Politics - Jason X

[HooAmEye]

Those are both buzzwords nowadays, devoid of any true meaning. They are mostly just used in an effort to shut down conversation, like the terms virtue-signaling/ feminism/ liberal

[Blarghagh]

Sometimes it becomes difficult to explain while delivering pithy zingers. Hell, I thought he was talking about you, TN.

 

Oh yeah, he did say white males. So I have issues with wealth? But then why would I work for that Soros guy?

[Malcador]

Because you are hypocritical like all libtards, naturally.

[Gfted1]

I dunno. Neither you nor Soros are "American" so I glazed over and kept scrolling.

 

For the record, I do not have issues with wealth and would sell you all down the river for riches.

[Blarghagh]

Because you are hypocritical like all libtards, naturally.

 

That sounds closer to the truth.

[ShadySands]

How about this

 

take 2977 + 49 = 3026

then take 3026 / 10 = 302

then add that to the tally

 

IF infographic is otherwise correct and we just added the biggest 2 terrorist attacks that fell outside the 10 year range that puts the average between being hit by a bus and falling out of bed.  Obviousy, that's not proper statisticsing (yeah, I make up words) but just to force them into the chart.

[Guard Dog]

TN stop looking for logic in the attributed actions and motivations of political bad guys. There is none. I've heard people say George W Bush masterminded 9-11 and then call him stupid in the same breath. George Soros financially supports a lot of left wing and anti-capitalist groups despite being a venture capitalist and currency investor himself. That will make him Ernst Blofeld in the eyes of some. 

[HoonDing]

"Who's George Soros?"

 

[Ben No.3]

TN stop looking for logic in the attributed actions and motivations of political bad guys. There is none. I've heard people say George W Bush masterminded 9-11 and then call him stupid in the same breath. George Soros financially supports a lot of left wing and anti-capitalist groups despite being a venture capitalist and currency investor himself. That will make him Ernst Blofeld in the eyes of some.

or just Friedrich Engels.

[majestic]

So imma gonna do something a bit weird for such an obvious leftist libtard and say that gun control is overrated in preventing mass shootings.

 

We have four weapon categories (A, B, C and D for military grade weaponry, guns and semi-automatic rifles, rifles and shotguns respectively). While category A weaponry is obviously outlawed category C and D weapons can simply be bought at the store. They're then registered at the central weapon registry and that's it ( and even that only since 2012 so there's an unknown amount of unregistered weapons around that can be legally sold by their owners but not exported, obviously).

 

Category B weaponry can be bought once you've passed a cursory psychological check, a safety course and demonstrating that you need to own a gun. Which is as easy as claiming self-defense or joining up at a shooting range.

 

Still, we don't have toddlers who shoot their family members or regular mass shootings in the way the US does. It can't be the control aspect alone. Of course getting a gun means jumping through some bureaucratic hoops but those are just for show (or who knows, maybe it's the extra effort that deters nutjobs).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Who's George Soros?

SJW Nazi Commie who ruins freedom.

[Elerond]

President Trump on Tuesday told Puerto Rico officials they should feel “very proud” they haven’t lost thousands of lives like in “a real catastrophe like Katrina,” while adding that the devastated island territory has thrown the nation’s budget “a little out of whack.”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-praises-himself-for-administrations-great-job-in-puerto-rico/2017/10/03/fdb5eeb4-a83a-11e7-8ed2-c7114e6ac460_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.22c8b27c1813

 

Good to know, I was worried for bit that Puerto Rico was facing real catastrophe. But I must say that Trump shows here how brilliant leader he is. People should remember to be thankful that they aren't child facing famine in Africa, because that is bad. So sad.

[Gromnir]

 

chart

How about this

 

take 2977 + 49 = 3026

then take 3026 / 10 = 302

then add that to the tally

 

IF infographic is otherwise correct and we just added the biggest 2 terrorist attacks that fell outside the 10 year range that puts the average between being hit by a bus and falling out of bed.  Obviousy, that's not proper statisticsing (yeah, I make up words) but just to force them into the chart.

 

you forgot the 9 per year already averaged, yes? personally, 311 per year is unacceptable to us.  311 is a fair bit higher than the rifle related homicides in an average year in the US and yet after every mass shooting involving a rifle, we get calls for bans. sure, old people falling out of bed and dying is gonna be more frequent, but am thinking we noted elsewhere that all falling deaths in the US account for +35k a year, so is probable more common than one suspects.  (aside: falling danger is our excuse for not cleaning our gutters yet again. got a couple estimates.  ~$500.  now that is a mind boggling number. falling out of our chair when getting estimate coulda' killed us.)

 

with terrorist events and mass shootings... these is rare events.  can't simple throw out high and low when sample size is small.  throw out large and small and maybe 1/4 o' sample size is gone? 'course averages is inherent flawed... and how questions is framed makes more fuzzy.  russia, for example, has very few mass shootings, but they more than make up for such paucity with bombing incidents. 

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

 

HA! Good Fun!

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Those are both buzzwords nowadays, devoid of any true meaning.

 

> implying there was a time when they weren't

[ShadySands]

9/11 throws everything seriously out of whack because it's not like we are getting a near 3k attack once every decade so was just to show what it would look like with a 9/11 being an every decade occurrence since people objected to it being left out. As you said averages are bad for this sort of thing.

 

I think you bring up a great point though, what are acceptable losses? I don't think anyone(read politician and most people) will ever say I am okay with losing X people every year on average to anything 

Edited October 3, 2017 by ShadySands

[Malcador]

Just matters who is dying. Well long term you end up like Brazil thinking that but it is true.

[Gromnir]

 

Those are both buzzwords nowadays, devoid of any true meaning.

 

> implying there was a time when they weren't

 

well, the shorthand is handy.  all those 70s leftist groups with near identical manifestos were tough to keep straight at times.  'course labels such as sjw and even feminist has been pejoratives in the mouth o' certain folks from their inception. 

 

our biggest concern current is actual the alt-right nonsense, and not 'cause it is a buzzword.  opposite. at some unidentifiable moment in time, nazis and white-supremacists became part of the alt-right? how the heck did that happen?  your typical US white supremacist during the 50s were a southern democrat (or from indiana... what the heck is with indiana and history o' white supremacy anyways?) so is adding to confusion, but even so, there has never been a time in our recollection when nazis and white supremacists were satellites within the conservative orbit. 

 

am s'posing this kinda thing happens when a nation becomes polarized.  the weather underground, and similar mad-bomber groups, were identified as militant-leftist, but those groups only came into being during the moment o' polarization.  can kinda see how if a group evolves from leftist core ideals it may retain lefty label even when it goes over the edge or 'round the bend.  but nazis? white supremacists?  nazis has never been welcome by any identifiable group on the left-right US political spectrum. 

 

is a disconcerting bit o' political sleight o' hand.  how does one change the political identity o' a universal reviled organization so it becomes mere a more extreme expression o' US conservative?  lord knows george bush sr. and bob dole weren't the guys embracing nazis as fellow conservatives. 

 

just weird... and kinda spooky.  managed to even get liberals to use the alt-right nomenclature to describe white supremacists and nazis. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

That's the problem when everyone starts to think there are only two teams. Everyone ends up on one or the other. The sad part is there are not just two teams. That only becomes true because too many people think it is. The worst part about this left vs right polarization is it's a fiction. Unfortunatley that does not make it less dangerous. Quite the opposite actually. 

 

Personally I'd advise anyone who finds themselves on the same side of a rally with White Supremicists or communists to take a good hard look at just what they are doing and who they are doing it with. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

That's the problem when everyone starts to think there are only two teams. Everyone ends up on one or the other. The sad part is there are not just two teams. That only becomes true because too many people think it is. The worst part about this left vs right polarization is it's a fiction. Unfortunatley that does not make it less dangerous. Quite the opposite actually. 

 

Personally I'd advise anyone who finds themselves on the same side of a rally with White Supremicists or communists to take a good hard look at just what they are doing and who they are doing it with. 

yeah, we understand the polarization problem and mentioned it, but keep in mind just how polarized were the US from mid 50s thru mid 70s.  sure, the US political spectrum has been effective narrowed for a Long time, but the civil rights and vietnam period were extreme polarized.  nazis never gained acceptance by either left or right during such a polarized period. even KKK memberships, while secret lauded in many parts o' the country, were nevertheless public disavowed.  no alt-left. no alt-right. 

 

am honest curious how such a thing happened, seeming w/o most folks noticing or caring.  takes a charlottesville moment to wake people (a few at least) up from torpor? am genuine curious, and a little concerned.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am realizing the label is a minor thing in and of itself, but it bothers us how folks on both sides o' the political spectrum has accepted a label which appears to transform political lepers into something within the range o' normalcy.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

Maybe it's become so important to "win" people will accept alliance and help from any quarter. Even those it would be wise to shun. Of course if I hear "This is the most important election ever" one more time I'll just... something. They are all equally important. And in two years there will be another one.

[Rosbjerg]

am honest curious how such a thing happened, seeming w/o most folks noticing or caring.  takes a charlottesville moment to wake people (a few at least) up from torpor? am genuine curious, and a little concerned.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

From the late 80s there's been an ever increasing militancy to political discourse - and discourse in general. We're in a period of hyper-normalilzation, a slow boiling of the pot, where most have noticed somethings up, but can't quite put the finger on it.

 

Even the discourse on this little random corner of the net has seen a dramatic change in the last 10 years.

 

Now the discussions around dinnertables all over the world, have always been a little casually racist and objectifying. Not good, but at least managable... But today we're seeing mass generalisations on big network newsshows, accussations flung out without a shred if proof or remorse and huge political scandals that are just 'par the course'.. People are numb to it, which only invites even more.

[Guard Dog]

 

am honest curious how such a thing happened, seeming w/o most folks noticing or caring.  takes a charlottesville moment to wake people (a few at least) up from torpor? am genuine curious, and a little concerned.

 

HA! Good Fun!

From the late 80s there's been an ever increasing militancy to political discourse - and discourse in general. We're in a period of hyper-normalilzation, a slow boiling of the pot, where most have noticed somethings up, but can't quite put the finger on it.

 

Even the discourse on this little random corner of the net has seen a dramatic change in the last 10 years.

 

Now the discussions around dinnertables all over the world, have always been a little casually racist and objectifying. Not good, but at least managable... But today we're seeing mass generalisations on big network newsshows, accussations flung out without a shred if proof or remorse and huge political scandals that are just 'par the course'.. People are numb to it, which only invites even more.

 

 

Actually I think the political discussion here on the Obsidian WoT board have never been better than now. It used to be bloodsport here. People really got insulting and angry. Bans and warning were common. Now, points are usually ably argued no one gets too angry. We are an example to the world! Who'da thought?

[Rosbjerg]

You're just saying that because everyone matured and is more right-leaning than 10 years ago

[Gromnir]

 

 

am honest curious how such a thing happened, seeming w/o most folks noticing or caring.  takes a charlottesville moment to wake people (a few at least) up from torpor? am genuine curious, and a little concerned.

 

HA! Good Fun!

From the late 80s there's been an ever increasing militancy to political discourse - and discourse in general. We're in a period of hyper-normalilzation, a slow boiling of the pot, where most have noticed somethings up, but can't quite put the finger on it.

 

Even the discourse on this little random corner of the net has seen a dramatic change in the last 10 years.

 

Now the discussions around dinnertables all over the world, have always been a little casually racist and objectifying. Not good, but at least managable... But today we're seeing mass generalisations on big network newsshows, accussations flung out without a shred if proof or remorse and huge political scandals that are just 'par the course'.. People are numb to it, which only invites even more.

 

 

Actually I think the political discussion here on the Obsidian WoT board have never been better than now. It used to be bloodsport here. People really got insulting and angry. Bans and warning were common. Now, points are usually ably argued no one gets too angry. We are an example to the world! Who'da thought?

 

 

am not certain if obsidian is an example to the world, but am expecting if you spoke to an activist who were in washington in the 60s when ranks o' soldiers were positioned outside the pentagon, white house and capitol to prevent protesters from literal storming the gates, and asked if the dialogue o' today is more or less militant or polarized than what he/she recalls from times now past, the answer would be obvious.   

 

 

perhaps it is the result o' the internet influence... somehow.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps seeming statistical anomalies is recognized in footnotes, not ignored.  lack o' integrity to try and ignore or marginalize data which tends to discount a  theory or position.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

 

Generally you exclude highly unusual events as being misleading, otherwise you end up with Norway being a Nazi deathtrap due to Breivik or 100% of international terrorism related deaths in New Zealand being due to the French equivalent of the CIA attacking Greenpeace.

 

Doesn't have much to do with honesty anyway, last time people brought up statistics about terrorism we had a chart that excluded every developed country that had zero terrorist related deaths to try and prove how bad the problem was- unsurprisingly there were more with zero deaths than there were with deaths; and Norway was worst per capita due solely to Breivik.

 

Throwing out outliers usually only makes sense when you don't clamp the findings to just post 9/11 either. Islamic terrorism goes back at least to the early 80's. Even then outliers get amortized over such a long period that it's typically best to leave them in when discerning averages. Next, you don't just pull older numbers. After 2001 the next deadliest years of terror attacks is 2014, 2015, and 2016. Then when talking about the US alone, you don't just cite low numbers of attacks when more than anything our surveillance programs have been setup to mitigate attacks in the first place.

 

 

Trouble is, if you decide to include 9/11 to be inclusive then where do you draw the line? It's definitely a massive outlier since not even a tenth of the number of deaths there have occurred due to islamic terrorism over the whole history of the US (might get close if you included Afghanistan and Iraq, but they probably shouldn't since the targets are military and terrorism technically still requires civilian targets). OK, so include 2001, and we'll take it back to 1776 as well because we want to be inclusive and include all context- and you end up with a similar number as if you exclude 9/11 and have stats done for a decade prior to 2014. Going back to 1776 is the only fully inclusive and fair methodology, after all, it just achieves the same result by adding in 200 odd 0 death years that would otherwise be arbitrarily excluded.

 

Islamic terrorism is a lot older than the 1980s, it just didn't have the 'terrorism' moniker because that hadn't been invented yet. Same way as people wouldn't label the Crusades as genocide/ ethnic cleansing/ christian terrorism or 30 Years War as sustained Protestant/ Catholic 'ethnic' cleansing/ terrorism when both clearly were in the modern context.

 

These days I find statistics to be increasingly subversive. You can without changing observed data, obscure the reality that produced the data set.

That's always been the case with statistics, hence the famous "lies, damn lies, and statistics" quote and various others. Indeed, you can get paid a great deal of money to produce statistics that help whichever argument your paymaster wants to make. But if you're honest about things then you have an exclude outliers that give wrong impressions; the expectation is not that 300 odd americans die per year in internal islamic terrorism and it isn't that Norway can expect a per capita >9/11 level event due to Nazis every decade just because of Breivik being recent.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Zoraptor