … and 90 (53%) killed by Islamist extremists. The latter number includes the 11/9/2009 killing of 13 persons at Fort Hood by U. S. Army Major Nidal Hasan.
I may have missed something, but I did not see data in either citation about the race of perpetrators. I see that a reporter for HuffPost by the name of David Neiwert said "when it comes to right-wing extremism" attackers "are mostly men" and "almost purely white". I gather that Don Lemon accepts and agrees with this observation. People who object to the construct of race as flawed or over-used might cringe at Neiwert's use of the expression "almost purely white".
48% of the incidents attributed to "Islamist extremists" were sting operations in which the attack was prevented by law enforcement. For example, a youth might be recruited by undercover FBI agents impersonating Islamist extremists to plant a bomb (dummy) in a public place. Sting operations account for 12% of the far-right extremist incidents and 10.5% of the far-left extremist incidents. My interpretation of this data is that there could be 4x more law enforcement effort devoted to Islamist extremists, including paid informants, undercover sting operations, surveillance, etc.
I understand that the U S Government does not label domestic extremist groups as terrorist organizations. If someone, such as Dylan Roof perhaps, is radicalized by one or more of them, he might be convicted of murder and hate crimes and sentenced to death, but not be charged with terrorism. Roof shot nine churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015.
On the other hand, foreign groups, including those with Islamist extremist ideologies, are readily identified as terrorist organizations by the U. S. Government.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified 1,360 Patriot groups and 1,007 hate groups. They maintain an internet "Hate Counter" with which individuals may self-report incidents in which they feel that they have been subjected to hate speech or acts of intimidation. In the 3 months since the election of Donald Trump SPLC counted 1,372 hate incidents.
http://apps.revealnews.org/homegrown-terror
So rid ourselves of Trump, and all will be well? I think Williamsmith was correct in observing that Trump is more symptom than disease. The dark forces on the right (and the left as well, not that they would ever admit it) that brought him to power are still there and potent.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I don’t see our current situation as a struggle between darkness and light. I see it as a struggle between two opposing forms of self-righteous idiocy.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I agree he's a symptom, but he's such a vile caricature that dragging him offstage with a big hook would surely produce a huge sigh of relief from civilized people everywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
A lot of times just treating the symptom provides relief. Then you can address the root cause.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
It is telling to me that this has not yet happened. Our Congress has not been doing its job.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I have been happy with the Attorney General of WA state, and some of his peers, in their attempts to resist some of the sillier things.
I'm proud in general of the West Coast and their keeping their collective eyes on the ball. Definitely Congress is not doing its job.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
I think you are missing the point. What do you judge people by? Color of their skin (apparently in some cases, but not others). Their sex (apparently for one sex, but not the other).Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Here is another case: In college I had a roommate who, as it turns out, was racist against black people. He thought that black people were naturally more likely to be criminals. Why did he think this? Because of his personal experience. He and his brother, when they were kids, were accosted by a group of black kids. These black kids beat them up and stole their bikes. Then later on he insisted that black males were accused of and convicted of violent crimes more often than whites or Asians. He claimed statistics showed this.
(It should go without saying that he sure as heck was not my roommate for long!).
But my ex-roommate's rationale is based on both personal experience (which Zoe Girl used to justify her prejudice against white men) and stats (which several on this thread have used to justify their prejudice).
So when it is okay to attribute criminal behavior to race or sex or religion based on personal experience and/or stats? And when it is not okay?
(Chances are no one will address this.)
Dude! She is correct. Bannon is drawing massive crowds at the biggest venues in the country!Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
Check this out! "Steve Bannon reportedly drew a crowd of 25 people for a speech at a Holiday Inn in Kansas"
https://www.businessinsider.com/stev...endees-2018-10
Here's an interesting article on how our brain defaults to certain false beliefs. Maybe our default action should be to question all our beliefs, whether they are based on experience, statistics or a Facebook meme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
https://www.fastcompany.com/40528587...t-knows-better
This is why I love Thich That Hanh's 2nd Mindfulness Training--Non-Attachment to Views:
Aware of the suffering created by attachment to views and wrong perceptions, we are determined to avoid being narrow-minded and bound to present views. We are committed to learning and practicing non-attachment to views and being open to others’ experiences and insights in order to benefit from the collective wisdom. We are aware that the knowledge we presently possess is not changeless, absolute truth. Insight is revealed through the practice of compassionate listening, deep looking, and letting go of notions rather than through the accumulation of intellectual knowledge. Truth is found in life, and we will observe life within and around us in every moment, ready to learn throughout our lives.
Cool article! Much to think about (and doubt! haha). Thanks for sharing.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I see an incel is in the news for shooting up a yoga studio.
He was on record for hating nearly everyone who wasn't a white male.
The face of American terrorism.
Those incels are very disturbed. Horrible god damn tragedy. Just depressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
When I read about it, I was thinking about something Sam Harris had written about. He wrote something (and I am drawing on memory here) about how ideology can contribute to deranging people. From what I understand, these incels have an ideology and part of it is hating women. Twisted.
Jane, have you read this article on Incels?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
It seems fairly comprehensive. Lots of info.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/us/in...rnd/index.html
I am so puzzled by this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
It seems to be that celibacy is entirely a choice. These men can have sex anytime they want (and even if they are significantly disabled, there are ways).Quote:
"Incel" is short for "involuntarily celibate."
It's a movement made up almost entirely of men who claim they "can't have sex despite wanting to," according to incels.me.
What they are whining about is that they can't have sex with a woman (or whoever) when they want. They feel entitled to have access to a woman's body, and the ability to have an orgasm with her, at their convenience. And that level of entitlement is just, well, ill-making.
As a dumpy male-presenting person in my 50s with no particular distinguishing features or "game", it has been made clear to me that opportunities for sexual interaction with other people are not scarce at all. These "incels" need to get off the Internet and out into the real world.
Ultralight, I did a lot of reading on incels in an attempt to understand Elliot Rodgers--still don't, really.
It seems to me that many of them feel entitled to a certain kind of women--sorority women, yoga practitioners, and in the case of the Ecole Polytechnique shooting, the best and the brightest of female students. It seems obvious to me that they should practice being men worthy of love and quit seeing women as prey, but once they start marinating in their hatred, they may be beyond reclamation. We may all be safer if they stay away from the rest of us...
they can probably have sex with a woman whenever they want to as well, I mean are they really so far gone that prostitutes refuse their money? (if they are dangerous she should) Might have a somewhat higher STD risk there though I guess.
I don't think the sex prospects are great for everyone but they make too big a deal out of the whole thing and would probably have better luck if they were just seeking casual sex, and don't have a right to anyone's body (and why anyone would want to be with such jerks I don't know either).
I engage in health/education outreach efforts to the sexworker community in the PNW area, and my understanding of the statistics is that, in general, sexworkers have a lower rate of STD infection/transmission than the casual dating public. Now, of course, there are different types of sexworkers, and some are at high risk, thus my "in general" weasel-wording.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore
Now, as to safety/danger from the client, screening of clients is a thing, as is blacklisting. Which may limit the opportunities for service for the incels.
I think most anyone is capable of redemption. But it's work.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Well, at least this way they don't breed, and raise their own children with such toxic attitudes.Quote:
We may all be safer if they stay away from the rest of us...
This is one of the same issues I take with incels. I wear Hawaiian shirts, jeans, a ball cap, and grubby sneakers. I am overweight, balding, middle-aged, and I have a mustache. My car is a 2012 compact. I don't make much money at all. My sense of humor is at times zany and off-color. I could go on. But you get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
And last week a former flame of mine called me and told me she moved to Chicago (a quick flight from Columbus). She said: "If you transport yourself here you can stay in my apartment, I will buy your food and pay for whatever events we attend. And we can @#$% as much as we like."
So I agree. Sex is quite accessible, even for the schlubs of the world! haha
Jane, why did you post this comment to this thread though?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Because it was a case of terrorism that happened within the last day or two: I brought up incels before it happened, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
Okay, but you know Elliot Rodgers was not white, right? And neither was Alek Minassian, that crazy incel that killed people in Toronto. Both of them had Autism/Aspergers too, which is probably worth noting.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
The guy who shot up the yoga studio was white though.
That is why I am not sure your comment really fits what you have already said on this thread. Or are you now saying that domestic terrorism is a multi-ethic problem?
It seems domestic terrorism is a pale, male problem with a few exceptions.
If this is your observation, what would you suggest be done about it?Quote:
Originally Posted by nswef
I suspect both men identified as white--they certainly weren't easily identifiable as ethnic minorities. I don't see domestic terrorism as a minority problem. YMMV. I don't remember Rodgers being diagnosed on the spectrum--but given his social awkwardness, it's possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultralight
Here is something interesting to ponder too, on this topic.
According to the 2010 census white Americans, excluding Hispanics, totaled 197,285,202 people. This is about 60 percent of the population.
So white, non-hispanic males number 98,642,601, about 30 percent of the total US population.
According to the census bureau there are about 1,500,000 Arab Americans. That is less than 1 percent of the American population. As a ballpark guess that would mean there are about 750,000 Arab American men in the US.
So could the "pale, male" problem actually be one of sheer numbers? There are millions and millions more white males than Arab males. So the total number of those white males that do crazy stuff would be higher than than total number of Arab males that do crazy stuff simply because there are so many more of the white males. Substitute black males or Native American males or Asian American males for Arab in the above questions and you still have a similar premise.
Thoughts?
You are taking some real liberties there. And you are not substantiating your claim that they identified as white. How did most people identify them?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Also, when I saw their pictures I knew they were not white. Elliot looks Asian and Alek looks Middle Eastern.
Okay... that is your opinion. Different people "see" things all sorts of ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
The first article I pulled up on Google said that. You apparently did not read much on him.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
But what really stuns me about your claims above is how they are complete opinion. Yet you believe what you think wholeheartedly and without any doubt. That strikes me as a peculiar kind of narcissism. You said it. So it is completely beyond question. Wow.
I know of an Orange Dude who has that same peculiar kind of narcissism.
I always thought of terrorism as violence with the purpose of frightening people into compliance with a political agenda. Driving the Jewish population out of Israel, for instance, or the British out of Ireland.
Is violence inspired by sexual frustration really terrorism, or just an expression of insanity?
I think the purpose of terrorism is to instill fear in a population you despise or are trying to oppress--like the KKK and their lynchings. Politics can be part of that, or not.
So by that measure, would criminal gangs committing acts of violence to discourage informants or territorial interlopers be considered terrorists?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
I think that's solidly in the camp of criminal enterprise--there's clearly some overlap.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
I guess I’m not seeing why an incel rampage counts as terrorism but a gangland skirmish would not. Neither would seem to be aimed at some purpose of oppression or influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Jane:
Convenient you did not address or even mention my numerical questions above. LMAO!
Typical Jane. Can't even consider new information and weigh in new facts.
Part of being a grown-up is being willing to consider new info and possibly update your previously held beliefs. Are you capable of doing this?