🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives
-
@Fox They'd much rather a we didn't fight back at all, I'd wager.
-
@Onyx said:
Also, excuse the pedantry, but "bigotry" is usually defined as prejudice based on factors a person can't change, like race or gender, not religious beliefs.
I would have said it's about irrelevant factors. Whether a person can change the thing or not is...irrelevant.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Fox They'd much rather a we didn't fight back at all, I'd wager.
Undoubtedly, but since 'Murica will never let that happen, getting us to send them reinforcements who could have been our allies is their Plan B.
-
@Fox So why are you advocating reacting to plan b by trying to accommodate them with their plan a?
-
-
@Onyx said:
Who here said it does? Who here even said that law is a sane piece of legislature?
No one. Including you. This whole yelling match is a misunderstanding.
When I wrote this (here) I did not mean you personally, but you took it that I did:
As I noted above, there are probably less than 200,000 terrorists--all stripes combined--worldwide, which if they all truly were Islamic, would amount to 0.0013%, 1 in 77,000. Which does not match well with the bigoted "every Muslim is a terrorist" argument. (I remembered it rounded as 200K; this Techdirt article says 184K.)
I was talking about the beliefs of the bigots of the world, who hold opposite beliefs to almost everything you claimed in your prior post. For example:
I stated, multiple times, that this is the wrong mode of thinking and that I disagree with people who engage in it. And I will challenge them on it because it's bullshit.
It is good that you will and, unfortunately, it is what I thought I was doing.
But I don't agree with other things you said:
The media is just using the fact that he is Muslim as a cheap way to drum up the controversy and get viewership/clicks.
The media could "cheap[ly] drum up clicks" more effectively with someone who wasn't Muslim; for example, the little innocent white kid with the radical fundamentalist Christian parents.
They picked a Muslim kid because the law is intentionally designed to detect "radical" Muslims (because "obviously no one else is radical"). Muslims are why the government created the law and, no matter how the government dissimulates about what they meant the law to do...guess what? It is Muslims that are being reported--67% of the time.
The media wanted to demonstrate how unfair that is, but they failed at least partially because the authors of the law (and those who hold privately that every Muslim is a terrorist) are privately cheering. Law works as designed, right? One more terrorist exposed, right?
And I do not suffer that kind of bigotry well.
-
The media could "cheap[ly] drum up clicks" more effectively with someone who wasn't Muslim; for example, the little innocent white kid with the radical fundamentalist Christian parents.
I don't think that's true. In a case like that, everyone would be outraged for a while, but since everyone would be outraged, they'd all agree with each other, and the whole controversy would quickly be out of everyone's mind.
With a Muslim kid, people will argue about it on the internet for a good week, which means media will have longer to milk it for those sweet, sweet pageviews. Editorials, opinion pieces denouncing bigots, more opinion pieces denouncing the bigots who trolled the original piece's comments...
I mean, compare Ahmed the clock kid and the shitstorm that whipped up with any kind of similar case involving a little innocent white kid. Or, better yet, find me a thread about it here, on a forum largely about information technology and assorted geekery. That we're discussing Ahmed and Cucumber Kid here proves my point, I think.
-
@blek said:
people will argue about it on the internet for a good week
Well, yes, there's that. You're crediting the media with an awful lot of smarts, though.
-
It's their entire job. The people in media might even not be doing it consciously - but those who do drum up controversy prosper while those who don't go under. It's natural selection, it doesn't even have to be on purpose.
(Also there are definitely patterns of thought and behavior that almost all journalists get pulled into, often without ever realizing it. Sort of a groupthink.)
-
@Fox said:
@boomzilla said:
by trying to accommodate them with their plan a?
:citation_needed:
I'm amused at the thought that even you don't believe what you say.
-
@CoyneTheDup said:
The media could "cheap[ly] drum up clicks"
I read that as the media drumming up dicks, and thought that that's one thing that probably really isn't necessary, given that there are two sections of the media already doing it (only one of which is the porn industry, the other being most political commentators).
-
@boomzilla said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
@Fox said:
@boomzilla said:
by trying to accommodate them with their plan a?
:citation_needed:
I'm amused at the thought that even you don't believe what you say.
I'm amused and disappointed at the thought of you somehow believing that "let's stop fighting ISIS' most downtrodden victims" == "let's stop fighting ISIS"
-
@Fox TDEMSYR
-
@boomzilla You're right, it doesn't make sense. There is no logical way in which you could possibly think that I have ever said "we should stop fighting ISIS", when all I've been saying is "we should stop fighting homeless ISIS victims"
-
@Fox Yay for strawmen! I was getting worried that they wouldn't survive the migration.
-
@boomzilla said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
@Fox Yay for strawmen! I was getting worried that they wouldn't survive the migration.
You are the one straw manning, you dumbass. You said that I am@boomzilla said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
trying to accommodate them with their plan a
Where "plan a" ==
@boomzilla said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
we didn't fight back at all
, a position which I have never once taken in the history of terrorism. The straw men are alive and well. You must've stashed them next to the onions on your belt.
-
@Fox said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
a position which I have never once taken in the history of terrorism
It's how you interpret stuff as going to war with orphans our whatever.
-
@boomzilla said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
@Fox said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
a position which I have never once taken in the history of terrorism
It's how you interpret stuff as going to war with orphans our whatever.
I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence. Please try again later, when you've had some rest and are hopefully capable of forming complete, clear sentences.
-
@Fox said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence
This should be your signature!
-
@boomzilla said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
@Fox said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence
This should be your signature!
To be fair, that he admits he's unable to properly interpret what people are saying to him is an improvement.
-
@antiquarian said:
@boomzilla said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
@Fox said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
I'm not sure how to interpret this sentence
This should be your signature!
To be fair, that he admits he's unable to properly interpret what people are saying to him is an improvement.
I am sure how to interpret this sentence. You are saying that I generally cannot properly interpret what people are saying to me. I assure you, this is incorrect. The particular sentence in question, written by @boomzilla, is in fact very nonsensical, because A) it contains at least one incorrect word, B) it contains vague pronouns (but @boomzilla's inability to use proper pronouns is well documented), and C) I have not, to the best of my knowledge, used the word "orphan" once in this entire thread prior to this sentence.
-
@Fox said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
I am sure how to interpret this sentence. You are saying that I generally cannot properly interpret what people are saying to me. I assure you, this is incorrect.
I'll just leave this here:
-
@Fox said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
You are saying that I generally cannot properly interpret what people are saying to me.
Actually, I'm not sure you can even properly interpret what you're saying.
-
@Fox said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
And direct quotes from counterterrorism experts are also "batshit crazy", I guess?
Your reading comprehension is shit.
-
@CoyneTheDup said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
@Magus @Onyx
Let's try it this way: 99.87% of Muslims are peaceful, not planning any terrorist act.
How does that in any way justify the death of the refugees? Forcing them to die in a land that has rejected them? Because we fear that allowing even one Muslim across the border means a terrorist act will certainly follow?This is me playing Devil's Avocado, as I am not in the camp of people who thinks we should not help any Syrian refugees...OK? OK.
You claim that 99.87% of Muslims are peaceful and not a terrorist. That would leave 0.13% that are terrorists.
There are approximately 9 million Syrian refugees. 9,000,000 x 0.13% = 11,700 terrorists within that group.
There were 19 terrorists that carried out 9/11. So allowing free passage of all refugees without a vetting process would potentially unleash 615 9/11 category incidents on the world.
There were 12 terrorists that carried out the November 2015 Paris attacks. So blindly accepting refugees could potentially unleash 975 Paris level terrorist events.
There were 4 terrorists that carried out the 7/7 London tube bombings. Allowing refugees free passage could potentially unleash 2,925 events such as that across the world.
Now, are you still trying to tell us that we should blindly accept refugees without the slightest bit of care?
-
@CoyneTheDup said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
How does that justify a workplace shooting being called a terrorist act?
When the perpetrators are terrorists...it does.
The Italian newspaper La Stampa reported that Farook's father said that his son "shared the ideology of Al Baghdadi to create an Islamic state" and that he was fixated with Israel
Oh, and one other thing:
Coworkers described Farook as quiet and polite, and said that he held no obvious grudges.[16] Two weeks before the attack, he reportedly tried to explain, during an office conversation, that Islam was a peaceful religion.
@CoyneTheDup said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
Worldwide, 2% of terrorist acts in the last 5 years were committed by Muslims; all others by other groups. How does this justify Donald Trump's statement that "all terrorists are Muslim"?
Really? Your claim is "worldwide" and then your link specifically talks about Europe and not the world? A cursory reading of that article shows that it is mostly bullshit. But really, you could get that from the URL alone...
@CoyneTheDup said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
What justifies the media covering only Muslim terrorism?
You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
-
@Polygeekery said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
Now, are you still trying to tell us that we should blindly accept refugees without the slightest bit of care?
strawman. Allowing ANY refugees != allowing ALL refugees without care.
but I guess that's what you think everyone wants if you only listen to the FOX news and theblaze and thedrudgereport.
-
@darkmatter said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
strawman. Allowing ANY refugees != allowing ALL refugees without care.
You are correct, but that was not really my statement.
Now, tell me how to vet people who probably have no real paperwork and all of their history has probably been blown to shit in their civil war?
And, BTW, there have been multiple people on these forums advocate for accepting all refugees and letting terrorists in to the country is just an acceptable outcome.
-
@Polygeekery said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
There are approximately 9 million Syrian refugees. 9,000,000 x 0.13% = 11,700 terrorists within that group.
For what it's worth, I think that math is wrong. Not all Muslims are Syrian, so the number would be far less than that.
-
@Erufael said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
For what it's worth, I think that math is wrong. Not all Muslims are Syrian, so the number would be far less than that.
Not overly so.
Of the Syrian population, 74%[2] were Sunnis (including Sufis[3]), whereas 13%[2] were Shias (including 8.0% Alawites from which about 2% are called Mershdis and they are the followers of Sulayman al-Murshid, 3% Twelvers , or 1% Ismailis ), 3%[2] were Druze, while the remaining 10%[2] were Christians.
-
What I mean is that you stated the "terrorist population" percent was for all Muslims. Not all Muslims are Syrian.
-
@CoyneTheDup said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
So they write it, "Officers shall hereby stop and frisk anyone on the slightest suspicion or even no suspicion." Even as they grin slyly among themselves, "And we know what we mean by anyone, don't we?" [wink, wink, nudge, nudge "Know what I mean? Know what I mean?"
The sad thing is, everyone protests it on the basis of racism (which is, as you showed, carefully designed to be unprovable), but no one protests it on the basic of breaking basic liberties of privacy and presumption of innocence.
-
@Gąska said in 🔥 Forget about clocks, now it's (bad) cucumbers and knives:
The sad thing is, everyone protests it on the basis of racism (which is, as you showed, carefully designed to be unprovable), but no one protests it on the basic of breaking basic liberties of privacy and presumption of innocence.
Rule of Law is so 20th Century. Everyone knows it's OK to break basic liberties of privacy and presumption of innocence as long as you're doing it to people in groups with more privilege.
Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia
