Congresswoman Giffords shot in head in rampage...

[Calax]

I judge people by their actions, not by what they claim about themselves.

How does "Protesting killing" (which is basically what they're attempting to do I believe... the military protests and such are protesting the taking of lives and not living by the strictest code of the bible) fall under "satanist"?

[Guard Dog]

I'm sorry, but 98% of that is either wholly insubstantiated or just makes no sense. The only people wondering why jihadists hated America were people who had never had a single foreign policy briefing or read a single book about south/central asian foreign policy. I'd hardly characterize such people as a "ruling class." The real ruling class has been getting CIA briefings for decades spelling out exactly why jihadists hated America. The surprise of 9/11 wasn't that their motivation was greater than we thought-- it was that their capabilities were greater than we thought.

 

And why do you assume that the powers-that-be aren't/weren't interested in understanding why anger-heavy extremism has been growing in signficance? Scads of studies have covered the subject over the past couple decades, both in scholarly poli-sci publications and in everyday newspapers and magazines. Opinions on the causes of these shifts in attitudes do vary, although it's not just a creature of the right-- the level of anger and involvment on the far left has crested as well, but they don't like to listen to the radio as much as diehard conservatives do. (Personally, I see a slow evolution. Heavily negative political campaigns really started rolling in the late 80s, and they worked. Iterate that over a decade or two, and combine it with some very public examples of regrettable behavior by public officials, and you get a much more cynical electorate. And a cynical electorate is one that is ready to reflexively believe the worst about their political opponents without looking too hard for confirmation. That's the kind of credulity that the popularizers of extremist rhetoric and conspiracy theories depend on. "Bush/Cheney is giving Iraq to Haliburton!" "Obama is raising our taxes to pay Muslim welfare queens!")

 

As for reflexive crack-downs, that really doesn't happen much in America, absent something on the 9/11 scale. Sure, talking heads will yammer about how such-and-such incident illustrates why their favorite policy hobbyhorse is such a good idea, but that's a long way from actual significant changes in policy. How long did it take between James Brady getting shot and the Act commonly commonly referred by his name being signed into law?

Most voter studies I've read (admittedly only see them in newspapers who all seem to have an ax to grind these days) seem to come out along the politcal lines of the groups behind the studies. For example, the 2010 election was a complete and total repudiation of the left, not so much a statement of dissatisfaction on the economy as has been reported everywhere. Most pro-democrat news organizations (which IS most of them) seem to ignore or gloss over the voters dissatisfaction with Obamacare and the conduct of the congress in general under Pelosi-Reid. My evidence of this is the near complete devastation of the democrats in the state office elections. Congress can change hands over and again but a loss change at the state level such as 2010 brought has not been seen since the depression. As for public anger at the 111th Congress, their attitudes towards their constituents and the public at large was, and I'll be kind, one of condescedning arrogance and contempt. And then Congressional leaders had the gall to wonder on Sunday Morning news shows why everyone was so angry. But anyway, this is not a politcal thread and I really don't want it to become one. Those politicians who sought to make politcal hay out of this have been pretty well humiliated. As for the crack-downs that was a little dramatic wording on my part but since the shooting there have been three new gun control bills promised, another promised to silence some politcal speech and a new all out attempt at dragging the fairness doctrine out of it's grave. None of it will see the light of day however. and none of it has anything to do with this shooting. It's just cynical people trying to capitalize on a tragedy to get their will imposed.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I judge people by their actions, not by what they claim about themselves.

How does "Protesting killing" (which is basically what they're attempting to do I believe... the military protests and such are protesting the taking of lives and not living by the strictest code of the bible) fall under "satanist"?

They're not protesting killing, they believe it's good that our soldiers are dying because US allows homosexuality. They also believe that it's good that a small child was killed for the same reason. They also try to add as much as they can to the anguish of the families of the fallen. So if they believe their deity approves of them, their deity must be Satan.

[Humodour]

Can't say I blame you, though. It's perfectly natural to be obsessed with me.

 

lol... it's like something straight out of a textbook.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_...R_.3D_301.81.29

[Gorth]

Can't say I blame you, though. It's perfectly natural to be obsessed with me.

 

lol... it's like something straight out of a textbook.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_...R_.3D_301.81.29

arithmomania

[Hurlshort]

I judge people by their actions, not by what they claim about themselves.

How does "Protesting killing" (which is basically what they're attempting to do I believe... the military protests and such are protesting the taking of lives and not living by the strictest code of the bible) fall under "satanist"?

They're not protesting killing, they believe it's good that our soldiers are dying because US allows homosexuality. They also believe that it's good that a small child was killed for the same reason. They also try to add as much as they can to the anguish of the families of the fallen. So if they believe their deity approves of them, their deity must be Satan.

 

That made a surprising amount of sense. I would definitely say these folks fail to grasp the teachings of Jesus in any way.

[Oblarg]

I judge people by their actions, not by what they claim about themselves.

How does "Protesting killing" (which is basically what they're attempting to do I believe... the military protests and such are protesting the taking of lives and not living by the strictest code of the bible) fall under "satanist"?

They're not protesting killing, they believe it's good that our soldiers are dying because US allows homosexuality. They also believe that it's good that a small child was killed for the same reason. They also try to add as much as they can to the anguish of the families of the fallen. So if they believe their deity approves of them, their deity must be Satan.

 

I wouldn't be so sure, the old testament god does seem to be quite a ****.

[Tigranes]

Every once in a while somebody pops up with the good old "OT God was a bastard", which in full context is about as accurate as "hey Allah wants you to bath in the blood of your enemies".

 

Edit: It's not.

[Oblarg]

Every once in a while somebody pops up with the good old "OT God was a bastard", which in full context is about as accurate as "hey Allah wants you to bath in the blood of your enemies".

 

Edit: It's not.

 

It's not accurate if you interpret the text fairly liberally, no. But something tells me these people aren't likely to do that.

 

I'm surprised they're not advocating stoning your kids if they're disobedient. It's in the bible, and it certainly seems right up their alley.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Oblarg

[213374U]

Everyone likes to think that they can 'spot' potential homicidal maniacs in some way and in the aftermath of such events there is usually a consideration for not wanting to panic people by suggesting there are more people hiding out there waiting for their chance/ a trigger or whatever who look just like any one of us. Releasing a photo which lets people say 'well, he looks bonkers and I could pick up on that' helps with that very human reaction.

I don't think I've heard anyone actually defend the idea that it's possible to spot crazies at a glance - even if the idea is subliminally advanced as you suggest. But even if it were, it wouldn't be much use as most crazies aren't necessarily violent, and a good portion of convicted violent criminals aren't actually messed in the head. Throw in "momentary madness" mitigating circumstances and, heh...

 

And while it's true that lighting and positioning in mugshots certainly don't help you look pretty, the only lighting that could help with that face is... none at all. *rimshot*

 

 

Can't say I blame you, though. It's perfectly natural to be obsessed with me.

 

lol... it's like something straight out of a textbook.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_...R_.3D_301.81.29

facepalm.jpg

 

Good thing they don't hand out psychiatry licenses based solely on Wikipedia usage skill... in which case, you'd still fail. By making such a blatantly narcissistic -so blatant it's caricaturesque- remark, I'm implicitly showcasing and exaggerating a negative trait of my personality (that I am, in fact, a conceited twit) - which is, ironically, self-deprecating humor. I apologize for assuming you'd be able to appreciate such sophistication and intricacy in comedy; I'll stick to "your mum" jokes from now on, to spare you further embarassment, "professor".

Edited January 14, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Didn't know about the Port Arthur retouch issue, Zor. Can you link a reliable source? I could use it on something I'm writing. Save me a few minutes if you have one in mind.

 

Incidentally, speaking of Wikipedia isn't it interesting that it's no longer at all credible as source material? Doesn't it rather critically undermine its role as online knowledge source if it can't be referenced? Meaning we have to go back to using multiple repositories or *gasp* actual libraries with actual books?

[Orogun01]

It's not accurate if you interpret the text fairly liberally, no. But something tells me these people aren't likely to do that.

 

I'm surprised they're not advocating stoning your kids if they're disobedient. It's in the bible, and it certainly seems right up their alley.

Well if you interpret Darwin closely you get social eugenics, and you know to what that eventually leads to. There were plenty a person who though that this was a good idea bringing into race relations and many other aspects of society. You can't blame the content of a book that unintentionally becomes misinterpreted into a violent manifest. Fault lies with the interpreter not with the book.

[Tigranes]

I'm surprised they're not advocating stoning your kids if they're disobedient. It's in the bible, and it certainly seems right up their alley.

 

Sorry, but that's ignorant and bigoted nonsense, unless you address it to that select fanatical minority that hogs all the news headlines. It's fun to just sit and imagine most Christians or other religious groups are filled to the head with mushroom gas like that, but it's neither productive nor logical.

 

edit: In general terms I guess the expression is - if a man believes in Science and not faith, but supplements his distaste of faith by believing in the worst of the faithful, then isn't he putting his faith in unscientific evidence in order to buttress his belief in Science? Oy vey.

[Zoraptor]

Didn't know about the Port Arthur retouch issue, Zor. Can you link a reliable source? I could use it on something I'm writing. Save me a few minutes if you have one in mind.

Probably too early for most internet sources as it was in 1996- my prelim search mainly turned up conspiracy theory websites. Perhaps this is sufficient?

 

I imagine Google Images can find the original and retouched versions if you want to see what the change was.

 

To be absolutely fair the paper primarily involved has always (so far as I am aware) maintained it was an accidental artefact rather than deliberate manipulation, albeit an artefact that somehow managed to make it through full editing despite being obvious and appearing on the front page and which somehow other sources that used the same photo managed to avoid.

[Oblarg]

I'm surprised they're not advocating stoning your kids if they're disobedient. It's in the bible, and it certainly seems right up their alley.

 

Sorry, but that's ignorant and bigoted nonsense, unless you address it to that select fanatical minority that hogs all the news headlines.

 

Isn't that exactly who we're talking about right now? Unless somehow the conversation has shifted from the WBC to every Christian in existence without me noticing.

[Tigranes]

Fair enough - I probably took it in too general a sense.

 

Re: photo editing, you only have to look at the last US presidential election for blatant manipulation.

[213374U]

Incidentally, speaking of Wikipedia isn't it interesting that it's no longer at all credible as source material? Doesn't it rather critically undermine its role as online knowledge source if it can't be referenced? Meaning we have to go back to using multiple repositories or *gasp* actual libraries with actual books?

I'm not sure what you mean about it "no longer being at all credible", but to me that's just a convenient tactic used in e-fights when one is proven wrong by a Wikipedia link.

 

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

 

Wikipedia obviously does not replace a formal education and is not meant to be a valid reference for grad-level works and above. But then again, what encyclopedia is? However, to discount it out of hand just because "anyone can edit it" is unfair too. There are policies enforced by sysops and bureaucrats to prevent WP from becoming a repository of lies and agendas. And even if you are feeling especially paranoid and refuse to acknowledge that, it's still a very good place to go hunting for references to third party sites, whose credibility may be easier to evaluate.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Well, its coming out that this lunatic was into the whole 'Loose Change' 'the government commited 9-11' crap. To those bitching about rhetoric, perhaps we should also ban speech promoting this lunacy? One of the more dangerous beliefs out there. If 9-11 was perpetrated by the government, assassination of political figures could be justified. If I really believed it I would want to see those responsible killed, one way or another. I remember speaking to a 'truther' about this and I said the very same to him. "Just you wait" he said.

 

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-nat...-a-9-11-truther

 

It will be interesting if this information will every see the light of day in the mainstream media between the Palin beat downs.

[Walsingham]

One question, just occured to me: If the pen is mightier than the sword, then why are we so blase about what people write?

 

 

 

~~@Numbers

Come on, Numbers. Either I'm right or the standard of academic discourse these days is irretrievably in the toilet. I'd say that wiki has slightly more credibility online than off it.

 

I use wiki, but only in the same way that if I was interested in something I'd bring it up in conversation in the pub. I get a nice simple digestion of the common man's understanding. But no more.

 

Speaking of the editing controls, I notice that Mr Wales went to the press this week to say he wants to make much much wiki easier to edit. Which is surely going to dilute it even further with the kind of hate filled garbage one finds on almost every 'speak your brains' news outlet.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Walsingham

[213374U]

^Well, you must have some interesting drinking partners, then. Because nobody I know could give me a run-down on the Iranian Assembly of Experts, the Dreyse Needle Gun and tensor analysis, and only a few could do it on *one* of these topics.

 

Further, article evolution is something that traditional media can't support by definition. I'm sure there's plenty of examples, but take a look at the talk pages for the entropy article for instance to get an idea of the kind of collaborative efforts that are involved in the construction of some pages; there's some great stuff in there, from people that obviously know what they are talking about. I just pulled up some of my old physics books and some of the stuff discussed there -that later made it to the article- is by no means "the common man's understanding".

 

Vandalism and POV pushing will always be a problem because of the way WP was conceived, but I think the benefits outweigh by far the disadvantages of the system. As always, "viewer discretion is advised", but there is just no substitute for that at.

 

As for Jimbo's antics, I don't know. I don't think he has the power to impose any changes on the Wiki anymore, only to veto stuff... but I could be wrong. WP drama is a genre in its own right.

Edited January 16, 2011 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

^Well, you must have some interesting drinking partners, then. Because nobody I know could give me a run-down on the Iranian Assembly of Experts, the Dreyse Needle Gun and tensor analysis, and only a few could do it on *one* of these topics.

 

ROFL. I know you didn't pick things at random, but it happens I know three guys who could answer all of those topics, and one of them could do all three!

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110217/ap_on_...3N0YXRlc2ZvbA--

 

I guess people will sit on their ass until a horrific crime is committed in their state.

[ShadySands]

Shooter declared incompetent for trial

[Oblarg]

Well, its coming out that this lunatic was into the whole 'Loose Change' 'the government commited 9-11' crap. To those bitching about rhetoric, perhaps we should also ban speech promoting this lunacy? One of the more dangerous beliefs out there. If 9-11 was perpetrated by the government, assassination of political figures could be justified. If I really believed it I would want to see those responsible killed, one way or another. I remember speaking to a 'truther' about this and I said the very same to him. "Just you wait" he said.

 

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-nat...-a-9-11-truther

 

It will be interesting if this information will every see the light of day in the mainstream media between the Palin beat downs.

 

There will always be conspiracy nuts, and infringing on their first amendment rights is not the right way to discredit them. Admittedly the birthers aren't quite as bad as the truthers, but would you equally support banning speech promoting that lunacy?

Edited May 25, 2011 by Oblarg

[Walsingham]

Shooter declared incompetent for trial

 

Seems pretty justified, to be fair. He goes in for a longer re-assessment.

 

It seems to me that we maybe ought to do something about unsupervised nutters running amok. Fellah in Tenerife cut a lady's head off the other week. Had been telling people Jesus wanted him to kill for ages.