Politics - Jason X

[Ben No.3]

Isn't this just a natural symptom of information getting commodified though? I mean, information, and especially news have always been a product to buy and sell (and that obviously creates problems); but I would argue the internet has made this significantly more of a problem. Previously, newspapers would write whatever information they reckoned would sell. Now, internet news outlets are selling you entire alternate worlds to dive into. And because of the way browsers usually function, your browser will adapt to this behaviour; making you entirely caught up in whatever narrow point of view you subscribed to. Sites like Breitbart have commodified information to a point where the relevance or truthfulness of the information has become entirely irrelevant. Breitbart sells emotions and ideology. It seems to be a sad fact that accurate information just doesn't make enough profits.

[FlintlockJazz]

As someone who considers themselves more left-leaning than right (at least compared to when I was younger), I have become... 'uncomfortable' with the words and statements made by other people on the left.  When you see people stating "If you are not with us you are against us!" unironically while also stating that its okay to punch people randomly because they are nazis, I feel it is only right to get nervous.  If you don't agree with their right to punch nazis then you are a nazi and can be punched...

 

I feel the polarisation and antagonism is being fuelled on both sides by the same people, if you are right-wing you are a nazi and if you are left-wing you are communists (or trotskyists as a Labour MP called people over here).  I'm still trying to work out when social issues became a left-right thing over here, used to be you had pro-gay marriage Conservatives and anti-abortion Labour MPs at least here.  I blame America naturally.

[Agiel]

 

 

 

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.   

 

 

 

I'd add that for all the talk of "Lib-ruhl Nazis," as insufferable as the "SJW" crowd might seem we're certainly quite a ways from them having the kind of disruptive effect on civil society the Baader-Meinhof Gang and the like had. How lucky are we they're content debating with strangers on the internet rather than robbing banks, hijacking airlines, bombing airbases, and kidnapping businessmen and politicians (or as was the case with Colombian far-left revolutionaries in their heydays, any random people they can get their hands on).

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Agiel

[Ben No.3]

Talking about Baader Meinhof; one of the best words for rich socialists I've heard is Prada Meinhof

[injurai]

Is that like champagne socialist and radical chic? I've noticed a large and growing number of "kept youth" with the resources and time to spare on vapid socialite pursuits develop extreme aversions to criticism on their livelihood, and resentment towards anyones who would little them below more transcendently valuable pursuits. It's these people that they crave recognition from those on noble endeavors that require great sacrifice, but if they don't receive reciprocal acknowledgment they'll put you in their targets. It's become a defame game.

[Ben No.3]

Is that like champagne socialist and radical chic? I've noticed a large and growing number of "kept youth" with the resources and time to spare on vapid socialite pursuits develop extreme aversions to criticism on their livelihood, and resentment towards anyones who would little them below more transcendently valuable pursuits. It's these people that they crave recognition from those on noble endeavors that require great sacrifice, but if they don't receive reciprocal acknowledgment they'll put you in their targets. It's become a defame game.

same thing, yeah. And the phenomenon you described would happen within any ideology; so they might as well be left wingers. But you must not forget the discreet charm of the bourgeoisie. Edited October 4, 2017 by Ben No.3

[Raithe]

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

 

What was that old saying..

"Anyone under 30 who is not a liberal has no heart. Anyone over 30 who is not a conservative has no brain."

 

Or at least, something to that effect....

[Raithe]

Heh, saw this on a Politics/Guns thing that blew up online..

 

 

[Gromnir]

Heh, saw this on a Politics/Guns thing that blew up online..

 

 

image

 

 

also, keep in mind if we combined mass bombing and mass shooting incidents, russia would rank #2 and belgium would rank #3.

 

the mass killings is always what prompts these debates, and the per capita death rate from mass shootings in the eu as a whole is 55% greater than the US. given the larger and more diverse (economic, social, ethnic, etc.) population o' the US compared to other western nations, is difficult to compare US. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

US gun ownership is pretty high and crime isn't negligible, so not sure the original meme has much for it.

 

Breivik sure screwed Norway's numbers up, hah.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Malcador

[HoonDing]

i rember when they came for my guns

[Zoraptor]

 

Heh, saw this on a Politics/Guns thing that blew up online..

 

 

image

 

 

 

Source, for those wondering. It's utter irredeemable garbage- you can get a good idea of why from that chart and without checking the website though. eg 55% more deaths in the EU per capita than the US from mass shootings is claimed. From that chart, 5 countries out of 28 EU ones have a higher rate than the US (NOR, SRB, FYROM, ALB, SWZ aren't in the EU) representing about 1/4 of the EU's population- and unsurprisingly countries with zero are left off the chart, again. Even just using the chart's data we can see the 55% claim is rubbish*, since the combined pops of ENGGERITY is far more than those 5 countries, and their rate is a quarter that of the US's which more than counters France having a high rate.

 

Always depends on what you want to look at of course, but that site doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny and is pure PR/ fake news. It doesn't even consistently follow a skewed methodology, it's a Fox News 'opinion' piece.

 

*while I won't check I'm fairly sure they've just added together all the rates- including Norway etc despite them not being EU- then divided by X countries to get the 55% claim. They should have added EU populations and incidences together to get the rate, not added the per capita rates directly- which gives a result significantly lower than the US's pre capita death rate, by a quick estimate about 50% less.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Zoraptor

[Ben No.3]

 

Heh, saw this on a Politics/Guns thing that blew up online..

 

 

The ammunition part is not true or "partially" true.

The thing is Swiss Army since 2007 still gives the men serving in military (which are all men between 18 to 34) their service rifles or pistols, but they don't give ammunition to them.

Swiss still can buy their own ammunition for their private guns and keep them at home. They cannot use this ammunition for the service gun or even use this gun to protect themselves from assailants. Those are strictly guns for protecting the country in case of foreign attack.

The main difference between Swiss and US gun mentality is that Swiss have guns because they are all soldiers protecting the country, while US have guns for personal protection.

So Switzerland approach is not something you want to mimic if you are for owning guns for personal protection.

around here, if you own a gun you'll have an official coming by every so and so often to check wether you locked your gun away according to law. You'll have to pay if you didn't. Might seem a bit strict, but it does keep the number of babies playing with guns or teens shooting up schools down.

[Gromnir]

low energy fact check.  can't use only the chart.

 

"The average fatality rate for the 28 EU countries is 0.114 with a 95% confidence Interval of -.0244 to .253. The US rate is 0.089 is lower than the EU rate, but they are again not statistically significantly different."

 

though in the spirit o' fairness, the 55% bit specific references "europe and the eu," so no smoking gun so to speak.  and again, as with the US, all of these events is anomalous.  take out the anomalies and you have little to compare. 

 

perhaps compare maine, massachusetts, vermont and new hampshire to switzerland... or norway?

 

oh, and you don't cherry pick data.  explain the data is fine, but simple throw out anomalous is typical referred to as "academic dishonesty."

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

So.. any official word on this piece of crap's 'motive'?

Edited October 4, 2017 by Volourn

[ShadySands]

Nothing reliable that I've seen but if you want wild speculation then I hear Infowars has a lot

[Guard Dog]

I saw in the Washington Post that 79% of shootings where the weapon and shooter are identified are commited with firearms the shooter does not legally own. Reminds me of the old saying "If guns are outlawed, the outlaws will still have guns"

[Guard Dog]

Nothing reliable that I've seen but if you want wild speculation then I hear Infowars has a lot

 

A journalists job is sooo much easier when they can just make s--t up!

[Malcador]

I saw in the Washington Post that 79% of shootings where the weapon and shooter are identified are commited with firearms the shooter does not legally own. Reminds me of the old saying "If guns are outlawed, the outlaws will still have guns"

What percentage of all shootings are those?

[Raithe]

It's basically a conspiracy theorists wet dream at the moment.

 

They're deep diving his background, but the general word that seems to be leaking out is there are no signs in his background, no odd websites viewed, no strange behaviour, no extremist leanings, no training, no ptsd issues.  And then he got x many guns up to a hotel room, disabled security devices in the area, got the window out all without attracting attention from Vegas Hotel security, before actually commiting the act.

 

There are already pictures going out with "Look, broken windows floors above him, that's where the real snipers were. It's a false flag, its this that or the other."

 

Oh the sheer joy of the many, many opinions that will crop up.

[Guard Dog]

 

I saw in the Washington Post that 79% of shootings where the weapon and shooter are identified are commited with firearms the shooter does not legally own. Reminds me of the old saying "If guns are outlawed, the outlaws will still have guns"

What percentage of all shootings are those?

 

 

All violent crimes committed using a firearm where someone was shot in Washington DC in 2016. Given DC's near total prohibition on pistols I'm guessing the 18% committed by legal owners was shotguns, or something else other than pistol. 3% was unknown. Don't know what that means.  

Edited October 4, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Raithe]

The one that amused me a few years back was when Fox pulled up statistics that compared single person murders with handguns in the US, with all murders commited by any means possible in the UK as a "See, gun control doesn't matter, the UK is a dangerous placce to visit."

 

Of course, as it later turned out, they didn't include drive by gun murders, a variety of gang related deaths by firearms, mass shootings, or a few other numbers from the US side of things..

[Zoraptor]

low energy fact check.  can't use only the chart.

 

"The average fatality rate for the 28 EU countries is 0.114 with a 95% confidence Interval of -.0244 to .253. The US rate is 0.089 is lower than the EU rate, but they are again not statistically significantly different."

 

though in the spirit o' fairness, the 55% bit specific references "europe and the eu," so no smoking gun so to speak.  and again, as with the US, all of these events is anomalous.  take out the anomalies and you have little to compare. 

 

perhaps compare maine, massachusetts, vermont and new hampshire to switzerland... or norway?

 

oh, and you don't cherry pick data.  explain the data is fine, but simple throw out anomalous is typical referred to as "academic dishonesty."

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

That site is rubbish, so bad it's almost impossible to critique it effectively as you have to go back to 5th form maths to do so and write a text book. In this case it has nothing to do with anomalous data, since Breivik is excluded by simple dint of not being in an EU country. In this case he wouldn't make enough of a difference anyway. Problems are

• 10 fold difference in confidence interval renders it irrelevant as the 'true' figure is anything from 3x the US to 1/4 of it. Sample size is too small. They've screwed up the maths anyway, so it's doubly irrelevant.
• They also claim to exclude sovereignty based issues yet include ISIS attacks which are all about establishing the sovereignty of the Caliphate. About the least of their problems, to be fair.
• Their claimed rate is wrong whether just using the chart or not
• The averaged EU rate comes out about half that of the US, even when including the ISIS stuff, and is far lower when not.
• No sources provided for data used
• Data which is shown is inconsistent with conclusions and descriptions in text (EU only or Europe and EU? who knows, certainly not the author)

To illustrate the mistake they've made (so far as I can tell, it's so bad it's impossible to be sure), the rate of a theoretical Norway/ Germany union is not the ~1 you get from adding 1.88 and 0.02 together and dividing by 2, because Germany has 15 times Norway's population; thus the combined rate is a bit less than 0.2 and not 1. So far as I can tell they've used the first method with a mix of EU and non EU countries- again it's impossible to tell since they don't provide what data they've actually used- but in any case they clearly haven't used the second method, for either EU countries or Europe as a whole, as they should have. Ironically, if you do method 1 for the EU you still end up with a lower rate than the US, you have to both use method 1 and include non EU Norway to get it above.

[Guard Dog]

Great article from the Washington Post on gun control: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.8ea673f4b288

[ShadySands]

How about universal healthcare? If now is not the time to discuss guns can we discuss healthcare?

 

Look at all the GoFundMes set up for medical bills