San Bernadino Terrorism and Radicalization

[kandrathe]

I had an interesting conversation with my son about the San Bernadino terrorist massacre. He began by questioning why we allow these people into the US, which seems to be the current popular general "ignorant" knee-jerk reaction.

I explained that radical extremist groups, like ISIL, seek to create schisms across all groups, but especially within the Muslim community. Every knee jerk, bigoted, reaction against nationalities, or Islam, validates the ISIL(crusades) narrative.

The way to effectively fight them is to disprove their violent philosophy, remain fearless, stand united, and be the melting pot of community and culture we've aspired to for the past few centuries. We should not repeat our totalitarian repressive mistakes by discriminating against whole groups of people as we have done in the past war eras.

The Restriction of Civil Liberties During Times of Crisis by Matthew David Fairman, Conneticutt College.

[Taem]

I had an interesting conversation with my son about the San Bernadino terrorist massacre. He began by questioning why we allow these people into the US, which seems to be the current popular general "ignorant" knee-jerk reaction.

I explained that radical extremist groups, like ISIL, seek to create schisms across all groups, but especially within the Muslim community. Every knee jerk, bigoted, reaction against nationalities, or Islam, validates the ISIL(crusades) narrative.

The way to effectively fight them is to disprove their violent philosophy, remain fearless, stand united, and be the melting pot of community and culture we've aspired to for the past few centuries. We should not repeat our totalitarian repressive mistakes by discriminating against whole groups of people as we have done in the past war eras.

The Restriction of Civil Liberties During Times of Crisis by Matthew David Fairman, Conneticutt College.

What exactly is racism? I went to several different dictionaries and got several different definitions:

1. The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races

2. Discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race

3. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

4. Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics.

The first implying racism requires the viewer to feel one race is superior to another, the second is pretty straightforward in its wording but implies abusive behavior, the third is clearly more broad pointing out that poking fun of a racial characteristic or ability specific to that race is racist but again infers that it must be used to show superiority, and the fourth more or less confers with the third.

I've been accused of making racist comments on these forums, even though in my statement I never stated nor inferred superiority of any race. At my local high-school, there were some native Americans that decided they disagreed with the statue coming into the school because it was clearly an American Indian and had the football team name, "Warriors", written beneath it. Due to claims of racism, the statue was taken down. I once had a negro customer when I was a waiter and when talking to another employee about his drink order said, "the African American wants a Coke and..." but before I could finish, he leapt out of his chair, pointed his finger into my chest and proclaimed, "Sir, I am neither African nor American!" That moment forward got me thinking about political correctness and the sensitivity of others... say "black" in the wrong room and you're a sinner, say "African American" in another and you're a monster, but go into opposite rooms and nothing is wrong. I don't like how in this day and age someone of Chinese descent can go to a cultural event and say, "that traditional Chinese dance is racist because I'm Chinese and I don't do that dance and neither does my family or friends," and have that dance removed for racial undertows...

When you take statistical facts about a cultures and draw analogies from them, so long as you don't proclaim one race is superior to another, then I'm sorry, but that does not constitute racism folks! Stating that black people have a greater than average chance of developing sickle cell anemia is a fact, not a racist remark, but when Trump states more Caucasian people have been killed my police than black people, and that more black people have murdered black people and he's called a racist, it boggles my mind?!? I saw his quotes, and his percentages were not correct, but I saw fact-checking websites and his percentages were pretty damn close! Seriously, what in the fuck is wrong with this country where you can't state a fact without being called a racist? More on the topic of Muslims, take this example here.... I'm sorry, but that thing looked like a goddamn bomb plain and simple, and was not an act of racism to be wary of it, yet the school gets sued for millions!

This country has gotten so politically correct, it's borders on obsessive to the point of being dangerous by not diagnosing actual threats to our nation anymore. People need to wake up to what actual racism is and pull their heads out of their political correct asses before we have a real tragedy. Do we really need another 9-11 for us to realize that we can make judgmental decisions about people without being racist by simply observing a persons (not skin color or national origin) behaviors and tendencies? Does being Islam in this country raise a flag? Yeah, of course it does due to the nature of it's offshoots leading to extremism over any other known religion. There is nothing wrong with a good healthy dose of cynicism, and observing someone based on their appearance is not only natural, but expected and if they behaviorally act normal, then there shouldn't be an issue. Observing someone doesn't cross the racial border until you as an observer decide that their culture or way of life is wrong because yours is the right way, not theirs. But for whatever fucked up reason in this country, correlating any observable distinction with a culture or race is considered racist. I just don't get it.

[FireIceTalon]

Originally, I had no intention of posting in this thread but the above post is filled with so much bullshit, on so many levels, that I can't let this slide. I will say up front, I am going to say some VERY harsh things here, because they NEED to be said even if it is directed specifically for Taem. Chin checks are going to be delivered in spades here. You've been warned.

When you take statistical facts about a cultures and draw analogies from them, so long as you don't proclaim one race is superior to another, then I'm sorry, but that does not constitute racism folks!

False. Only in a black and white (no pun intended) simpletons' view of the world does this even make the least bit of sense. One does not have to directly proclaim one race to be better than another to be a racist. You can easily still be a racist without directly proclaiming any one race to be inferior/superior to another. If I said all Mexicans need to be registered as such, that would make me a racist, even though I didn't say a single word about them being inferior. Not all racism is direct, and in fact, I'd say most of it nowadays is more subtle and implied. But it is still racism nonetheless. Given this, your position of what constitutes as racism is untenable.

Statistical "facts" about a race and culture, in general, are hogwash, since they can be easily cherrypicked and skewed in countless ways to produce a pre-determined outcome that appeals to a certain predominant narrative, which in turn creates or reinforces a disconnect from real-world social conditions.

Your whole logic is based on the same eugenics/biological deterministic crap that the Nazis and their neo-fascist offspring used to justify their sub-human views of non aryans. If we follow it to its logical conclusion: minorites are more incarcerated than whites, therefore they must commit more crimes than those upstanding white folk. More whites are in higher positions of power, because hey, they actually went to school and got good grades because they are smart, while minorites are less likely to go to school and when they do they score lower on tests - so yes, white people must be superior, since the statistcs show it! I see so clearly through your horseshit filled rhetoric it's not even funny.

Stating that black people have a greater than average chance of developing sickle cell anemia is a fact, not a racist remark, but when Trump states more Caucasian people have been killed my police than black people, and that more black people have murdered black people and he's called a racist, it boggles my mind?!? I saw his quotes, and his percentages were not correct, but I saw fact-checking websites and his percentages were pretty damn close! Seriously, what in the fuck is wrong with this country where you can't state a fact without being called a racist? More on the topic of Muslims, take this example here.... I'm sorry, but that thing looked like a goddamn bomb plain and simple, and was not an act of racism to be wary of it, yet the school gets sued for millions!

Trump is as blatantly racist as they come, to the point where most people aren't sure if he is trolling or not. The guy wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country and deport (or force them to register as Muslims) the ones that are already here based on a stereotype that "all Muslims must be terrorists". That is racism. Not to mention the racist remarks he made earlier in his campaign toward people of hispanic heritage.

None of his percentages regarding blacks being killed by whites (or the reverse) are even close. I would love to see the source of these so-called "fact checking" sites you proclaim to be fact, and which ultra fascist dingbat funded them. The fact of the matter is, blacks and other poc are disproportionatly targeted by law enforcement compared to whites, and the whites who are targeted rarely are dealt with as harshly by the police or court system as minorities are. You have to live on another fucking planet to not see this. Even if cops did kill more whites than blacks, its because there are more white people than black people. In terms of percentage its no comparison, poc are targeted by police, as well as skinheads, and neo-nazies disproportionally compared to minority-on-white violence. Cops killing blacks in this country has become so rampant that it is bordering on becoming a sport for them, if it already isn't.

That school deserved to get fucking sued. Fuck that school and the racist staff in it. If a white Christian kid made that clock there would have been no issue whatsoever, and you are naive as fuck if think otherwise. Only in fucking racist ass America can you get arrested and suspended for making a clock as a school project. Not only should that school be sued, if it were up to me, it would get shut the fuck down entirely.

This country has gotten so politically correct, it's borders on obsessive to the point of being dangerous by not diagnosing actual threats to our nation anymore. People need to wake up to what actual racism is and pull their heads out of their political correct asses before we have a real tragedy. Do we really need another 9-11 for us to realize that we can make judgmental decisions about people without being racist by simply observing a persons (not skin color or national origin) behaviors and tendencies? Does being Islam in this country raise a flag? Yeah, of course it does due to the nature of it's offshoots leading to extremism over any other known religion. There is nothing wrong with a good healthy dose of cynicism, and observing someone based on their appearance is not only natural, but expected and if they behaviorally act normal, then there shouldn't be an issue. Observing someone doesn't cross the racial border until you as an observer decide that their culture or way of life is wrong because yours is the right way, not theirs. But for whatever fucked up reason in this country, correlating any observable distinction with a culture or race is considered racist. I just don't get it.

Oh man, Trump and his fellow right-wing demogogues have you fooled. You truly believe that crap too, don't you? You are the exaltation of the 'false conciousness' that plagues this country. Indeed, you don't get it - probably the only true thing you said in your entire post. Damn, how much fucking bullshit can you spew in one paragraph? And people think that my "rants" about how ideological narratives influence peoples thinking to identify with the present system is false or gibberish? You just proved singlehandedly, with merely one post, that I am in fact very spot on with how capitalist ideology works to obfuscate material reality. Unfortunately, your thinking is reflective of an all-too common xenophobic perception that is currently becoming very trendy; a most crude, vulgar type of nationalism that is so reactionary that even certain sects of the bourgeoise cringe at it.

Too "Politically correct" my fucking ass. We've discussed this before, and you are still going to try and go there, with the PC card?? Seriously? Uh uh, that bullshit ain't gonna fly here. "Politically Correct" is a pejorative term used by many right wingers, racists, and other discriminatory scum to shield their deplorable and hateful views. America isn't "too policially correct". More like, America is too fucking racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, and outright paranoid. What is also ironic, for all the anti-terrorist talk and narrative of this country, it sure loves to fucking participate in terrorism, which is why groups like Isis, Al Quada and other such groups exist: they formed as a reaction against US and western terrorism and imperialism. Which is why you can forget about ever winning "the war on terror" - it will never happen, since the people waging the war are terrorists every bit as much as those they claim to be their enemies. There actually is a really easy way for America to stop terrorism - stop participating in it! Oh gee, that isn't on the agenda of the ruling elites who have other plans in mind.

Cry me a fucking river about 9-11. How many countries have WE BOMBED and invaded, resulting in the deaths and ruining of countless peoples lives in pursuit of conquest and profit and "westernizing" the rest of the world with our Amerocentric way of life? Including the country (which wasn't even responsible for 9-11) that we invaded afterward, which resulted in the death of some 2 million Iraqi citizens, though I don't hear anyone bitching about that, while Paris gets attacked once and the world fucking flips out. But, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that France is a rich, white western nation whose citizens lives have more worth then a few million middle-eastern "savages" in the eyes westerners now, does it? *Sarcasm mode off*. The amount of human suffering this country is responsible for, both internally and abroad, is INCALCUABLE; then we have the audacity to bitch and moan when WE get bombed on our soil? Save it. We put our nose in too many places and the chickens came home to roost, period. Now, I suppose you will label me as being too "politically INcorrect", right?

Douche canoes like Trump create a narrative; chockfilled with conspiracy theories, populist rhetoric, exaggerations, and outright lies to play into peoples deepest fears (most of which are unsubstantied and irrational to begin with), then sheep like you eat it up which is exactly the intention of said trolls. It's called fear-mongering propaganda, and you've unwittingly bought into it.

The truth is Taem, a white, anti-abortion Chrisitan terrorist is far more of a threat to your safety and the safety of others here than a member of Isis is. That is a cold hard fact, for simple geograpic reasons alone. But of course these privileged, western petty-bourgeois rodents don't get reported in the media as much, since that isn't conducive to the dominant ideology of using Muslims, immigrants, poc, etc as the scapegoate for the worlds problems. And when they are reported, very rarely are they referred to as terrorists, though I would say shooting up people at a Planned Parenthood would qualify as an act of terrorism, especially because the reasons are politically and ideologically motivated.

Observing someone based on their appearance is inherently discriminatory, and is a slippery slope to racism if not downright racist to begin with. You immedietly stereotype someone based on their appearance to be something they probably aren't because the dominant narrative has conditioned you to do such. This is EXACTLY the logic that cops use to target poc. It is nothing short of racism.

And you say observing someone doesn't cross racial boundaries until they say their way of life or culture is inferior. Well most of the Islamaphobia in this country is structured around a premise that all Muslims are violent and that their religion by consequence is inherently more violent than any other (also not true - all religions are equally violent and reactionary, with perhaps the exception of Budhism which has a far less violent history by comparison).

In short, it is YOURs and Trump's type of thinking that is the real threat here. If your post is indicative of the other posts you referenced when you were called a racist, well, I would say the label is not without merit. You don't like that label? Tough titty said the kitty. It is YOU, and you alone, that needs to change your thinking and be responsible for what you say if don't want to be called racist.

My girlfriend, whom I love dearly and possibly want to have children with in the next couple years, uses/used Planned Parenthood for various healthcare services (none of which were abortion either, though she would have my support if she did). Heaven forbid, some asshat with your type of thinking comes and blows/shoots it up while she is there because they think abortion is murder and that we have to conform to their shit Christian way of life. Fuck them. I fear that FAR more than ever being shot or attacked by a radical Muslim, because white, fascist Christian terrorist scumbags are a much more real threat to me and her than any Muslim is here and now.

And for the record, this isn't a defense of Islam. The socialist position recognizes that Islam, like all other religions, is extremely oppressive and reactionary (which is one reason of many why socialists by and large, are atheist), yet we also understand simultaneously that radical Islam and terrorists have developed as a result of and reaction against American hegemony and imperialism.

Finally: This post was probably a tough read for you, but all personal jabs aside, you have some serious 'soul-searching' to do, Taem, and you need think long and hard about what I said here.

[FireIceTalon]

Also, why isn't there more fucking media coverage or general outrage about assholes like this??

And how come when it IS covered, right-wing pundits make excuses for them like being mentally insane, but Muslims are terrorists or suspected terrorists?? FUCK THAT - this guy was NOT mentally insane. He was a fucking white, reactionary Christian TERRORIST pile of shit - every bit as bad as Muslim terrorists. In a way, even worse, because sexist dillweeds like this CLAIM to stand for the rights of a certain demographic of people, when in reality they couldn't give a rats ass about said demographic. At least the Muslim terrorists don't claim to be something they aren't, as deplorable as their acts and worldview are.

Dont be fooled. The religious right doesn't really care about babies, its all about patriarchy and having control over womens bodies. That, and they just want them to churn out more kids to keep the wage slave system going, since once those kids are ACTUALLY born, they are viewed as little more than "moochers" of the system, and their mothers are "Godless whores" with no "morals" who should only practice abstinence if they don't want children. Just one of a trillion reasons why I will always be MILITANTLY pro-choice. Judeo-Christian values are among the most destructive to ever beheld by the human species, with a piss-poor track record for human rights that is every bit as shitty as radical Islam, or any other religion.

[Taem]

Sorry, I didn't read most of that. I read the first couple of paagraphs and realized you completely missed the part about the actual dictionary definition of racism that explicitly states over and over racism IS WHERE ONE RACE CLAIMS SUPERIORITY TO ANOTHER, but apparently that went completely over your head and you enjoy making up your own definitions, as does the media. You share something in common with the media trolls trying to drudge up a $tory, and actually, you make a pretty solid case actually about the types of people I was referring to, who fuck everything up for everyone else who isn't either super excitable wanting to point the race card wherever applicable, or is an actual racist. Normal people don't react that way you did, and it's a prime example of how YOU of all people have fallen victim to a belief this country needs more political corrective actions to the point you can't even look in the direction of another race without being called a racist.

[FireIceTalon]

Sorry, I didn't read most of that. I read the first couple of paagraphs and realized you completely missed the part about the actual dictionary definition of racism that explicitly states over and over racism IS WHERE ONE RACE CLAIMS SUPERIORITY TO ANOTHER

I'm sure you didn't read it, cause you know your view is complete shit, untenable and you didn't want to read anything that inconveniently challenges it.

I glossed over the dictionary part on purpose because it wasn't worthy of address, but since you insist.....

I didn't miss anything. Unlike you, I know very well that the dictionary definiton of ANYTHING, especially a social process as complex as racism, is far from being a credible source to define what is real and what isn't. Or what is accurate and what isn't. Dictionaries are almost entirely perspective and tell people how they SHOULD think, rather then encouraging them to think critically about how things ACTUALLY are.

Specifically, the dictionary is based entirely on the English language alone and almost certainly written by rich and powerful western white men - men who have their own "opinion" and bias and use it to control how language is implemented and expressed in society. It is a document that is rooted in elitism, privilege and is ideologically driven, not objectively. Most of the words in it regarding anything in a political or social context are described/defined in such a ways to spark a certain reaction upon seeing or hearing them, rather than being based around any logical premise that seeks to understand the world.

It is a piss poor, abstract source to use when debating a topic like racism (or any form of discrimination period), but you lack the ability to think critically (or you fear that doing so would lead to the logical conclusion of your view being untenable) about social issues so you using it to back your argument hardly comes as a surprise, laughable as it may be. "The dictionary defintion says this, so it must be so!!!!". Learn to think critically.

EDIT: This whole dictionary argument you are using got me to thinking about that one scene in Malcolm X (Denzel Washington, 1992) which perfectly shows why using the dictionary to back any argument, especially one about racism, is utterly useless.

apparently that went completely over your head and you enjoy making up your own definitions, as does the media.

I don't make up my own definitions of anything, I simply call them for what they actually are. It is you and your trusty, all knowing white-man written dictionary who are guilty of this.

You share something in common with the media trolls trying to drudge up a $tory, and actually, you make a pretty solid case actually about the types of people I was referring to, who fuck everything up for everyone else who isn't either super excitable wanting to point the race card wherever applicable, or is an actual racist.

So now, you will resort to irrational thinking and conspiracy theories to make your point. But you see, unlike the media, I don't have anything to gain by drudging up any story. You got it all wrong there. The media creates stories and narratives, I observe real world facts and critique the said narratives and stories made by said media. Ironically, it is you who who buys into the medias stories since you continously parrot them. You are one of those people who thinks he knows how to think critically just because he distrusts the media, but then believes everything he reads on crap like Facebook, youtube and the like, or everything that comes out of a politicians mouth.

I fuck everything up?? Pfft. No, racists like yourself are why the world sucks; and people like me are tired of having to unravel the obfuscation that your shit infested narratives help to perpetuate. It took over 200 years for America to end slavery for this very reason. Your quack conspiracy theories are not the least bit entertaining. You are probably a Meninist too, aren't you? Fucking troll.

Normal people don't react that way you did, and it's a prime example of how YOU of all people have fallen victim to a belief this country needs more political corrective actions to the point you can't even look in the direction of another race without being called a racist.

And thank fuck for that, since I never referred to myself as a "normal" person. I'm sure most racists consider their view to be the norm, so if thats the case, I want no parts of being "normal". Confronting racism and calling it out isn't being "politically correct", it is simply what any decent human being does in the face of oppressive, anti-human ideologies like racism. You, contrarily, have fallen victim to the right-wing blow hards who trumpet that anyone calling someone out for their discriminatory views is just political correctness/cultural Marxism gone wild. Your post only helps to verify that the concept of political correctness is a pejorative that people with discriminatory views use to shield themselves when they get called out. Most decent (note, I said decent, and not normal) human beings would react pretty similar to how I did, since discrimination of any kind is absolutely abhorrent, needs to challenged, and relentlessly so.

Further, I take offense to the fact that YOU, a white priviledged male - someone who doesn't belong to a marginalized group and therefore has no idea what it is like to genuinely be racially discriminated against (whether institutionally or on a daily basis) - is trying to say what racism is or isnt. You have absolutly no right to this. None, whatesoever. You should stfu before you make yourself look any more ridiculous cause your word on this matter is worth less than zero.

Then on top of that, you have the nerve to play the victim by saying you can't even look in the direction of another person w/o being called a racist. Do you actually read the shit you post?? You get called a racist because you are one, pure and fucking simple. You are responsible for your thinking and for what you say. There is no left-wing "politically correct" conspiracy that is out to get you, as you seem to think - there is just you being a racist and getting called out on it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Once again, you are the exaltation of American false concisousness - to the point that not only are you clueless to what is really going on, but you are CLUELESS OF THE FACT that are you are clueless to begin with. I would probably have better luck finding a cure for cancer than ever convincing a racist that he is indeed racist. IN short, you and your apology for racism disgust me. Go away.

[Taem]

Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your arrogance in yourself is preposterous. The definitions you refute are from the goddamn adl you twit!:

Anti-Defamation League

I understand you want to believe the word 'racism' means something other that what it actually means, but it does not and no matter how loudly you shout, it won't change that fact. Good day.

FYI: And by the way, I'm 37.5% Hispanic of Mexican descent and 8% Italian, which by the way is more than enough to claim minority status, so you can take your preconceived fabrications of my ethnicity and shove them. I don't appreciate your prevarication of my background to further your pretentious agenda.

[FireIceTalon]

Your ignorance is truly astounding, and your arrogance in yourself is preposterous. The definitions you refute are from the goddamn adl you twit!:

Anti-Defamation League

I understand you want to believe the word 'racism' means something other that what it actually means, but it does not and no matter how loudly you shout, it won't change that fact. Good day.

FYI: And by the way, I'm 37.5% Hispanic of Mexican descent and 8% Italian, which by the way is more than enough to claim minority status, so you can take your preconceived fabrications of my ethnicity and shove them. I don't appreciate your prevarication of my background to further your pretentious agenda.

Blah blah blah. Bottomline: you are the racist here, not I. It was YOU, not I, that made apologies for Trump's racist soundbytes. It was you, not I, that tried to pull the good ol' PC card to hide your said racist views. It was YOU, not I, that has made racist comments in the past on this forum. You lose.

Pretentious agenda? Only one with an agenda here is you partner. And that agenda is that you want Muslims deported and/or prevented from entering the country - based on your racist view that all of them are either terrorists or possible terrorists. And you also think blacks are not disproportionatly targeted by law enforcement (despite all the evidence to the contrary), which is implied racism. My "ignorance" here isn't astounding, but your STUPIDITY most certainly is. You are like every other right-wing douche bag: you hate having to face the facts, which I laid before you in the previous posts. Lastly, I don't think myself arrogant so much as that I something called swagger, something you only wish you could have

You are a racist and a xenophobe, regardless your personal defintion of racism, and regardless of your ethnicity (which hardly matters, I've seen pics of you and it is easy to see that you do not suffer discrimination in NEARLY the same sense as a black, Muslim, or any person with a darker complexion does, so spare me the whole "im so oppressed too" tears I dont wanna fucking hear it). You may FOAD now (Ill let you guess what that stands for).

[Taem]

And that agenda is that you want Muslims deported and prevented from entering the country - based on your view that all of them are either terrorists or possible terrorists.

Can you provide proof of that, because I not only never made that claim, but I don't actually feel that way whatsoever. Why do you insist on deriving falsehoods from the words of others? My argument here is that this country is far too politically correct for it's own good, but that has no bearing on my opinion of race or national origin, which is actually very open.

And you also think blacks are not proportionatly targeted by law enforcement (despite all the evidence to the contrary)

Gawd, you don't know when to stop, do you?

Shows whites are twice as likely to be victimized by police brutality, but also notes their stores are not published... double standard anyone? Reverse racism much???

Correlates again more white victims to police killings, yet points out the disproportionate outrage from minority groups.

Just more proof for you, however it points out the real victims here are MEN! Police are clearly sexist!

Too many good links to chose from I didn't bother putting. Next time, Google before opening your mouth.

[FireIceTalon]

Buhahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Are you serious!?!? You just disproved your own argument with the very links you provided. Epic. Fail. The reason more white people are killed by cops than blacks is because THERE ARE MORE WHITE PEOPLE IN THE WHOLE FUCKING COUNTRY, you fucking wanker. We are talking percentages here, not raw numbers.

Blacks constitute only about 13% of the entire US population, meanwhile whites make up nearly 65%. Looking at these percentages and taking into account the number of each race killed and incarcerated, it is clear to see that blacks are clearly targeted more than whites are - by far. And if you want to talk raw numbers, blacks and latinos make up a far larger portion of the prison population than whites do, further proof that they are more heavily policed than whites.
And I haven't even begin to delve into the nature on how blacks are killed and assaulted by police far more brutally than most white victims are.

Nor did I ever make the claim that most victims of police officers are women, they are in fact men, but there is no such thing as "sexism towards men", since they are the dominant and privileged gender while women are oppressed and considered inferior in many spheres of society. It's every bit as ridiculous as the false concept of "reverse racism" (the absurd notion that minorites, are can be racist towards whites).

There is no reason for me to google when you provide links that actually prove my point for me Though Google is hardly a reliable source for accurate information anyways, but keep up the goodwork, it saves me typing.

Bottomline: a black male has a far greater chance of being racially profiled and harassed, arrested or killed by cops than a white male does - at any given time.

As for the first part of your post, once again, "political correctness" is a micro-agressive term that bigots and people with discriminatory views use to shield, or even justify, said views. What is so difficult to understand about this concept? It is a way for these people to deflect the problem onto the other person by calling them "over-sensitive", that they are "policing my freedom of speech" or some other bullshit excuse to remove blame or attention in general from their hateful views and deflect the problem onto something or someone else. It is a pejorative term at that because it insists that those with derogatory views do not need to think about (much less be responsible for) what they are saying, and they can just use it as a dismissal button towards those making the objection to what was said.

America isn't "too politically correct". It is too racist, sexist, homophobic, and discriminatory in general towards marginalized and oppressed groups. The minute you shout "you are or that is too politically correct!!!", you are IN FACT defending those views whether you acknowledge that or not. Look, you might be able to pull that card with some people and get away with it, but that shit isn't gonna fly with me, or with a lot of people for that matter. I see through your crap, and I will call you out on it every fucking time.

[kandrathe]

Too many good links to chose from I didn't bother putting. Next time, Google before opening your mouth.

The trouble with the internet is there is sometimes too much data, without much filtering, or analytical scrutiny.

The problem with the interpretation of statistics on the links you provided;

• This is a national tally, whereas people of color are geographically focused. The proper way to cite this would be to look at locality, rather than a nationwide aggregate. For example, here in my state of Minnesota, black people make up just under 6% of the population, however they are about 35% of the prison population. Native Americans make up about 1% of our state population, but comprise 10% of the prison population. Even looking at this as a statewide issue is too broad.
  
• This is an opinion piece, which is twisting the source statistics. But again, the view is not a fair comparison of police killings in relation to the population. A better comparison would be one that related the data "per capita" like The Counted -- the source cited in the article, but was misread, probably intentionally, to argue that there is not a problem. My reading shows that black people are more than twice a likely to be killed than other races.
  
• Same source as the above, with the same misinterpretation of the charts.

To frame the statistical issues more generally. Are apples the "favorite" fruit (29% of the fruit consumption) in the US due to their price and availability? How about in Florida, or California where citrus is more abundant?

But, allow me to frame the police shooting issue the way I see it. Most people of color live in certain neighborhoods in the largest urban areas due to historic redlining by financial institutions, and realtor racial profiling. The per capita incarceration rates in certain neighborhoods is therefore very, very high. Poverty, and substance abuse yields more crime which has been used to justify more intensive "community policing", "stop and frisk", and "zero tolerance zones".

Looking at a *real* study -- Assessing the Effect of Race Bias in Post-traffic Stop Outcomes Using Propensity Scores



In summary then, people of color face discrimination in housing, which puts them into higher crime areas which have more intense policing. And, within these high intensity policing zones, people of color face higher rates of scrutiny by police, and thus, are arrested, and incarcerated at higher rates. They also get shot by police twice as often.

What exactly is racism?

I'm not really so concerned with the semantics, or artificial means of attempting to enforce equality. For me, it's really the end results that matter. The injustice occurs whenever a person is disproportionately accused, suspected, or denied any common social transaction based upon subjective biased judgements. You may not be able to see it in each unique social transaction, however in aggregate, adjusting for other factors you can see trends. My field involves studying education; ACT - Do race/ethnicity-based student achievement gaps grow over time? My answer, supported by data analysis, is most definitely. Poor outcomes in education, perpetuate lower enrollment in college, and lower income attainment throughout the lifetime. Disenfranchisement in one domain, like education, propagates into career, and housing (see above).

They conclude the above article in what I would call a mostly wishy-washy manner;

This analysis indicates a seemingly intractable aspect of academic achievement gaps—higher entering achievement levels are related to higher growth rates, resulting in greater race/ethnicity-based achievement gaps over time. Despite family income and parental education levels being related to differences in student academic achievement, these factors inherently do not suggest an immediately workable set of policy or practice recommendations. In fact, the reasons for such academic gaps are numerous and, admittedly, are not all explored within this brief analysis (e.g., student course-taking patterns, educational and career aspirations, and other institutional factors).

In education, we know that what matters is setting reasonably high expectations for all students, then implementing intensive coaching to meet each students goals, and set new higher goals. For my sons, having two parents who can help keep a them on track and focused on the best possible outcomes is crucial. They don't do as well as I'd like sometimes, but I'm focused on coaching them where they are at, and helping them get better. My eldest goes to a very high achieving secondary school, but he's struggling since he's not very self motivated, and is not getting much encouragement from his teachers. They seem very content to deliver the curriculum, and assess the results without intervening to affect the outcome. That is, I feel like he gets zero coaching. If my eldest son had parents who were unable to be his coaches, he'd be failing and dropping out of school.

So then, circling back to the main topic. These mass violence incidents seem to dissemble into three arguments; 1) the ability to access weapons, 2) the care of mentally ill, or 3) an extremist philosophy. In the San Bernadino terrorist mass murder, there is a political knee jerk xenophobic focus on "rounding up the extremists", but I'd place the blame pretty squarely on the FBI's inability to discover the plotting of this "group" (which appears to be a guy with his new jihadist wife and his friend so far). Then again, this FBI blind spot is more reminiscent of the OK City bombing, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing, or the Boston Marathon Bombing. Each of these were violence committed in the name of some (wrong headed) cause. We cannot know the intentions of people, but we can be suspicious of their militant actions. It seems had anyone cared to look, this guy was a red flag for many years (as were Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or Tamerlan Tsarnaev).

[Tal]

Just once I would like a discussion to not dissolve into mocking the other poster.

[kandrathe]

Just once I would like a discussion to not dissolve into mocking the other poster.

Tal, you ignorant slut... I just wish it were SNL funny, but it's not.

[eppie]

This country has gotten so politically correct, it's borders on obsessive to the point of being dangerous by not diagnosing actual threats to our nation anymore.

I think you are right about people getting too politically correct. It is the same in Europe (at least in the north.....in the south of europe they don't care about being politically correct).
However, talking about Trump being racist or telling the truth. Sometimes people can tell the truth and still be racist.
If I in a political campaign I start emphasizing continuously that there are more blacks than whites in prison and that I want to take extra police measures against black people that is racist, even though it is also true. Populist racism is taking real facts and not looking at the causes and actually stating another cause.
And that is what people like Trump and in Holland Wilders, in France Le Pen etc do. They are smart enough not to say racist things in the legal sense of the word.

[FireIceTalon]

This country has gotten so politically correct, it's borders on obsessive to the point of being dangerous by not diagnosing actual threats to our nation anymore.

I think you are right about people getting too politically correct. It is the same in Europe (at least in the north.....in the south of europe they don't care about being politically correct).
However, talking about Trump being racist or telling the truth. Sometimes people can tell the truth and still be racist.
If I in a political campaign I start emphasizing continuously that there are more blacks than whites in prison and that I want to take extra police measures against black people that is racist, even though it is also true. Populist racism is taking real facts and not looking at the causes and actually stating another cause.
And that is what people like Trump and in Holland Wilders, in France Le Pen etc do. They are smart enough not to say racist things in the legal sense of the word.

After reading your post Eppie, as well as thinking about the "debate" I had with Taem a couple weeks back, I have reconsidered my position on how
'political correctness' is manifested.

You guys are right, people indeed have become "too" politically correct. However, not the people who you think, and not in the way that the word is used in its every day pejorative sense.

What I mean is, it is RIGHT WINGERS who have become "too politically correct", not people with leftist politics. Yes, right-wingers have their own (and extremely obnoxious) form of political correctness. For instance:

1. If you ever question the actions or very values of the country you were born in or live in, you are unpatriotic. My answer to this is, since when did I owe ANY nation my allegiance? I never have, nor will I ever owe allegiance to any country. Ever. And I will have no qualms vocalizing this to any patriot who says otherwise.

2. If you are anti-military or speak against the actions of the people who serve in the military, you are unpatriotic. To that I say, good. I am no patriot, nor do I support hired contract killers who get paid to go to other lands to murder, rape and pillage in the name of counter-terrorism and imperialism. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. It pisses me off, in fact, that I am coerced to pay taxes to fund this shit.

3. Discrimination of atheists. Most of the religious right views atheists as being either arrogant, immoral, evil, or otherwise inferior. The whole irony of it all is, they label atheists as being arrogant, but I find people of faith to be far more arrogant and thick-headed than most atheists. If me not believing in some invisible man in the sky who watches our every move and has 10 rules we must follow or we go to some firey, fictional realm is arrogant, than I AM ARROGANT AND I MAKE NO APOLOGIES ABOUT IT. If me thinking that scientific fact should be taught in schools instead of creationist stories based on faith makes me arrogant, I am arrogant and again make no apoligies for it. If me demanding that theists prove their assertions with facts and real evidence makes me arrogant, than I am arrogant and you know the rest by now. The right views us, as atheists, as being lesser than they are (in some instances even sub-human) and are extremely arrogant towards us for religious reasons, like "how dare you question the existence of the 'Almighty Lord". Atheists are probably the only group that is hated more than Muslims right now in America.

Now, its my opinion most people should be able to believe what they want (yes, religious people included), but that doesn't mean that the entire concept of faith isn't utterly ridiculous to me, nor does it mean I won't express that view. Today, most adults would be be looked at skeptically (at best) if they said they actually believed in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy. But adults who believe in some invisible, supreme being in the sky that watches all we do and and the fictional stories within some backwards Bronze-aged book get a free pass?? Come on now....

Don't get me wrong here, atheists are far from being the most oppressed group in America, though we are arguably the most hated. Racism and gender inequality are far larger problems than anti-atheism is in this country - a person is far more likely to be beat or shot by cops for being a minority/poc or even a communist or feminist than they are for being an atheist. That being said, it seems us atheists have to walk on egg shells when we are around religious people - like we should be quiet and humble. That is wrong. I refuse to do that, I will not be silenced, tone down my views, or curse less or not state facts because people of faith might find it "offensive". Fuck no I wont. We need to be much more vocal and aggressive about our views than we currently are, and anti-atheism is something that needs to be vigorously challenged on all levels, both against people of faith and even against certain atheists themselves (yes, there are good and bad examples of atheists - Rosa Luxemburg was a far better representative of atheism than an idiot like Richard Dawkins is, for example). In countries like Saudi Arabia, it is even worse, where you can actually be executed for being an atheist. It is high time that atheists defend atheists, and atheism.

4. Any desire to help improve the condition or plight of those who are oppressed in society, whether socially or economically, is socialism or anti-capitalist (as if capitalism is so infallible it is beyond critique, lol). Socialism, for right wingers, has become a perjorative term to describe, well almost literally anything, that they dont like. Most of them actually have no clue what socialism/communism even is. Most liberals don't either actually, but I digress.

5. Same goes with burning/desecrating the flag in any way (see #1). If I want to wipe my ass with the flag, I will do so and anyone who has a problem with that, well, I couldn't care one bit. People who wave ANY flag around are incredibly strange to me - whether it is for patriotic purposes or even a red flag for revolutionary socialist purposes (socialists have much more constructive things they can and should do to combat capitalism and all of its oppression, since waving flags around gets shit done, obviously). Now, being "strange" isn't necessarily always a bad thing but in this specific case it usually isn't a good thing. Patriotism and nationalism are inheritently reactionary ideals, and are a slippery slope to fascism.

These are just a few forms of "right-wing" political correctness, there is a ton more of them, and they are all equally annoying and obnoxious. Many of them are also irrational if not downright strange (and when I say strange, I mean in a not-so-good, creepy sort of way).

[eppie]

I follow you FIT. Even it has only partly to do with the original topic.
Yes atheists are discriminated in most countries on this planet. I am lucky that I happen to live in one of the countries with the least discrimination against atheists in the world.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/beki...~a3806639/

This link is in dutch, but you might be able to find the original report source somewhere.
Even in countries like Sweden and Germany the church and church goers (or at least the ones that are registered) have certain right that atheists don't have.

You see that a country like Germany seems to be doing far worse than the US. This is because of things like the church' influence on hospitals and the obligatory tax that goes to the church. SO here we are really talking about state enforced discrimination.
In the US you have a more people enforced discrimination....probably caused by the fact that the US is often involved in wars against other religions* which makes people become more extremist themselves. I think in Sweden or germany an atheist could become president, something which in the US is only theoretically possible.


* I know these wars are not official against another religion but that is how the opponents and the US civilians feel these at least.
(I am talking about cold war, and wars in Arabia)

[kandrathe]

This country has gotten so politically correct, it's borders on obsessive to the point of being dangerous by not diagnosing actual threats to our nation anymore.

I think you are right about people getting too politically correct. It is the same in Europe (at least in the north.....in the south of europe they don't care about being politically correct).
However, talking about Trump being racist or telling the truth. Sometimes people can tell the truth and still be racist.
If I in a political campaign I start emphasizing continuously that there are more blacks than whites in prison and that I want to take extra police measures against black people that is racist, even though it is also true. Populist racism is taking real facts and not looking at the causes and actually stating another cause.
And that is what people like Trump and in Holland Wilders, in France Le Pen etc do. They are smart enough not to say racist things in the legal sense of the word.

Trump being a leading candidate for President in the USA is an embarrassment. He appeals to the most crass, bigoted, and outright racists. I'm hopeful he will fade as the race gets more serious. Let's see how "truthful" he is according to factcheck.org; "It’s been a banner year for political whoppers — and for one teller of tall tales in particular: Donald Trump. In the 12 years of FactCheck.org’s existence, we’ve never seen his match. He stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong."

Here is a good study relating to my reflection above; The Demographics of Wealth -- How Age, Education and Race Separate Thrivers from Strugglers in Today’s Economy By Ray Boshara, William R. Emmons and Bryan J. Noeth ( Center for Household Financial Stability at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis)

Two possible explanations for the large and persistent differences across racial and ethnic groups that we have been discussing are differences in the age composition of the groups and differences in educational attainment of the groups. Other researchers have examined the potential effects of current and/or historical discrimination, cumulative disadvantage, early childhood learning experiences, genetic characteristics, prenatal environments and other factors on levels of wealth in adulthood.
...
We find that differences in the age composition and in the level of educational attainment across groups explain relatively little of the gaps. Indeed, race- and ethnicity-related financial-health disparities are greatest among older and better-educated groups, where financial health and wealth generally are at their highest levels.

But, I have trouble seeing education, or poverty being any part of the motivation for these killers. I'm leaning more on the combination of both religious fervor, and Islamic radical suggestion, coupled with possibly their sense of exclusion from the society. If you see the world, as radicals tend to, as black and white, then it is easier to attack or kill "them". Or, if you are Trump, ban them from entering the US. The extremism, and intolerance feeds the radical extremists narrative. Whether you are on either side, the increasing polarity only leads us closer to violence. First, as more isolated attacks, or discrimination, and eventually more global war. The extremists, whether they be Trump or Daesh, it is a play for power in wielding people against each other.

My position vis–à–vis immigration to the US is that throughout our history it has made the US an exceptional place, and we need quite a bit more. Crucial to keeping the US an exceptional and leading economy will be to embrace all skilled immigrants, and to educate even more people to replace our aging and retiring boomers.

P.S. Obama's "wag the dog" executive action on guns will have zero impact on crime or mass shootings. It's more of a "I checked the box" for his historical legacy than anything effective. Which of the plethora of mass shootings were done with "gun show" guns? The guns from the SB shooting were possibly a straw purchase which is already against the law. Any gun dealer in the US must be licensed, and all purchases regardless of where they occur from dealers must have a background check. It does prevent a private collector or hunter from selling too many from their private collection in any year.

[ShadowHM]

P.S. Obama's "wag the dog" executive action on guns will have zero impact on crime or mass shootings. It's more of a "I checked the box" for his historical legacy than anything effective. Which of the plethora of mass shootings were done with "gun show" guns? The guns from the SB shooting were possibly a straw purchase which is already against the law. Any gun dealer in the US must be licensed, and all purchases regardless of where they occur from dealers must have a background check. It does prevent a private collector or hunter from selling too many from their private collection in any year.

This isn't what I had understood, although this entire topic is well beyond the comprehension of most Canucks. I had garnered the impression that quite a lot of current firearms purchasers did not have to provide any form of background checks.

And (again from that baffled Canuck perspective) I would think that ANY baby steps towards more effective gun control would be a Good Thing™. Maybe not today or tomorrow or even next year. But even the drive to change attitudes towards drinking and driving took a generation to make inroads to the activities of the general populace.
Edit:
This would seem to contradict your highlighted assertion above about registration of gun purchases and any background checks.
http://gu.com/p/4fh93?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Or is there something I am misunderstanding?

[kandrathe]

Or is there something I am misunderstanding?

These NFA trust transfers are more likely the recipients of a deceased relative leaving a large collection to his heirs. In the past 82 years, two gun related crimes involved NFA trust weapons. While, 90,000 seems like a big number until you compare it to the 20 million backgrounded applications processed in the US every year (.045%).

But here’s what just happened that Obama won’t brag about to the media; the ATF just eliminated chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign off from the NFA process, making it easier to acquire silencers, machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and items classified as “any other weapon.” CLEO sign-off has been a major impediment in many states where owning NFA weapons is perfectly legal, but anti-gun sheriffs and police chiefs have been able to block their citizens from obtaining NFA items by simply refusing to sign-off on their acquiring items that they were otherwise qualified to own.

The anti-gun lobby is as good at distorting the facts as are the pro-gun lobby. For example, the often cited statistic of 20% of vendors at Gun Shows being unlicensed, which is dramatic and distressing until you discover that they sell books, gun safes, or trigger locks and not guns. People who sell guns as a livelihood are required to be licensed, wherever they sell the weapons. All licensed sellers are required to do background checks on every gun sold. Are there unlicensed "gun brokers" breaking the laws? Yes. I think there are a small minority, which are a small problem for the ATF to ferret out with existing laws. Is this the root of gun violence in the US? Not in any way.

Where do criminals (felons) get their guns? A Duke University study examined this recently, and it turned out they get them from friends and relatives they trust who will not rat them out. This article in the my local newspaper highlights some of the issues. Minnesota is one in a growing number of states that are implementing better laws relating to straw purchases, but proving it is an intentional crime is difficult. I guess, gun laws here in the US would be like the autobahn in Germany, there is often no penalty for driving fast, only for being irresponsible which can be considered a crime and the offender might receive a prison sentence (of up to 5 years). We may need to crack down harder on the people who enable the criminals(felons) to get guns. In fact, as evidenced by the article above, it is often the licensed gun dealer who involves the ATF in suspicious individuals attempts to purchase weapons.

I'm for meaningful measures to prevent gun violence, which would be things such as;

1. Increasing the size of the ATF/FBI effort looking to foil rogues planning domestic terrorist acts.
2. Buy back programs in large population centers to remove excess handguns from the streets.
3. Vastly improved the means by which society and mental health professionals can temporarily intervene into a potentially mentally incompetent persons violent capabilities.
4. Increase the penalties on straw purchasers who buy guns that are used for crime (as opposed to just a gift.)

I believe these measures taken by Obama are political theatre meant to mollify the masses into believing he cares about the issue and to cement some "progress" into his legacy. Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I think the tears were disingenuous.



Homicide rates per 100,000 people continue to fall in the US and Canada, yet are disturbingly high in Mexico. These mass shootings are newsmakers, and get extra attention. This motivates the politics to "do something about it". The bottom line is that in order to prevent the aberration crimes of a small fraction of a small fraction of a percent of gun toting criminals, you would need to vastly curtail the freedoms of everyone. Sort of like everyone having to remove their shoes to be xrayed before getting on a plane, or being prevented from bringing a bottle of soda onto the plane because of one incident. It's unwarranted security theater meant to give a veneer of safety and public trust.

The one thing the President and I agree upon is that smart id technology is getting close to making it possible to have safe biometric locks. I'd be cautious of mandating such biometric devices, but I would like to see some encouragement for more widespread use of this technology for all dangerous items (e.g. cars, chainsaws, lawnmowers, guns, etc). So for example, I have a gun safe, and I hide the keys in a place that only I (believe I) know about. It would provide me marginally more peace of mind for me to have a biometric lock. It would potentially prevent many accidents by people not coded to the weapon.

[ShadowHM]

Hi Kandrathe,

I am still sorely puzzled by the notion that any additional restrictions that help curtail an individual's ability to kill others with ease is a bad thing, especially since it isn't just that small fraction of deranged people who do the killing with them. The sad trail of children who are killed by the guns in their own homes might be eliminated with your idea of a biometric lock, but I can't quite imagine how that could be forced on the populace.

Additionally, I think you are also being disingenuous by bringing Mexico's stats into the conversation. Mexico's mass shootings and corresponding high murder rates are almost all directly related to the failed War on Drugs and your government's attempts to push the effects past your borders.

Regardless, thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed response. I appreciate the perspective.