Motel 6 in Washington State Sued for Providing Guest Lists to ICE Agents

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

inu-kun:

altnameJag:

inu-kun:
Regardless of the event itself, if it's only in the level of filtering names to check (and the check itself is done without coming to direct contact (edit: or indirect contact, basically no harrasement) with the people unless it is verified they are illegal immigrants) then I don't see the racism.

It is arguing to have agencies act inefficently and ignore statistics purely for political correctness and a massive waste of manpower, time and money.

They shouldn't be checking names regardless. 4th Amendment.

That they're only checking specific "Latino sounding" names makes it racist, efficiency be damned. I don't want my governmental agencies violating the constitution, efficiently or not.

From a short check you seem to refer to "Equal Protection Clause" which is around "provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws"" which isn't really violated as it's just the police going to most likely cases rather than only acting the law for a certain race.

Nope, it's the

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...

part.

The cops can't run somebody's plates just because they're bored and happen to be stopped at a red light. Same principle.

Also, in response to Jux, this isn't racial profiling as it is "Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race based on a stereotype about their race, rather than on individual suspicion" and latinos being the majority of illegal immigrants is as close to fact as possible rather than stereotype (as opposed, for example, crime rate of afro americans which can be debated if it is more or the same as other races).

So...law enforcement should profile individual latinos based on race instead of individual suspicions?

Hmmmm, is there a proof of government agencies outright ignoring all white supermacy groups? Not to mention that this is strictly incorrect as it is a false equivelance since:
1) The number of muslims is the USA is small, about 1% of the population, while white people are around 77% of the population, so you need to divide the number of attacks in the proportion of the populace.

And then we'd have to factor in all the terroristic attacks that white dudes commit that don't usually come with a terrorism charge for totally not racist reasons...

2) There are world spanning radical islam movements which can radicalize, supply and train terrorists, thus making them a bigger threats.

Catastrophe fallacy. There are world spanning radical groups funding boats to try and prevent NGOs from rescuing people on the Mediterranean. Do they count as terrorists?

3) The amounts of radical islam attacks that are actually carried out are despite the increased part of the surveillance so logic follows that the amount of attacks would have been a lot higher if it was known how inefficent government agencies act.

...huh?

Basically, only referring to attacks that were actually carried out is like saying vaccination for diseases that are now rare is pointless.

What, like this guy? Stopped by random train staff and otherwise unknown to the FBI?

altnameJag:

inu-kun:

altnameJag:
They shouldn't be checking names regardless. 4th Amendment.

That they're only checking specific "Latino sounding" names makes it racist, efficiency be damned. I don't want my governmental agencies violating the constitution, efficiently or not.

From a short check you seem to refer to "Equal Protection Clause" which is around "provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws"" which isn't really violated as it's just the police going to most likely cases rather than only acting the law for a certain race.

Nope, it's the

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...

part.

The cops can't run somebody's plates just because they're bored and happen to be stopped at a red light. Same principle.

I referred to the racism accusation, not the event itself.

Also, in response to Jux, this isn't racial profiling as it is "Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race based on a stereotype about their race, rather than on individual suspicion" and latinos being the majority of illegal immigrants is as close to fact as possible rather than stereotype (as opposed, for example, crime rate of afro americans which can be debated if it is more or the same as other races).

So...law enforcement should profile individual latinos based on race instead of individual suspicions?

But it isn't a stereotype, it might fall into a different category but not racial profiling.

Hmmmm, is there a proof of government agencies outright ignoring all white supermacy groups? Not to mention that this is strictly incorrect as it is a false equivelance since:
1) The number of muslims is the USA is small, about 1% of the population, while white people are around 77% of the population, so you need to divide the number of attacks in the proportion of the populace.

And then we'd have to factor in all the terroristic attacks that white dudes commit that don't usually come with a terrorism charge for totally not racist reasons...

If you have data to allude to how much attacks aren't reported as such then present it, it will need to be around 30 times what is reported to be equated to radical muslim attacks in the usa. Though the use of the word "attack" is also problematic as radical muslim attacks tend to be far deadlier.

2) There are world spanning radical islam movements which can radicalize, supply and train terrorists, thus making them a bigger threats.

Catastrophe fallacy. There are world spanning radical groups funding boats to try and prevent NGOs from rescuing people on the Mediterranean. Do they count as terrorists?

Depends on the country the harassment. I can't find any "Catastrophe fallacy" but do you really want to say that people who can get a great deal of money from a wealthy organization as well as contact people who know how to create explosives for terrorism are a lesser threat than a guy stockpiling weapons with his own money?

3) The amounts of radical islam attacks that are actually carried out are despite the increased part of the surveillance so logic follows that the amount of attacks would have been a lot higher if it was known how inefficent government agencies act.

...huh?

If you try to reduce something it will likely be reduced. The amound of radical islam attacks that are usually brought up to show how little of them exist are only the ones that got through all the safety mechanisms.

Basically, only referring to attacks that were actually carried out is like saying vaccination for diseases that are now rare is pointless.

What, like this guy? Stopped by random train staff and otherwise unknown to the FBI?

I'm not saying that white radical terrorism doesn't exist, just that we shouldn't ignore that the steps taken by USA government to reduce terrorism might had an actual effect.

inu-kun:

Also, in response to Jux, this isn't racial profiling as it is "Racial profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person of a certain race based on a stereotype about their race, rather than on individual suspicion" and latinos being the majority of illegal immigrants is as close to fact as possible rather than stereotype (as opposed, for example, crime rate of afro americans which can be debated if it is more or the same as other races).

So...law enforcement should profile individual latinos based on race instead of individual suspicions?

But it isn't a stereotype, it might fall into a different category but not racial profiling.

It's the literal definition of profiling that you, yourself, posted. That you happen to think it's also valid is irrelevant. Gaming is the primary source of Swatting raids, should the police investigate every gamer as a potential swatter without evidence or suspicion?

The rest of this discussion is going along similar lines, so I'm just gonna quit now before I pick up a ban in frustration.

altnameJag:

Abomination:
If there is a government department, funded by taxpayer money, I would want it to perform in the most efficient way possible. This means focusing on the areas of highest probability.

A governmental agency shouldn't be violating the constitution at all, efficiency be damned.

The constitution of the United States is one of the worst pieces of legislation used by first world countries. The reverence given to it by the American people is embarrassing and actively hamstrings their ability to resolve genuine government corruption. Any argument made appealing to upholding the constitution might as well be a fallacy at this point. Just because something is protected by the constitution does not mean it is in the best interests of the people or the nation as a whole.

The SPIRIT of the amendment is to ensure that no individual is placed above any other when it comes to their treatment by government agencies. However, should a certain demographic group show a higher proportion and likelihood of terrorism it is only fair that the government passively monitor and focus on that group for the safety of all citizens - Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

Then it would be focusing on right wing white supremacy groups, considering they pose a higher terrorism threat than Muslims.

But they aren't.

The THREAT presented by white supremacists is greater but the method of identification for white supremacists is different than identifying potential radical Islamists. When the vast majority of a country has the same demographic makeup of the white supremacists using the same method of filtering for radical Islamist doesn't work - the workload would be extreme. So another method of identification is used.

Just because the method used is different due to the vast difference in demographic sizes does not mean the agencies are not investigating both parties.

I feel the word "monitor" is being used to encompass ALL forms of monitoring when there are very varied levels when it comes to investigations. Every single Muslim is not treated as a potential terrorist at all times, there are varying degrees of attention paid to individuals based on history and behavior relating to domestic threats. If an individual shows zero sign of such things they're ignored. If someone believes the government has the power and resources to monitor ALL Muslims in the United States then they would also have the power to monitor all PEOPLE in the United States. They do not have either.

And without evidence, they shouldn't be monitoring anybody.

That's how it's supposed to work.

An investigation is about GATHERING evidence based on suspicion. Evidence doesn't magically fall from the sky into agencies laps. They need to search for it and conduct background checks. This is the whole freedom-security divide. Benjamin Franklin got it wrong, there are some freedoms that need to be given up for security and government agencies conducting background checks and investigations on individuals to ensure the safety of the general population is one of them.

I mean for crying out loud, if we required evidence BEFORE an investigation is started it's an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff policy. Suspicion is what prompts an investigation, an investigation produces evidence. You're demanding the cart come before the horse.

altnameJag:
It's the literal definition of profiling that you, yourself, posted. That you happen to think it's also valid is irrelevant. Gaming is the primary source of Swatting raids, should the police investigate every gamer as a potential swatter without evidence or suspicion?

Due to the sheer number of gamers and the infrequency of SWATting the method of investigation would differ. Once a SWATting incident has been recorded then the agency can investigate the initial call.

There's a considerable difference in the crime and the demographic.

The law protects from persecution, not background checks.

Abomination:
The constitution of the United States is one of the worst pieces of legislation used by first world countries. The reverence given to it by the American people is embarrassing and actively hamstrings their ability to resolve genuine government corruption. Any argument made appealing to upholding the constitution might as well be a fallacy at this point. Just because something is protected by the constitution does not mean it is in the best interests of the people or the nation as a whole.

So the right to free speech, religion and assembly, the right to not be investigated or arrested without a warrant, the right to due process... None of those really do anything for you? Don't get me wrong, the document is in dire need of a 21st century update. That said, your insistence that the legal argument shouldn't count when it is inconvenient to you is hardly persuasive.

Abomination:
An investigation is about GATHERING evidence based on suspicion.

And in this case, the "suspicion" is nothing more than a "non-white" name.

Evidence doesn't magically fall from the sky into agencies laps. They need to search for it and conduct background checks.

In the United States, a person needs to give permission for anybody to perform a background check on them.

We have rules for this.

This is the whole freedom-security divide. Benjamin Franklin got it wrong, there are some freedoms that need to be given up for security and government agencies conducting background checks and investigations on individuals to ensure the safety of the general population is one of them.

I mean for crying out loud, if we required evidence BEFORE an investigation is started it's an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff policy. Suspicion is what prompts an investigation, an investigation produces evidence. You're demanding the cart come before the horse.

Sorry, but that's how it works.

Unless you're okay with the government pulling people in for information based on nothing or needing travel papers to avoid suspicion. You know, for security reasons. That that's a thing the USA used to criticize the soviet bloc for is immaterial.

Hell, there's a revenue scheme: anybody with the wrong sort of name can apply for a travel license or be subject to random ICE investigations. That's not fantastically authoritarian.

Abomination:

altnameJag:
It's the literal definition of profiling that you, yourself, posted. That you happen to think it's also valid is irrelevant. Gaming is the primary source of Swatting raids, should the police investigate every gamer as a potential swatter without evidence or suspicion?

Due to the sheer number of gamers and the infrequency of SWATting the method of investigation would differ. Once a SWATting incident has been recorded then the agency can investigate the initial call.

There's a considerable difference in the crime and the demographic.

The law protects from persecution, not background checks.

The law does, in fact, protect from undue background checks. I'm from here, I've done the paperwork.

BeetleManiac:

Abomination:
The constitution of the United States is one of the worst pieces of legislation used by first world countries. The reverence given to it by the American people is embarrassing and actively hamstrings their ability to resolve genuine government corruption. Any argument made appealing to upholding the constitution might as well be a fallacy at this point. Just because something is protected by the constitution does not mean it is in the best interests of the people or the nation as a whole.

So the right to free speech, religion and assembly, the right to not be investigated or arrested without a warrant, the right to due process... None of those really do anything for you? Don't get me wrong, the document is in dire need of a 21st century update. That said, your insistence that the legal argument shouldn't count when it is inconvenient to you is hardly persuasive.

At this point I'm just hoping they've never used the "but the leftists are the real authoritarians" "argument".

BeetleManiac:

Abomination:
The constitution of the United States is one of the worst pieces of legislation used by first world countries. The reverence given to it by the American people is embarrassing and actively hamstrings their ability to resolve genuine government corruption. Any argument made appealing to upholding the constitution might as well be a fallacy at this point. Just because something is protected by the constitution does not mean it is in the best interests of the people or the nation as a whole.

So the right to free speech, religion and assembly, the right to not be investigated or arrested without a warrant, the right to due process... None of those really do anything for you? Don't get me wrong, the document is in dire need of a 21st century update. That said, your insistence that the legal argument shouldn't count when it is inconvenient to you is hardly persuasive.

I'm not arguing the legality behind the constitution, I know that people must abide by it. But when discussing how a country should operate in regards to 21st century problems that aren't covered under the constitution then the constitution really needs to not be used as much as possible.

All the rights listed that are covered by the constitution are already covered as human rights observed by the United Nations. Other nations also are able to uphold these laws without the need of a constitution. Or if there are things on their version of the constitution it includes anti-corruption legislation... which is (not) surprisingly absent on the US constitution.

altnameJag:
In the United States, a person needs to give permission for anybody to perform a background check on them.
---
Sorry, but that's how it works.

Unless you're okay with the government pulling people in for information based on nothing or needing travel papers to avoid suspicion. You know, for security reasons. That that's a thing the USA used to criticize the soviet bloc for is immaterial.

Hell, there's a revenue scheme: anybody with the wrong sort of name can apply for a travel license or be subject to random ICE investigations. That's not fantastically authoritarian.

Oh right, you don't have a crown/federally issued ID for citizens in the United States... like every other civilized country does.

I keep forgetting it's the land of identity theft.

The rampant distrust of the government and the lack of any central database of citizens is just ridiculous. No wonder the United States keeps experiencing the problems it does in such high volume.

Abomination:
I'm not arguing the legality behind the constitution, I know that people must abide by it.

Then why are you saying that our government should violate the law of the land and investigate people for the "crime" of not have a sufficiently Anglo-Saxon surname? Let's be clear, not only did ICE not have search warrants for this, but the employees of the hotel were doing this behind the backs of corporate. The company has a policy that they do not give guest information like that to law enforcement without a warrant. So even if we buy into the whole, "Fuck the Constitution!" schtick, what about laws regarding breach of contract? And if corruption in the government is a problem, how is the answer to remove the systemic checks and balances and give the cops even more power than they already have?

Abomination:

BeetleManiac:

Abomination:
The constitution of the United States is one of the worst pieces of legislation used by first world countries. The reverence given to it by the American people is embarrassing and actively hamstrings their ability to resolve genuine government corruption. Any argument made appealing to upholding the constitution might as well be a fallacy at this point. Just because something is protected by the constitution does not mean it is in the best interests of the people or the nation as a whole.

So the right to free speech, religion and assembly, the right to not be investigated or arrested without a warrant, the right to due process... None of those really do anything for you? Don't get me wrong, the document is in dire need of a 21st century update. That said, your insistence that the legal argument shouldn't count when it is inconvenient to you is hardly persuasive.

I'm not arguing the legality behind the constitution, I know that people must abide by it. But when discussing how a country should operate in regards to 21st century problems that aren't covered under the constitution then the constitution really needs to not be used as much as possible.

All the rights listed that are covered by the constitution are already covered as human rights observed by the United Nations. Other nations also are able to uphold these laws without the need of a constitution. Or if there are things on their version of the constitution it includes anti-corruption legislation... which is (not) surprisingly absent on the US constitution.

See, that funny because you think the US actually cares what the UN thinks instead of just using it as a cudgel to get things we want.

BeetleManiac:

Abomination:
I'm not arguing the legality behind the constitution, I know that people must abide by it.

Then why are you saying that our government should violate the law of the land and investigate people for the "crime" of not have a sufficiently Anglo-Saxon surname? Let's be clear, not only did ICE not have search warrants for this, but the employees of the hotel were doing this behind the backs of corporate. The company has a policy that they do not give guest information like that to law enforcement without a warrant. So even if we buy into the whole, "Fuck the Constitution!" schtick, what about laws regarding breach of contract? And if corruption in the government is a problem, how is the answer to remove the systemic checks and balances and give the cops even more power than they already have?

Because when the laws of the land are so backwards and constricting the only way to be effective is to tread the boundaries of them. Eventually something will break. The alternative is to be inefficient and that results in inquiries and folks losing their jobs. Lose-lose.

That being said the company should not be at fault for obeying an agency request. The agency should be at fault for making the request. An individual should never be held liable for obeying a government command unless that command causes obvious harm.

Abomination:
Because when the laws of the land are so backwards and constricting the only way to be effective is to tread the boundaries of them. Eventually something will break. The alternative is to be inefficient and that results in inquiries and folks losing their jobs. Lose-lose.

Meh, efficiency is for corporate drones. Effectiveness is the better target. Do not confuse the two, because they are very different ideas. That being said, I don't get how the effectiveness of anything is being hampered by the fact that under current law the government requires a court-issued warrant to start nosing into your affairs. Because I don't like the idea of being criminally investigated as an insidious Russian fifth columnist just because my last name is Slavic.

That being said the company should not be at fault for obeying an agency request. The agency should be at fault for making the request. An individual should never be held liable for obeying a government command unless that command causes obvious harm.

Legal liability doesn't work that way. The company is still in breach of contract and the only way to protect themselves from a lawsuit is if they crack down on the location and employees that did this while demonstrating that the larger corporate infrastructure was unaware that this was going on.

BeetleManiac:

Abomination:
Because when the laws of the land are so backwards and constricting the only way to be effective is to tread the boundaries of them. Eventually something will break. The alternative is to be inefficient and that results in inquiries and folks losing their jobs. Lose-lose.

Meh, efficiency is for corporate drones. Effectiveness is the better target. Do not confuse the two, because they are very different ideas. That being said, I don't get how the effectiveness of anything is being hampered by the fact that under current law the government requires a court-issued warrant to start nosing into your affairs. Because I don't like the idea of being criminally investigated as an insidious Russian fifth columnist just because my last name is Slavic.

Yeah, not buying what you are selling. I don't for a second believe that you OR altnameJag are all too concerned about that so much as you'd just rather they not do anything about Illegals because that's part of the whole progressive mantra you both buy into.

Fischgopf:
Yeah, not buying what you are selling. I don't for a second believe that you OR altnameJag are all too concerned about that so much as you'd just rather they not do anything about Illegals because that's part of the whole progressive mantra you both buy into.

Yes, I also give abortions for funzies, desecrate flags on an hourly basis, torture Christians to death for the entertainment of Muslims, plot to exterminate all the Jews, and help the Feminist Leagion of Doom plot the most effective way to subjugate all males now and forever. Hail Hydra!

BeetleManiac:

Fischgopf:
Yeah, not buying what you are selling. I don't for a second believe that you OR altnameJag are all too concerned about that so much as you'd just rather they not do anything about Illegals because that's part of the whole progressive mantra you both buy into.

Yes, I also give abortions for funzies, desecrate flags on an hourly basis, torture Christians to death for the entertainment of Muslims, plot to exterminate all the Jews, and help the Feminist Leagion of Doom plot the most effective way to subjugate all males now and forever. Hail Hydra!

Shouldn't that be, plot to not exterminate the Jews?

Thaluikhain:

BeetleManiac:

Fischgopf:
Yeah, not buying what you are selling. I don't for a second believe that you OR altnameJag are all too concerned about that so much as you'd just rather they not do anything about Illegals because that's part of the whole progressive mantra you both buy into.

Yes, I also give abortions for funzies, desecrate flags on an hourly basis, torture Christians to death for the entertainment of Muslims, plot to exterminate all the Jews, and help the Feminist Leagion of Doom plot the most effective way to subjugate all males now and forever. Hail Hydra!

Shouldn't that be, plot to not exterminate the Jews?

Eh it depends on the day and which side of their mouth that the anti-liberal rant is coming from.

BeetleManiac:

Fischgopf:
Yeah, not buying what you are selling. I don't for a second believe that you OR altnameJag are all too concerned about that so much as you'd just rather they not do anything about Illegals because that's part of the whole progressive mantra you both buy into.

Yes, I also give abortions for funzies, desecrate flags on an hourly basis, torture Christians to death for the entertainment of Muslims, plot to exterminate all the Jews, and help the Feminist Leagion of Doom plot the most effective way to subjugate all males now and forever. Hail Hydra!

Oh look, a lame as shit "witty" comeback, totally not what I knew you would respond with and it totally doesn't tell me "Yeah, you got me in a Box."

Maybe I'd buy the whole "This is about the Constamatution!!!!!" crap if you all weren't super eager to immediantly jump for the hacky Racism-Angle. Or, you know, throw said Constitution under the Bus the moment you don't like it.

And for the record, I don't care about Flags, Christians or Abortion. As one would likely expect from a Atheist immigrant in a long-term childless relationship such as myself.

So, any more "witty" and "clever" responses? Like I said, I don't buy it because of exactly this kind of behavior from you, so go ahead and continue to demonstrate my point. I mean, I just told you that I think you as a person are untrustworthy and false and your response was to try and be sarcastic about that, you are transparent.

Avnger:

Eh it depends on the day and which side of their mouth that the anti-liberal rant is coming from.

You think they are liberals? XDDDDD

No, these people are progressives.

Fischgopf:
Oh look, a lame as shit "witty" comeback, totally not what I knew you would respond with and it totally doesn't tell me "Yeah, you got me in a Box."

I aim to please.

Or, you know, throw said Constitution under the Bus the moment you don't like it.

Examples?

And for the record, I don't care about Flags, Christians or Abortion. As one would likely expect from a Atheist immigrant in a long-term childless relationship such as myself.

That's nice for you. And?

So, any more "witty" and "clever" responses?

For you? Always.

Like I said, I don't buy it because of exactly this kind of behavior from you, so go ahead and continue to demonstrate my point. I mean, I just told you that I think you as a person are untrustworthy and false and your response was to try and be sarcastic about that, you are transparent.

I see no reason to dignify your inarticulate ad hominem with anything other than humor. Remember that you didn't attack my arguments, you attacked me. If you want to act like a fool, then that's how people will treat you.

altnameJag:
Then it would be focusing on right wing white supremacy groups, considering they pose a higher terrorism threat than Muslims.

But they aren't.

This is a lie, and I have corrected you on it before.

You're using headlines from some liberal click-bait sites a while ago, they cite this article by the NYTimes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/tally-of-attacks-in-us-challenges-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html

However, if we do some very basic maths, we actually find the following:

The population of the US is around 326Million. 40% say they're conservative, and at that, the vast majority are male so, there's 131 million or so conservatives.

Population of Muslims is 3 Million. And for our purposes, we'll factor in women too, even though they account for basically no terror attacks, and thus only bring down the real value. We'll also further handicap in favour of the Muslim population, by discounting 9/11.

According to "Snoopes" there's been 23 Muslim attacks leading to 119 Deaths and 62 right wing attacks leading to 106 deaths.
So, that gives us the following rates:
23/3,000,000 = 0.00000767 < Terror attacks per Muslim.
119/3,000,000 = 0.00003967 < Chance of a Muslim killing you.
62/130,000,000 = 0.00000051 < Attacks per Conservative.
106/130,000,000 = 0.00000081 < Chance of a conservative killing you.

So, what that means, is that if there were as many Muslims are there are conservatives there would be...
5158 Deaths and 1000 attacks from Muslims
119 Deaths and 62 Attacks from Conservatives.

Now, I know what you're going to say.

"I said white surpemecy groups".

And, you're right. However, we don't have numbers on that sorta thing. So, instead we'll use ABC's poll which put support for the Alt-right at 10%, and support for Neo-nazis at 9%.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/28-approve-trumps-response-charlottesville-poll/story?id=49334079

We'll use the 9% as it's the smaller value. We'll also assume that every single domestic terror attack by right-wing groups was caused by them. Another handicap for the Muslim side. Don't worry, I'll go over all of those later.

9% of 326,000,000 is 29,340,000.

So, applying maths again.
62/29,340,000 = 0.00000211 < Attacks per Neo-Nazi.
106/29,340,000 = 0.00000361 < Chance of a Neo-Nazi killing you.
23/3,000,000 = 0.00000767 < Terror attacks per Muslim.
119/3,000,000 = 0.00003967 < Chance of a Muslim killing you.

So, what that means, is that if there were as many Muslims are there are Neo-Nazis there would be...
1,163 Deaths and 225 attacks from Muslims

Which you'll notice, is considerably higher.

So, even discounting any terror attack that happened before the 12 September. Even considering that these attacks are overwhelmingly carried out by men and the muslim sample includes both genders. Even attributing every single right-wing terror attack to 9% of the population who identify accept Neo-Nazism. Muslims still commit more attacks than those people, statistically speaking.

BeetleManiac:

Fischgopf:
Oh look, a lame as shit "witty" comeback, totally not what I knew you would respond with and it totally doesn't tell me "Yeah, you got me in a Box."

I aim to please.

Too bad you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. If I were you I'd save up all that energy and will to please for the massage parlor, you'll find more success there.

Or, you know, throw said Constitution under the Bus the moment you don't like it.

Examples?[/quote]

Pass. Reading the drivel you post is bad enough when I simply stumble upon it, I'm certainly not going to seek it out.

Besides, you don't seem to understand this, but you aren't the audience for this post. The audience is everyone else that already knows this to be true about you.

And for the record, I don't care about Flags, Christians or Abortion. As one would likely expect from a Atheist immigrant in a long-term childless relationship such as myself.

That's nice for you. And?[/quote]

So, do you seriously think that other people can't read your response to me in which you are clearly trying to stereotype me as some kind of right-wing caricature? See, this is why I like pointing out how you are anything but clever. You still haven't figured out that you lost the moment you posted that.

So, any more "witty" and "clever" responses?

For you? Always.[/quote]

Your lack of cleverness and wit have nothing to do with me.

Like I said, I don't buy it because of exactly this kind of behavior from you, so go ahead and continue to demonstrate my point. I mean, I just told you that I think you as a person are untrustworthy and false and your response was to try and be sarcastic about that, you are transparent.

I see no reason to dignify your inarticulate ad hominem with anything other than humor. Remember that you didn't attack my arguments, you attacked me. If you want to act like a fool, then that's how people will treat you.[/quote]

Cute. No, the reason you respond in such a way is because you literally have nothing else to offer. It's your entire modus operandi. That's why I spend my time pointing out that you are bad at it, especially since it's pretty obvious that it really hurts your fragile ego.

And why would I attack your argument? I already agreed that the ICE shouldn't do that. I also don't see you as having made any argument worth toppling. We both know that you aren't actually worried about your slavic name being grounds for authorities to check your status and that it is a apples vs oranges comparison. Part of the reason of why I'm calling bullshit, you don't ever argue in good faith. Why on earth would I when dealing with you? Why should I pretend that you aren't a annoyingly aggressive User who spends most of his time trying to take pot shots at others? I'm not going to pretend that you are a decent person.

Fischgopf:
Part of the reason of why I'm calling bullshit, you don't ever argue in good faith.

Says the guy throwing around ad hominems, snarky stereotypes and refusing to source his accusations. Dude, you are officially spending far more effort trying to insult me than I've spent making light of some dumb things you said to me. Take a day off and we'll talk after you've had some time to cool off, okay?

BeetleManiac:
Snippity-do-da!

Fischgopf:
Snippity day!

Alright you two.

I am feeling rather generous this morning despite being super sick, and I'm just going to give the both of you a verbal warning. Cut it out. Get back to the topic at hand, or stop quoting each other. If I see anymore back and forths from either of you to each other in this thread then I will hand out infractions.

BeetleManiac:
Meh, efficiency is for corporate drones. Effectiveness is the better target. Do not confuse the two, because they are very different ideas. That being said, I don't get how the effectiveness of anything is being hampered by the fact that under current law the government requires a court-issued warrant to start nosing into your affairs. Because I don't like the idea of being criminally investigated as an insidious Russian fifth columnist just because my last name is Slavic.

The sheer paranoia is astounding. "Being criminally investigated" =/= a background check. No wonder corruption is so fucking rampant in the United States, everyone is so afraid of the government going full tyrant that nobody has the authority to investigate anyone so nobody gets investigated so corruption becomes the norm.

So the government gets to become tyrannical in the worst way possible - the legal way. Nobody has the power to investigate or prosecute so it doesn't happen.

Abomination:
The sheer paranoia is astounding. "Being criminally investigated" =/= a background check.

Text is a poor medium to communicate sometimes. I was being facetious. Now, let's be clear. Whether or not you like it, the fourth amendment is still a thing. The ICE cops are going to have to argue to a judge why they thought there was probable cause to take the data of random Hispanic people paying for a night at a cheap hotel and monitoring that hotel on a regular basis and didn't bother to obtain a warrant before they went ahead and did it. And the Motel 6 corporation is going to throw the employees complicit in this to the wolves because it leaves the company itself legally liable for any lawsuits that result from a violation of their customer contract that says they don't hand out customer's personal information unless compelled to by a warrant from a judge.

Complain about the system if you will, it is what it is for the purposes of this case. ICE are on the hook for potentially violating privacy laws. And the employees of Motel 6 are on the hook for breach of contract. What do you propose we do about that?

The Lunatic:
Muslims still commit more attacks than those people, statistically speaking.

Now, I'm not a statistician and this is just my immediate, amateur appraisal, but your analysis is full of holes.

For starters, at several points you openly state you're pulling numbers basically out of nowhere. (How did you determine that "the vast majority" of conservatives are male?) Furthermore, you're making no effort to actually present the numbers in a clear and concise way; you're just rattling off calculations that seem impressive on the face of it but which are difficult for a layman to actually follow.

Lastly, you're overlooking a more fundamental issue, which is that you are attempting to conduct a proportional analysis of the deaths caused by Muslims versus the deaths caused by conservatives. But a proportional analysis is misleading; there are not, nor will there ever be in the near future, as many Muslims in the US as there are conservatives. In practical terms, we are never going to be in a situation where we are comparing the deaths caused by 131 million American Muslims to the deaths caused by 131 million American conservatives. This is a basic statistical mistake; to demonstrate, one could perform a "proportional" analysis of all deaths caused by Muslims versus all deaths caused by people named Stephen Craig Paddock, and arrive at the result that people named Stephen Craig Paddock are disproportionately more likely to commit murder than people who are Muslims.

I could even make the argument that any group which constitutes a very small minority of the population will become increasingly marginalised or ostracised by mainstream society, resulting in higher proportional rates of extremism. That is to say: the fewer Muslims there are in a nation that is overwhelmingly non-Muslim, the greater the proportion of that population will be susceptible to extremist ideologies that relies on exploiting the fear of being outnumbered and oppressed for their appeal.

Which is to say that if there were 131 million Muslims in the United States, there would be a smaller proportion of extremist Muslims, because Muslims would represent such a large demographic that their desires and cultural attitudes are more likely to be respected by the body politic.

The Lunatic:
-Weh-

Wh--
Where the fuck are you even getting these numbers from???
How do you know that a "vast majority" of those supposed 40% of conservatives are men?
Where are you getting your 40% Conservatives figure from?
You said there's 131 million "or so" conservatives, but in your math you use 130 million, which is it? While a million people is really a drop in the bucket considernig there's around 326 million Americans, your math is off if you're not using the same damn numbers you just bloody quoted.
You really used ABC's poll as a benchmark for actual Alt-right and Neo-Nazi support??? Oy vey.

I think I got some better numbers for you, and this doesn't even have that many numbers!

Let's see...

- Between the years 2007-2016, domestic extremists were responsible for at least 372 deaths in the United States. 74% of these murders were committed by right-wing extremists such as white supremacists, sovereign citizens, and militia adherents.

That single statistic alone blows your entire mathematical gymnastics straight out of the water. Over the course of 9 years, right-wing extremism has caused the death of ~275 people. That leaves the rest of the ~97 deaths to be spread out among other forms of extremism.

- In 2016, right-wing extremists were not responsible for the most extremist-related killings in the US. For the first time in more than 30 years.

Statistically speaking, you're full of bullshit.
I am at greater risk of being attacked or killed by a right-winger than I am by a muslim in the United States.

40% of US identify as conservative. [1]

As far as the gender gap. I did the maths, but then deleted it by mistake.

However, if you break down the population, percentage of population who identify as republican, then within that, those who identify as strongly conversative, you end up with 25% of men vs 19% of women. Which is a relative difference of about 25%. "Vast", okay, a bit of an overstatement, but, significant, sure.

You can use the following sources to work that this out:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/party-identification-trends-1992-2014/#gender
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/the-political-typology-beyond-red-vs-blue/

bastardofmelbourne:
Furthermore, you're making no effort to actually present the numbers in a clear and concise way; you're just rattling off calculations that seem impressive on the face of it but which are difficult for a layman to actually follow.

It's per capita. It's fairly straight forward.

Basically we draw the following conclusion: If a group has a trait, the more people this group has, the more common this trait is overall.

A simple comparison.

If you have a room of 10 people. 4 People are blonde. 4 People have blue eyes.
You now have a room of 10 people. 10 are blond. Is it still the case that only 4 people of the 10 have blue eyes?

bastardofmelbourne:
Lastly, you're overlooking a more fundamental issue, which is that you are attempting to conduct a proportional analysis of the deaths caused by Muslims versus the deaths caused by conservatives. But a proportional analysis is misleading; there are not, nor will there ever be in the near future, as many Muslims in the US as there are conservatives.

Nobody is saying there is. We're saying that to say "This many attacks happened, therefore this group is a bigger threat" is ignoring the context of how many people are in one group compared to another.

bastardofmelbourne:
In practical terms, we are never going to be in a situation where we are comparing the deaths caused by 131 million American Muslims to the deaths caused by 131 million American conservatives. This is a basic statistical mistake; to demonstrate, one could perform a "proportional" analysis of all deaths caused by Muslims versus all deaths caused by people named Stephen Craig Paddock, and arrive at the result that people named Stephen Craig Paddock are disproportionately more likely to commit murder than people who are Muslims.

Okay, but do people named Craig Paddock consistently have higher rates of crime, across the entire globe, regardless of country, socioeconomic status, and so on?

You're ignoring a constant with a frankly ridiculous comparison.

bastardofmelbourne:
I could even make the argument that any group which constitutes a very small minority of the population will become increasingly marginalised or ostracised by mainstream society, resulting in higher proportional rates of extremism. That is to say: the fewer Muslims there are in a nation that is overwhelmingly non-Muslim, the greater the proportion of that population will be susceptible to extremist ideologies that relies on exploiting the fear of being outnumbered and oppressed for their appeal.

Which is to say that if there were 131 million Muslims in the United States, there would be a smaller proportion of extremist Muslims, because Muslims would represent such a large demographic that their desires and cultural attitudes are more likely to be respected by the body politic.

This all just becomes complete non-sense when you consider Iran, Iraq, and basically any Muslim majority country has a significantly higher rate of terror attacks and those murdered by terror, and the rate of terror attacks increases as the population of Muslims increases, as we see in Europe.

So, please, do cite an source which disproves the following trend that has emerged within recent years:

More Muslims in a country = A higher rate of terror attacks.

If you can, I'll quite happily do the maths to prove you wrong.

One could also argue that if there were 131 million Neo-Nazis in America, there would be no terror attacks as they'd no longer be marginalized or ostracized by mainstream society.

Dr. Thrax:
You really used ABC's poll as a benchmark for actual Alt-right and Neo-Nazi support??? Oy vey.

Then please do provide an alternative source for such figures.

The only other one I could find, "Disapproval of interracial marriage" which is at 11%.

You'll note 11% is higher than 10%, or even 9%.

Dr. Thrax:

I think I got some better numbers for you, and this doesn't even have that many numbers!

Let's see...

- Between the years 2007-2016, domestic extremists were responsible for at least 372 deaths in the United States. 74% of these murders were committed by right-wing extremists such as white supremacists, sovereign citizens, and militia adherents.

That single statistic alone blows your entire mathematical gymnastics straight out of the water. Over the course of 9 years, right-wing extremism has caused the death of ~275 people. That leaves the rest of the ~97 deaths to be spread out among other forms of extremism.

- In 2016, right-wing extremists were not responsible for the most extremist-related killings in the US. For the first time in more than 30 years.

Statistically speaking, you're full of bullshit.
I am at greater risk of being attacked or killed by a right-winger than I am a muslim in the United States.

No, because that 373 deaths is divided among 9%~ Of the population, compared to a lower number, committed by a significantly smaller portion of the population.

You are simply not understanding the concept of a ratio. And I'm not a maths teacher, so, I'm sorry, but, I can't help you with that one.

Tell you what, I'll make an analogy.

You have a table in front of you.
It has 100 red cups and 10 green cups.
You are told that 20 of red cups and 3 of the green cups are poison.

Do you drink from a green cup or a red cup?

Dr. Thrax:
Between the years 2007-2016

Also, nobody has yet to tell me why we're all pretending 9/11 didn't happen. I did it myself to at least make this whole thing sporting. But, if somebody could please give me a good reason not to factor 9/11 into the number of terror attacks, I'd rather like to know.

Also, the figures you cite don't even account for the Pulse Nightclub shooting, which as a gay person myself just seems insulting that you should try to correct me, not only using faulty figures. But, failing to account for a significant attack against people such as myself.

The Lunatic:
You're ignoring a constant with a frankly ridiculous comparison.

Oh, the irony. Try not to make claims like that after filling the thread with a load of tl;dr spurious pseudomathematical garbage.

Agema:

The Lunatic:
You're ignoring a constant with a frankly ridiculous comparison.

Oh, the irony. Try not to make claims like that after filling the thread with a load of tl;dr spurious pseudomathematical garbage.

Tell me, is it "pseudomathematical" because you don't understand it, or because you don't like it?

Because I'm not hearing an argument here.

This is a bit of a difficult discussion because there is no clear concensus on what constitutes a terror attack. Different organizations/studies have different definitions and on top of that different organizations/studies utilize different methods to determine which attacks fall under what category. As such, you can basically find a study for whatever viewpoint you want and technically they could all be true (depending on how they define certai criteria)

Sidenote: you also have to be careful when it comes to the topic of crime and race because different organizations use different definitions of what constitutes X race.

for example, here is politifacts take on it. http://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/aug/31/who-carries-out-more-terror-attacks-us-soil-right-/

Which shows that there are more right wing attacks, but they cause fewer overall deaths (albeit barely) than islamic extremists. Islamic attacks, while far less fequent, tend to be much deadlier (1.7 people killed per attack for right wing vs 5.2 people killed per attack for islamic extremists) based upon a report by the government accountability office.

Like i said though, you could probably find a study to fit whatever viewpoint you want based upon actual evidence. You can also find a reason to dismiss any and all studies which do not fit your viewpoint because there is no concensus on the methodology or terminology of the subject.

The Lunatic:
However, if you break down the population, percentage of population who identify as republican, then within that, those who identify as strongly conversative, you end up with 25% of men vs 19% of women. Which is a relative difference of about 25%. "Vast", okay, a bit of an overstatement, but, significant, sure.

You're talking about the gender voting gap, which is where women vote slightly more Democratic and men vote slightly more Republican. That's been a thing for a while now, largely because of support for reproductive rights in the US in the wake of Roe v Wade in the 1970s.

The largest instance of the gender voting gap was in 2016, when Trump carried male voters by 12 points and Clinton carried female voters by 12 points. I assume that's where you're getting your "relative difference of 25%." This does mean that women are more likely to vote Democratic, but it does not validate your math; presidential exit polls are only one indicator of ideological alignment, Trump was especially toxic amongst female voters for reasons unrelated to his ideology, and it's data from a single election being used for an analysis spanning one or more decades.

More fundamentally, "conservative" and "Republican" are not the same thing. There are conservatives who do not consider themselves Republican; there are Republicans who do not consider themselves conservative.

The Lunatic:
It's per capita. It's fairly straight forward.

Basically we draw the following conclusion: If a group has a trait, the more people this group has, the more common this trait is overall.

A simple comparison.

If you have a room of 10 people. 4 People are blonde. 4 People have blue eyes.
You now have a room of 10 people. 10 are blond. Is it still the case that only 4 people of the 10 have blue eyes?

I cannot parse this example at all. If you are saying what I think you are saying, there are much clearer ways of saying it.

The Lunatic:
Nobody is saying there is. We're saying that to say "This many attacks happened, therefore this group is a bigger threat" is ignoring the context of how many people are in one group compared to another.

If we were debating specifically which group is the bigger threat in practical terms, then proportional analysis is not necessarily relevant.

A smaller group may have a larger proportion of extremists than other groups, but still represent a minor threat compared to a much larger group with a smaller proportion of extremists.

The Lunatic:
Okay, but do people named Craig Paddock consistently have higher rates of crime, across the entire globe, regardless of country, socioeconomic status, and so on?

This is you shifting the goalposts.

The Lunatic:
This all just becomes complete non-sense when you consider Iran, Iraq, and basically any Muslim majority country has a significantly higher rate of terror attacks and those murdered by terror, and the rate of terror attacks increases as the population of Muslims increases, as we see in Europe.

That rebuttal only makes sense if you consider "Muslims" to be a homogenous, identical bloc. They are not. They are Sunni, Shi'ite, Sufi, Yazidi, Druze and any other one of a dozen sub-sects you could find out about if you skimmed Wikipedia for five minutes. Those denominations quarrel over differences in religious belief and they kill each other over differences in religious belief, just as Catholics and Protestants have been doing in Europe for hundreds of years.

I mean, anyone with a passing familiarity of Middle Eastern history would know that Iraq and Iran fought an eight-year war across their shared borders primarily due to the fact that Iraq was ruled by a Sunni regime and Iran was ruled by a Shi'ite regime. Iraq also has a large population of Kurdish Muslims, as does Syria and Turkey, largely due to a quirk of their national borders. The Kurds strongly believe in an independent Kurdistan, which means Iraq, Syria and Turkey all consider the Kurds to be terrorists.

You are oversimplifying a very complex analysis for the purposes of your argument.

The Lunatic:
Tell you what, I'll make an analogy.

You have a table in front of you.
It has 100 red cups and 10 green cups.
You are told that 20 of red cups and 3 of the green cups are poison.

Do you drink from a green cup or a red cup?

This is the poisoned Skittles meme again. Look, are you taking this seriously, or are you regurgitating infographics you found on Facebook?

The Lunatic:
Also, nobody has yet to tell me why we're all pretending 9/11 didn't happen. I did it myself to at least make this whole thing sporting. But, if somebody could please give me a good reason not to factor 9/11 into the number of terror attacks, I'd rather like to know.

The reason why many analyses start in 2002 is because 9/11 was an astoundingly successful terrorist attack that has never been replicated in scale since. In short; it was a one-hit wonder. Including it only warps the statistical analysis, which is about examining long-term trends rather than isolated incidents.

The most honest way to present this is to present both the analysis including 9/11 and the analysis excluding it, and explaining why there is a difference between the two. But that takes substantially more space than is available in the average infographic.

Look, I'm going to leave it here, because something tells me this won't be a very productive discussion if I keep it up, and I hate cutting apart long posts like I just did up there, so I'd rather not do it a third time.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here