Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Sun Jun 16 00:26:54 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Denmark is Cucked, Seb-level Censorship
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jun 02 15:02:33
Danish authorities have charged 14 people - including a 13-year-old - with sharing a video on social media showing a Scandinavian backpacker’s beheading in Morocco by ISIS fanatics.

The Dec. 17 murder of Louisa Vesterager Jespersen, 24, of Denmark, and Maren Ueland, 28, of Norway, sparked worldwide outrage. The four main suspects confessed to being inspired by ISIS.

The 14 suspects shared the video on Facebook Messenger and other social media in violation of Demark’s criminal code, police said in a statement announcing the charges.

“It is not only punishable, it is also offensive to both victims and relatives, and it can be a violent and deeply unpleasant experience for both children, young people and adults to watch it,” police said.

Six of the accused were between the ages of 13 and 18, police said.

The video reportedly shows the killing of one of the women, with a woman screaming while a man cuts her neck with what appears to be a kitchen knife, Reuters reported.

Jsepersen and Ueland were camping in the Atlas Mountains when they were murdered in and around a tent.

One was decapitated, while the other had a serious throat wound.

http://www...-of-backpacker-beheading-video
Paramount
Member
Mon Jun 03 04:02:43
It is good that it is a crime to share ISIS propaganda/terror movies. I think Norway also charged someone who shared that movie.
Rugian
Member
Mon Jun 03 06:47:54
This video was the first one I can remember where the establishment made a serious effort to completely scrub it from the internet. Between this and the Christchurch video, such mass censorship campaigns are likely to increasingly become the norm, and more people will be going to jail for sharing content not "approved" of by governments and the media.
Dukhat
Member
Mon Jun 03 07:13:07
DURRE MASS CENSORSHIP DDURRR EVERYONE SHOULD BE EXPOSED TO ISIS PROPAGANDA DURRRRRR
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jun 03 10:15:48
DURRRRR WE SHOULD JAIL TEENAGERS FOR DURRRRR SHARING VIDEOS OF DURRRRR HORRIFIC ATTACKS AGAINST OUR DURRRR FELLOW CITIZENS DURRRRR
Seb
Member
Mon Jun 03 12:33:42
I doubt jail is the punishment, but yes, we should. Sharing it helps radicalise people, that is why it is created.

It's odd. Forwyn and Rugian are both vocal advocates of refusing people right of asylum because of the vanishingly small chance they might be a terrorist; yet utterly against restrictions of rights that are firmly applied to specific acts overwhelmingly linked to terrorist activities

It's, it's almost as if ... they have some kind of bias.

Forwyn
Member
Mon Jun 03 13:14:03
I actually have little problem with legitimate refugees, moreso with foreign policies that predictably create them. I also have issue with cucks conflating economic migrants with refugees.

But you're either a) worried about your imports becoming radicalized, or b) worried about your natives being angry at theocratic butchers. Which is it?
Paramount
Member
Mon Jun 03 15:20:14
USA is cucked.

Man accused of flying drone over NFL football games charged

Sacramento resident Tracy Michael Mapes, 56, is accused of flying his drone over a San Francisco 49ers game at Levi's Stadium and dropping anti-media leaflets into the crowd on November 26, 2017. He is also accused of the same violation during a Raiders game at Oakland Stadium later that day.

Mapes could face up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine if convicted.

Mapes has not publicly commented on the matter. According to police, his drone released leaflets containing content about free speech and personal views on television being corrupt. Most of the leaflets didn't make it into the stadium or crowd at the 49ers game, due to high winds and rain. No one was injured.

http://www...ver-nfl-football-games-charged
Seb
Member
Mon Jun 03 16:53:04
Forwyn:

"I have no problem with refugees, I just describe them as inanimate, inhuman objects".

I'm worried about neither a, nor b. This is a teachable moment so I think you should have another guess.
Forwyn
Member
Mon Jun 03 17:17:50
Probably something not worth throwing people in jail for, but I'm not interested in guessing how the mind of a bootlicking cuck works. Just keep suppressing the free flow of information with violence, then calling other people the fascists, buddy
Rugian
Member
Mon Jun 03 18:32:07
"Forwyn and Rugian are both vocal advocates of refusing people right of asylum because of the vanishingly small chance they might be a terrorist;"

You have me confused with Sam fam. For the record, I am an avid supporter of numerous refugee communities in the United States, including but not limited to Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Huguenots.
Seb
Member
Tue Jun 04 03:40:39
Forwyn:

Does the article refer to a jail sentence?
Seb
Member
Tue Jun 04 03:44:24
A man who would deprive someone of life and liberty because "oh noes, he has a 0.00001% chance of being a terrorist"; but thinks that any tightly focused law banning the dissemination of well defined year terrorist propoganda is an unacceptable breach of principle is basically insane.

You are literally arguing that it is more important that terrorists be free from restrictions on their propoganda as a point of high principle, but right to life, liberty and asylum are dispensible.

jergul
large member
Tue Jun 04 04:43:23
Part of the problem is the unforgiving nature of the US justice system (including civic liability).

Who cares about someone getting a fine for spreading terrorist propaganda?

He is not getting put on a no fly-list, nor facing a 140 million dollar claim for emotional harm, nor is being forced into a plea-bargain to avoid ramped up charges, nor is the subject of civic forfeiture.

Law broken. Fine paid. End of story.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 04 10:38:36
"any tightly focused law banning the dissemination of well defined year terrorist propoganda is an unacceptable breach of principle is basically insane."

Meanwhile in the world:

"Hong Kong (CNN)As commemorations for the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre take place worldwide Tuesday, any coverage or discussion of the event will be tightly censored in China."

http://www...ina-censorship-intl/index.html

"Does the article refer to a jail sentence?"
"Who cares about someone getting a fine"

"Twelve individuals have been charged with unauthorized disclosure of the video under "especially aggravating" circumstances."

"Under aggravating circumstances it is punishable by up to three years in prison, according to Danish police."

http://www.cnn.com/2019/03/07/europe/denmark-morocco-murder-scli-intl/index.html

@Seb: The rest of your post is predicated on a straw man. Maybe try again.
jergul
large member
Tue Jun 04 12:06:12
Forwyn
My point was that Americans think a prison sentence is life-ending. Which may be true in the US.

Did not the US government drone an American for sharing stuff on the internet?

I know you were not a huge fan of that, but my point stands.

Its not true in Denmark.

We all know the posters will be fined and at most be given suspended sentences.

Its no biggie.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 04 12:44:56
Being stuffed in a cage for disseminating information should not be shrugged off just because of dystopian policies across the pond, or because the cage is comfortable.
Seb
Member
Tue Jun 04 12:59:00
Are you really saying, Forwyn, that a properly constructed liberal democracy would find it impossible to tell the difference between terrorist snuff propoganda and journalistic coverage of a state massacre?

"Forwyn: under aggregated circumstances", i.e. in the absolute worst case scenario then, with additional factors involved. So, e.g. it was proven he was actually a terrorist and he was trying to radicalise people?

Tends to suggest a non custodial sentence.

jergul
large member
Tue Jun 04 13:06:30
Forwyn
I have not seen the legal code in question, so do not have a position on its wording.

I would be surprised if anyone is stuffed in a cage.

Ogrish style snuff videos do not have any informational value in an academic sense.

Perhaps "information" was poorly chosen.

Seb
Member
Tue Jun 04 13:41:10
Forwyn:

The US is trying to put Assange in a cage genuinely for simply disseminating information.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 04 14:28:53
Good fucking deal, Seb. You keep bringing up the US like I don't regularly criticize it myself.

In this case, the UK beat us to it.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing a hundred heavily armed mercenaries storm the prison, massacring the guards to free him.

But you do you.
Seb
Member
Tue Jun 04 15:52:38
Forwyn:

I'm just pointing out that far from being weird and abnormal, it is quite normal to limit freedom of speech when it can be well defined.

Going after Assange is a far more extreme example that genuinely does have issues as it makes it a crime under any circumstances to publish information that the Govt deems classified even when the publisher has no duty to the American state.

Rather than making implied slippery slope arguments, that somehow laws banning spreading jihadi propoganda videos could somehow lead to the state being able to silence journalists - why not focus on the actual law that actually silences journalists?
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 04 16:40:39
State apparatuses lashing out to punish whistleblowers and protect its classified information, justified or not - is far different from punishing citizens for sharing video of atrocities committed because of vague threats of jihadis.

Likewise, this would be akin to punishing teenagers for sharing Wikileaks docs after they've already been published. They exist for our perusal, posting it on Facebook doesn't change that.
Seb
Member
Tue Jun 04 16:55:37
Forwyn:

"tate apparatuses lashing out to punish whistleblowers and protect its classified information, justified or not - is far different from punishing citizens for sharing video of atrocities committed because of vague threats of jihadis."

Indeed.

In the former case, it a government seeking to avoid democratic accountability and undermining the free press.

In the latter case, there are clear public benefit arguments to suppress propaganda and recruiting materials being circulated by terrorists.

This is not a vague threat: nearly all the terrorist attacks in Europe have been committed by Europeans who have become radicalized and been recruited and these materials on the internet play a key role.

So arguing this is "vague" threat is absurd and dishonest.

"this would be akin to punishing teenagers for sharing Wikileaks docs after they've already been published"

No, it would not. Because the act of sharing them and further disseminating them has harmful impact, whereas a secret, once lost, ceases to be a secret.




Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 04 20:34:31
In the former case, it is a massive overreach even when making a case for national security - and misguided, at that - Clapper should be in jail, not Snowden, and Assange should never hit the radar as a disseminator, not the leaker. Perhaps you keep thinking that I'll defend the US on this. I'm happy to continue correcting that.

"In the latter case, there are clear public benefit arguments to suppress propaganda and recruiting materials being circulated by terrorists." is a statement that could be spouted word for word by an upper-level party member in China.

"nearly all the terrorist attacks in Europe have been committed by Europeans"

Lol. Children of economic migrants that have more in common than getting confused with refugees.

"these materials on the internet play a key role."

I'd love to see some data backing this. Far more likely that perpetrators are being radicalized by conversations with existing radicals, and sermons by the likes of al-Awlaki, than beheadings of random backpackers.

Whereas I'd rather just stop importing the problem, you'd rather give up key freedoms to make sure they don't slaughter you because they were exposed to the wrong information. lulz
jergul
large member
Wed Jun 05 01:27:39
Forwyn
Spreading snuff videos on the internet is hardly a key freedom.

I suppose I could apeal to your puritanical streak.

What is your position on spreading snuff porn? Or child snuff pornography?

What exactly would be the difference, if any?
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jun 05 02:31:02
Instead of raiding the fat 40 year old computer technician who downloaded videos on Limewire, I would certainly prefer just offloading a couple 7.62s into the heads of the manufacturers.

Didn't realize I have a perceived puritanical streak, in any case.
jergul
large member
Wed Jun 05 02:57:10
Forwyn
Do you think sharing "information" like snuff porn, or snuff child porn should be a criminal offense?

If so, then what exactly is the difference between those and snuff video sharing?
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 05 04:52:30
Forwyn:

Children of regular, naturalised migrants are nationals.

Most of the terrorists are third generation. So it's more correct to say "some of their grandparents were immigrants". Which isn't compelling at all.

I'll bet most of your grandparents had grandparents who were economic migrants.

What's your point? They aren't European? Hate to break it to you but European is a relatively new idea, the national and ethnic blocks are much smaller and most Europeans have economic migrants in their ancestry.

What are you getting at Forwyn. Make it explicit.

"I'd love to see some data backing this"

Educate yourself then.

"Whereas I'd rather just stop importing the problem"

The problem isn't imported. The idea that radicalisation is a cultural timebomb that layed dormant on the genetic background of people who came here in the late 40s to suddenly blossom in their mixed grandchildren 80 years later - terrorism as a recesive gene - is absurd. It falls apart at the first inspection.

Radical Islamism is an idea, and you are arguing that it is a matter of principle the allow it to spread.
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 05 05:32:12
It is trivially easy to find information on the role these materials play:

http://www...rts/RR400/RR453/RAND_RR453.pdf

For example.

I've seen others which highlight how jihadis watch these videos deliberately as a mechanism to normalise violence and desensitize themselves (part of the reason that they consider use of drugs etc immediately prior to the attack ok if it helps them)
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jun 05 10:27:45
lulz

Madrid subway- Berber
Nice - Berber
London bridge - Paki, Berber, Berber
Stockholm - Uzbek
Barcelona - Berber, Berber, Berber, Berber, Berber, Berber, Berber, Berber
Bataclan - Berbers and sons of Berbers

"I'll bet most of your grandparents had grandparents who were economic migrants."

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the grandchildren of German migrants are magnitudes less likely to become Islamic terrorists.

"Educate yourself then."
"For example."

Your link doesn't differentiate between executions and other types of propaganda. The only data point presented shows search results, where bomb instructions are far more common.
When considering that a good chunk of the latter searches are likely the dreaded Islamophobes finding material to share in opposition to Islamic terror, it's looking more like executions are a very small chunk. In any case, it seems illogical that a guy looking up beheadings is in danger of falling into a funnel of extremism - more likely he's already there.

"The problem isn't imported. The idea that radicalisation is a cultural timebomb that layed dormant on the genetic background of people who came here in the late 40s to suddenly blossom in their mixed grandchildren 80 years later - terrorism as a recesive gene - is absurd. It falls apart at the first inspection."

Educate yourself. Religiosity is being increasingly identified as partially attributable to genetic factors. Combine this with a millennium and a half of warfare and high fertility and you're artificially selecting for increased predisposition to adhere to the ideologies of their elders, opposite of Westerners who have shown increased secularization, even from religious families.




jergul
large member
Wed Jun 05 10:37:45
"Religiosity is being increasingly identified as partially attributable to genetic factors"

Woot!
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 05 12:10:35
Forwyn:

Ah, so you do subscribe to the recessive gene theory of terrorism.

"I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the grandchildren of German migrants are magnitudes less likely to become Islamic terrorists"

Americans are far more likely to be Irish Catholic/Marxist terrorists I suspect. On the basis that providing material support is legally considered a terrorist offence.

Most terrorist offences in the US are committed by white people.

As for a millennium and a half of warfare and high birth rates and religious fervour... Your entire culture is a direct consequence of Europeans absolute superlative explication of all of those.

You are literally a citizen of a county founded by religious fanatics, with exceptionally high birth rates, that migrated primarily for economic purposes, and genocided it's way across the continent and was still committing genocides into the late 19th century.

If this is genetic, you lot must be the absolute worst of em.
jergul
large member
Wed Jun 05 12:12:36
Lets simply bypass rudamentary social darwinism (I had a whole troll scheme going for a while that was a lot more robust. 80 generations of feudal servitude might almost be evolutionary relevant. Say as opposed to 4 generations of divergent demographic development between the Southern Mediterranian basin and the rest of Western culture).

I am fine with spreading snuff videos being a crime.

I think most of us are fine with that. Including Forwyn.

I am less certain that blanket statements. Lots of information with merit can be used to promote terrorism. It would not follow that spreading information with merit should be a crime, even if it can be misused.



Forwyn
Member
Wed Jun 05 13:06:08
"Most terrorist offences in the US are committed by white people."

By raw numbers? I should hope so. Proportional rates tell a far different story. For reference, whites make up 73% of the US, compared with 1% Muslims. I'll let you figure out who's overrepresented:

from Sept. 12, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016 — there have been 85 attacks in the country by violent extremists resulting in 225 deaths. GAO reported citing data from the U.S. Extremist Crime Database.

Of those 225 deaths:

• 106 individuals were killed by far-right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents;

• 119 individuals were killed by radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents;

The think tank New America has compiled information on terrorist activities in the United States after 9/11. It details data on deadly attacks by ideology up to the Aug. 12, 2017 Charlottesville attack.

Here’s their breakdown on the number of deaths caused by individuals of different ideologies: 95 by jihadist, 68 by far-right, and eight by black separatist/national/supremacist.

http://www...-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 05 13:26:15
It is a very strange frequency analysis that looks at the number of killed rather than the number of pepetrators when trying to determine the rate of propensity.

Did you correct for other factors?

"New America think tank" sounds legit.

In any case, go back thirty years and Islamic terrorism would be a blip in Europe vs Marxist groups.

So, even accounting for rates, if you are looking for some intrinsic driver over a cultural driver, it simply doesn't fit the facts.

And obviously so. You have to be either a complete idiot or engaging in highly motivational reasoning.

Anyway, back to the videos - why the fuck do you think Islamist groups in the middle East are producing slick propoganda videos in English?

It's effective, I'm not doing a literature review for you: it's been done already. Inform yourself.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jun 05 13:37:46
"number of killed rather than the number of pepetrators"

ROFL

"62 separate incidents"
"23 separate incidents"

62/85 = 73%, matches demographics perfectly
23/85 = 27%, quite a bit more than 1%

"go back thirty years and Islamic terrorism would be a blip in Europe vs Marxist groups."

Hmm. Wonder what changed? Slick videos, apparently.

"why the fuck do you think Islamist groups in the middle East are producing slick propoganda videos in English?"

To cater to your Berber imports, apparently. Your answer is mass censorship, instead of just importing less Berbers


swordtail
Anarchist Prime
Wed Jun 05 13:49:46
"In any case, go back thirty years and Islamic terrorism would be a blip in Europe vs Marxist groups."

not just marxists.
operation gladio.
Force Research Unit.
Military Reaction Force.


"Anyway, back to the videos - why the fuck do you think Islamist groups in the middle East are producing slick propoganda videos in English?"

that's how Mi6 and Cia get things done.
how else are the white helmets gonna get the british tax payer to found them?
jergul
large member
Wed Jun 05 17:03:24
3.5 million muslims. 23 episodes over 15 years.

0.04/100k/year.

So a muslim is 25 times less likely to do this, than someone from New Hampshire is likely to commit murder.

You were saying about genetics?
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jun 05 18:12:49
234 million whites. 62 episodes over 15 years.

.0017/100k/year.

So a Muslim is also 25 times more likely to do this, than someone from New Hampshire or the other 49 states, to shoot up a nightclub, or fly a plane into a building, or blow it up.

You were saying about jergulmaths?
jergul
large member
Wed Jun 05 19:14:51
We seem to agree that there can be no racial genetic component in domestic terrorism. But no worries, you probably have other theories.
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jun 05 20:44:34
Just a racial genetic component in devout religiosity, combined with an ideology that demands that nonbelievers be killed or enslaved.
Dukhat
Member
Wed Jun 05 22:39:36
Ah yes, subtle racism instead of outright racism premised on bad math and assumptions.

Foreskin bats .000 again.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 06 02:12:24
Forwyn
American exceptionalism for the win. But you should avoid projecting onto minorities. Doing so has unpleasant historical connetations.

We also seem to agree that spreading snuff videos is legitimately a criminal offence.

Just as we agree that information of merit should not be censored.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 09:40:06
"minorities"

They're not minorities.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 09:41:34
Cuckhat hates religion, except when it's his poor Muzzies up for discussion.

Go stand in front of the Lorry of Peace, kid
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 09:42:47
"We also seem to agree that spreading snuff videos is legitimately a criminal offence."

Nah. I don't really want to see the efukt operators raided. Feel free to go after the manufacturers of said videos.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 06 10:02:13
Forwyn
Nah, you are too hedgy. We agree that distributing snuff videos should legitimately be a criminal offence.

The uploader would be the culpable distributor in the case of efukt under current legislation, though I would support sites having editorial responsibility for content. But that is for the future.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 10:41:06
Chechnyan executions have been on the net on sites like rotten.com for over a decade. I don't think it's hedgy at all to say that the manifacturers were involved with murder and should be treated as such, but once on the net it's publicly available information, much like illegally-obtained Wikileaks docs, despite Chris Cuomo telling you you could go to jail for having it.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 06 11:53:42
Forwyn
Would the same go for snuff pornography and snuff child pornography?

My view is that we should assume psuedo editorial responsibility. Would a publisher be allowed to publish and distribute something?

Taking a dump on the internet and citing the size of the shit as basis for not being responsible for its consistency is simply not a viable model.

In the OP, the problem is not that people are being charged, it is that what they did was illegal under current legislation.

My position on it and all other things is that there is an assumed liability. Is it reasonable to assume that the people filmed would have objections to the video being distributed on the net if they had been in a position to object?

This line of thinking would also cover why distribution of child pornography should be illegal.

I was incidentally against wikileaks taking a dump on the net too.

Snowden did it right.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 06 12:32:05
It is clear from the stats that muslims are vastly overrepresented in terror attacks/mass killings.

Blacks whites and asians have similar representation to their size, while hispanics are less likely to commit a spree killing.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 06 12:41:15
Sam:

Only if you pick narrow time and geographical windows.

Given that terrorism is enormously rare, and has clear element of social construction, not only in motivation but in whether an incident is recognised as such (e.g. violent attacks by animal welfare activists against vivisectionists or anti-abortionists are not always classified as terrorism) it is completely obvious that such narrow restrictions are absurd.

For example, US law would consider collecting and contributing money for Islamic terrorist groups a terrorist offence, but permits it for the IRA, which is clearly a religious terrorist group and responsible for as many deaths as all Islamic terrorist attacks in the West put together.

However you dilute this by counting the denominator as "white Caucasian" rather than, Celtic, or Irish, or Irish Catholic.

If you did, you'd find that obviously the Irish Catholics were amongst the most terroristic individuals in the world. Which shows just how obviously flawed this racial accounting of terrorism is.






that's
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 06 12:45:29
"Only if you pick narrow time and geographical windows."

Ya, you know, like the most recent few decades, the part that matters most.

Can you stop being so wrong seb?
Paramount
Member
Thu Jun 06 12:59:21
”Irish Catholics were amongst the most terroristic individuals in the world”

Maybe we all can agree with that religious people, followers of the abrahamic religions, are the most common terrorist. Not all of the, are terrorist, but nearly all terrorists are a follower of Abraham.
Paramount
Member
Thu Jun 06 13:00:22
*not all of THEM are terrorists
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 06 13:52:59
Sam:

Your argument is that this is genetic. So timespans less than one generation are by definition irrelevant.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 14:03:51
Before stateless Islamic terrorists hit the scene, they had nations and empires backing their terrorism.

But sure, in your head I'm sure the IRA bogeymen have a higher bodycount than the Armenian genocide.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 06 14:40:14
Forwyn:
Compared to the genocides white Europeans cooked up?

I mean you actually have to be really really stupid to pursue this line of argument.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 15:02:46
I mean you actually have to be really really stupid to handwave stateless terrorism away because it's a relatively new phenomenon, as states like the Saudis have modernized and illicitly support terror instead of backing it outright.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 06 15:07:53
What stateless terrorism? We are talking about Americans for the most part are we not?
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Jun 06 15:32:30

"Your argument is that this is genetic."


Lol retard seb sucks at words again.
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 06 15:55:46
Forwyn:

I'm not handwaving it away idiot. I'm pointing out your claims that they are particularly disposed to terrorism as an ethnicity is just not correct.

Seb
Member
Thu Jun 06 15:57:27
Sam:

If it is cultural, then you surely recognise that the cultures of first generation immigrants and their children are both wildly different from the cultures of say, Saudi Arabia now.

As different as Irish Catholics in the 1950s and Brazilian Catholics now.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 16:05:20
Nah, just particularly exposed to terrorism. Stats don't lie. We can muse about whether that's attributable to a murderous ideology, forged in one of the most brutal environments in human history, and whether that ideology is more likely to take root in the genetic offspring of that environment.

Ultimately irrelevant, what matters is that they are massively overrepresented, compared to any other demographic group in the world.

If it makes you feel better, I'm sure Muslim women are underrepresented compared to the aggregate.
jergul
large member
Thu Jun 06 16:16:56
Forwyn
Your stats certainly lie. An American muslim is more likely to be struck by a meteor, than become a domestic terrorist.

If you want to attribute causation, then perhaps the 23 souls we are talking about may have been influenced by an American tendency to blow the shit out of Muslim countries.

Control. Why not bomb the crap out of Ireland and see if it does not cause a slight uptick in ethnic Irish domestic terrorists?
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 06 16:45:57
Forwyn:

"Stats don't lie."

They do if you don't take balanced sampling approach.

"that they are massively overrepresented, compared to any other demographic group in the world."

Except, as pointed out, they are not in any meaningful way.

If you are arguing someone is more likely to be a terrorist because they have a particular attribute (in this case, intrinsically from being from a particular ethnic group, or a particular religion) then neither of those things have changed much over long periods of time.

So it is completely incorrect to restrict your sampling to a couple of decades.

And you also need to correct for social construction: the fact we don't call, for example, animal rights activists who commit violence against vivisectionists terrorists doesn't mean that objectively, its the same thing (willingness to commit violence and kill for an ideology).

If, on the other hand, you start to invoke reasons for not doing that proper sampling - things like "well, obviously the Islamic world is going through political turmoil right now and the impact of Whabbism blah blah blah", that immediately fragments the populations. Can you really claim that the grandchildren of immigrants from North Africa who arrived in France in the 40s and the grandchildren of immigrants from Palkistan who arrived in the UK in the 40s truly share the same attributes of refugees arriving from Syria?

The entire thesis collapses pretty quickly.

It's not a question of statistics lying, it's a question of you not understanding how to do statistical analysis in a meaningful way. Simple incompetence really.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 17:42:10
"An American muslim is more likely to be struck by a meteor, than become a domestic terrorist."

But will be hit by 25 meteors before one meteor hits his evil white peer that Seb likes to speak of.

@Seb:

Your entire rant is fucking mindnumbingly idiotic. We need not include all of human history to discuss terrorism that has become commonplace in our lifetimes.

"B-b-but 50 years ago terrorism came from different groups"

Fucking retarded, rofl
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 17:44:14
"And you also need to correct for social construction: the fact we don't call, for example, animal rights activists who commit violence"

hurrrrrrr durrrrrrrr Seb, rofl

"The FBI classifies domestic terrorism threats into four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism."

http://www...stic-terrorism-in-the-homeland
Seb
Member
Thu Jun 06 17:55:46
Forwyn:

My point is your definition of group is effectively arbitrary, because you've chosen an arbitrary attribute to define your group.

Example:


If there is a tiwn with a slum, and most criminals come from the slum because crime is correlated with poverty. And the name Nigel is very common in the slum because, more so than in the gated community around the corner; it is absurd to take as two groups "people called Nigel" and "People not called Nigel", and then insist that there is a "rate of crime" that's consistent across people called Nigel, and that crime rate in the gated community can be meaningfully reduced by expelling anyone called Nigel because "statistics don't lie, people called Nigel commit more crimes".

Your basis for calculating a "Muslim terrorist rate" is that all Muslims can be grouped together - which implies you think it's something intrinsic to Muslims. If that is the case, the rates shouldn't vary over 50 years. Or indeed thirty or twenty.

The fact they do shows you that it's highly unlikely your grouping has any meaningful correlation.

This is obvious. So screamingly obvious you need to be an utter moron not to see it.
Forwyn
Member
Thu Jun 06 18:11:35
Seb: "Most terrorist offences in the US are committed by white people." - even though terror offenses committed by whites are for various reasons and ideologies

Also Seb: "Muslims can't be grouped together when discussing Islamic terror rates, even though 100% of Islamic terrorists are driven by the same ideology with only superficial differences"

You might believe that there is a legitimate reason to distinguish between a Libyan terrorist and a Moroccan terrorist; you could also distinguish that one used a bomb and the other used firearms. In either case, you would be retarded. Both attacked Westerners at concerts in the name of Islam.
Pillz
Member
Fri Jun 07 02:00:10
All seb sees is race though.
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 07 03:01:42
Forwyn:

Right, but does it therefore follow that everyone from North African descent, or every Muslim shares the essential common atributes that drove the individuals who did attack to commit the attack?

Go back to my simple example: it's inevitable, most of the criminals share a single common factor, they are called Nigel! This is an undeniable fact! Ergo, it follows that anyone called Nigel is more likely to commit a crime!

No. Obviously false.

They only reason you can't see it in this case is because your enormous bias which is causing you to place all the attention on their ethnicity and unfamiliarity with statistics.

If you are an Islamic terrorist, you are near certainly likely to be a Muslim. But this does not an all mean Muslims have a. greater propensity to commit terrorism.

In my example, criminals are more likely to be called Nigel, but that does not imply people called Nigel all have a greater propensity to commit crime.

This really is the simplest logical error: correlation does not imply causality.

The only reason you are overlooking this is because you are implicitly assuming that you can generalise group characteristics. Most of the great classical composers were white. That doesn't mean you are more likely to be a great classical composers.

Like I said, your ideas are obviously wrong and stupid.
Seb
Member
Fri Jun 07 03:05:24
Tl;Dr being able to divide two numbers together doesn't mean your have a meaningful result. This is why statistics is a field of study and higher degree, not simply a module in elementary school.
Sam Adams
Member
Fri Jun 07 10:46:17
"The hard numbers are meaningless because i dont like them"

-seb
jergul
large member
Fri Jun 07 10:53:33
Sammy
Its like being hysterical about global warming because the temperature rose 0,00003 C.

5 times almost nothing is still almost nothing.

Also, the reason for 5 times almost nothing is almost certainly the US bombing the crap out of countries with certain characteristics.

Bomb the Irish next time. See if their domestic terrorist numbers change.
Forwyn
Member
Fri Jun 07 12:17:00
"but does it therefore follow that everyone from North African descent"

Not every North African ascribes to Islam, despite their higher chance of being murdered for it. Naturally, their terror rates are also lower.

The only reason you can't see it in this case is because your enormous bias makes you ignore numbers in front of your face because of magical pie in the sky factors that simultaneously make statistical analysis impossible to attribute, but mysteriously can't be accounted for at all, so you continue to just ignore them.

"But this does not an all mean Muslims have a. greater propensity to commit terrorism."

We can break out the polling numbers again, that show that a) Muslims support terror attacks at higher rates than the rest of the sample population; b) Muslims support radical, outlandish theocratic views at higher rates than the rest of the sample population.

But you will bitch and moan about the polling because numbers don't mean anything if they go against you're preconceived views.

Take your Nigel example: it is an objective fact that either: a) Nigels commit crimes at higher rates than John, or b) Nigels commit crimes at lower rates than John. A may flip twenty years from now, for various reason. But that doesn't change the objective truth of the present, that you ignore because it rings dissonant in your skull.

"you can generalise group characteristics. Most of the great classical composers were white."

Here's the issue again: you're conflating racial characteristics with ideological ones. The latter is much more powerful than the former. The former, as we've mused a bit in this thread, could contribute to predisposition to the latter, but not necessarily.

White fucking retards who convert to Islam magically see their terror rates rise. Whodathunkit.
Pillz
Member
Fri Jun 07 14:43:55
I guess the fact eygpt has zero Christian terror attacks but a dozen or so annually by Muslims is just not a relevant data point for seb.
Seb
Member
Sun Jun 09 13:32:57
Forwyn:

"Not every North African ascribes to Islam, despite their higher chance of being murdered for it. Naturally, their terror rates are also lower."

1. Most of the higher profile terror attacks have been people with North African heritage. Indeed you identified them as Berbers.

2. The proportion of North Africans that subscribe to Islam is vastly larger than the proportion of Muslims that commit terror - which kind of proves my point - you are not being led by the statistics, you are furiously mashing numbers together to produce ammunition for your already predetermined view.

"We can break out the polling numbers again, that show that a) Muslims support terror attacks at higher rates than the rest of the sample population;"

Propensity means all other things being equal. So, let me ask you: do you think ethnic background is the sole and only driver for propensity to commit terrorism?

If not, I simply say that you've fucked up your sampling by selecting a restricted region and time period so your numbers are nonsense.

Numbers mean everything, but you are ignoring the meaning implicit in the numbers.

"is an objective fact that either: a) Nigels commit crimes at higher rates than John, or b) Nigels commit crimes at lower rates than John"

Absolutely not. I deliberately constructed the scenario on the basis that crime was correlated with poverty and Nigel was a more fashionable name in the slum. The mistake is to assume all Nigels are from the same population. The crime stats tell you nothing about the liklihood of Nigels from the gated community to commit crime. Grouping them into the same population as the people called Nigel in the slum is incorrect. Equally, treating the Nigels in the slum as more likely to commit crime than other people in the slum (which appears statistically as an artefact if you treat the name Nigel as being a salient) is also an error.
Seb
Member
Sun Jun 09 13:42:51
These are not objective facts, they are numerical artefacts of a flawed analysis.

That was the point.

You argue that I'm conflating race and ideology. Again, that's you starting from an assumption and then trying to construct a supporting argument.

In nearly all cases of domestically sourced Islamic terrorism in Europe (which is to say, the vast bulk of it), the participants did not convert to Islam, then become radicalised to commit terrorism out of ideology. It was in fact the other way around. Indeed many showed no interest in Islam at all until after they were radicalised to terrorism.

The dynamics of radicalisation are most similar to gang membership: alienation from society, a strong will to power and a sense that acts of violence against society are affirmation of personal power.

That is precisely why these videos are seen as a threat: for someone who may already be feeling disempowered and isolated within a Western state, tailored messages showing how ISIS scores victory over the Western societies, how they are frightened by ISIS etc. is an extremely powerful agent in the radicalisation process. Here, they say, is an alternative. It's the violence and the legitimisation of violence as a valid form of empowerment and self worth that matters, not the religion. Which is fundamentally the same religion their parents and grandparents subscribed to and which the vast vast majority of Muslim practice without ever deciding they need to blow up an Aria Grande concert.

Seb
Member
Sun Jun 09 15:07:06
Oh, really important point on this that I forgot to mention explicitly:

"is an objective fact that either: a) Nigels commit crimes at higher rates than John, or b) Nigels commit crimes at lower rates than John"

It is *not* an objective fact. It is a subjective fact, because the choice to pick name as a meaningful definer of population was entirely subjective and arbitrary.

It hence leads to the incorrect conclusion that "Nigel's" have a higher propensity to crime. In fact you have two populations: Nigel's who are poor and from the slums, and thus likely to commit crime; and Nigel's from the gated community who are less so. The point is merely you are both more likely to be poor and more likely to be called Nigel if you live in the slum.

So while it is certainly true that you are more likely to find criminals called Nigel, it is not true that any given Nigel is more likely to commit crime. There are two populations of Nigel.

Thus, you can get an entirely bogus conclusion from what looks like an objective fact, because the subjectivity is hidden in the definition of population and how you do your sampling.

Long story short, you think that the meaningful population definer for terrorism in Europe is "muslim", and therefore worry about immigration.

It turns out the risk factors and population from which European born terrorists (the overwhelming source of terrorist attacks in Europe) are the same as criminal gang membership. It's not about Islam, it's way more about Europe's underclass. It's also why there are far fewer terrorist attacks in the US: historically you have been much better at integrating your populations - and the ones that are least integrated tend to end up in gangs because there is nobody actively trying to recruit that demographic into nihilistic terrorism.

Bad news: people like you and Sam are trying to unwind that success, and make yourself more like Europe in that respect.





Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 11 00:10:49
"The proportion of North Africans that subscribe to Islam is vastly larger than the proportion of Muslims that commit terror"

Are you trying to make a point? No demographic in the world has a terror rate of 100%. Even Al Qaeda likely has some pencil pushers.

The question, once again, is not whether or not there are peaceful Muslims - we know that there are - the question is whether the terror rate is inordinately high compared to other demographics.

"do you think ethnic background is the sole and only driver for propensity to commit terrorism?"

I believe I cleared up any uncertainties with my last comment, if you cared to read all of it.

"restricted region"

Nonsense. We can find similar figures wherever there are significant numbers of Muslims, whether it North America, or Europe, or Southeast Asia. We will find they are over represented in terror figures.

"time period"

This diversion is a bad one. 1) Terror attacks that no one alive is to remember, to further dead ideologies, are irrelevant. 2) How far to go back is entirely arbitrary. We including Grug killing his brother with a rock to measure Neanderthal crime rates in our discussion? 3) If data is virtually impossible to parse because of the myriad contributing factors, how the hell are you planning on doing that 150 years ago? Unless, as seen later, you seem to just be going for the "poor people commit terror attacks" angle.

"It is *not* an objective fact. It is a subjective fact, because the choice to pick name as a meaningful definer of population was entirely subjective and arbitrary."

Holy fucking shit dude, lulz.

If Nigels committed 80,000 crimes in 2018, and Johns committed 45,000, Nigels OBJECTIVELY committed more crimes.

80,000 is OBJECTIVELY more than 45,000. There are, of course, reasons that this might be true, and it doesn't necessarily hold true that every Nigel is more likely to commit crime than every John.

"There are two populations of Nigel."

There are a lot of populations of Nigel. There are black Nigels, and white Nigels, and rich Nigels, and poor Nigels, and Christian Nigels, and Buddhist Nigels, and Islamic Nigels.

It just turns out that Nigel is most likely to commit terror if he frequents a mosque, regardless of his race, ethnicity, or income level.

"In nearly all cases of domestically sourced Islamic terrorism in Europe (which is to say, the vast bulk of it), the participants did not convert to Islam, then become radicalised to commit terrorism out of ideology."

Assuming this is true, unlike the "third generation immigrant" meme, then we must question why sons from Islamic families are more likely to drive a truck into a crowd of people than their classmates, rich or poor, white or black, pagan or Hindu or Jewish or Scientologist.

"It's the violence and the legitimisation of violence as a valid form of empowerment and self worth that matters, not the religion."

Those are intrinsic factors of the religion. It has been a uniting force and catalyst to convincing poor radicals to fight for conquerors since its inception; it united disparate tribes and put the Moors in Iberia and the Turks in Anatolia.

That there are peaceful peoples who live and die without hurting others is largely irrelevant; there are millions upon millions of dead Christians who ignored violent aspects of their ideology, and lived and died without hurting others.

Once again, the issue is not flat numbers, the ones you continue pointing out when you mention "the overwhelming source of terrorist attacks in Europe", knowing full well what the overwhelming demographic in Europe is.

If Y2A were conducting an actuarial study to assess risk of insuring entities against terrorism, the number one flag would not be poverty; poor Orthodox Serbs are not driving trucks into crowds. Poor Bahai Congolese are not stalking through villages cutting disbelievers with machetes. Maybe they're just not radicals; but they also don't have an ideology telling them to strike at the necks of disbelievers. No, the number one flag would be the mere presence of Muslims. That one factor is more dangerous than a 25-year old male in a red sports car.

"historically you have been much better at integrating your populations"

Lol. We had Irish dissidents literally invade Canada with militia groups to spur on Irish independence from your shit empire.

Political movements come and go; religion is much more enduring.
jergul
large member
Tue Jun 11 00:28:40
"the question is whether the terror rate is inordinately high compared to other demographics"

Indeed.

We need a control group. Bomb Ireland heavily. See what happens with domestic terrorism amongst those of Irish-American decent.
Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 11 01:12:31
I, for one, shed a tear at the brutality of the Indonesian bombing campaigns.
jergul
large member
Tue Jun 11 01:40:35
A control group Forwyn.

Something not tainted by the extremely plausible link between bombing the crap out of muslim countries and muslim terrorism.

Like the Irish.

Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 11 02:06:05
That's not a control group.

A control group is a demographic of Muslims that are not being bombed and not committing terrorist acts.

You must then find a second group of Muslims not being bombed and not committing terrorist acts, to bomb and compare to the control group.

Good luck finding two such groups of Muslims.
jergul
large member
Tue Jun 11 02:37:42
How many million metric tons of bombs did you drop after 9-11?

Did Nato and other allies feel obligated to act as if 9-11 happened to them too?

That would be the contamination effect of bombing the crap out of muslim countries.

Forwyn
Member
Tue Jun 11 02:42:41
Ask Bosnia.
Seb
Member
Tue Jun 11 05:03:31
Forwyn:

"Are you trying to make a point?"

Yes. You were arguing that it was wrong to pick North African as an indicator to terrorism over Muslim as an indicator to terrorism because not all North Africans are Muslim. But your entire argument that treating Muslims differently as it is an indicator for terrorist relies on such a small effect, many orders of magnitude smaller than North African is a reasonable indicator of Islam, as to render your argument utterly bizarre.

"whether the terror rate is inordinately high compared to other demographics."

Well here's my point: not only was the terror rate amongst the Irish much higher than Islamic terrorism; the rate of proactive collaboration by Western Muslim communities*against* terrorism is much higher than the Irish.

These things are clearly driven by wider societal context, not simply what faith people hold or where they are from.

A reductionist analysis based on dividing number of Muslims and number of terrorists is clearly so flawed add to be outright wrong.
Seb
Member
Tue Jun 11 05:18:54
Forwyn, I'm not sure if you are aware, but the Irish troubles ran from 1960s to 1990s. This is not before decent record keeping.

And we have detailed criminal records in most European countries going back at least to the early 1800s so again, in not sure where your rather odd cut off of the 1870s comes from.

"If Nigels committed 80,000 crimes in 2018, and Johns committed 45,000, Nigels OBJECTIVELY committed more crimes."

However, Nigels clearly fall into two separate groups. The choice of name is a subjective one as categories in a crime survey to produce statistics about is clearly batshit insanity.

My great worry with this thought experiment is that you wouldn't take it seriously, not that you would come away arguing that someone was intrinsically more likely to commit a crime because of their name.






Seb
Member
Tue Jun 11 05:24:23
"then we must question why sons from Islamic families are more likely to drive a truck into a crowd of people than their classmates"

Indeed, and I already discussed that to done length. Turns out it has very little to do with their religion. They have the same risk factors as most other minorities sharing their socio economic group for joining violent gangs. The difference is that Islamic groups don't create materials designed to cultivate white people.

And the biggest on-ramp to this? A sense that they're are not accepted as part of society. Hence they end up identifying more with Jihadi John than they do with their neighbours. And this is precisely what you contribute to when you start off down a line of thinking that equates Muslims with terrorism (whether you differentiate faith and other ethnic characteristics or not). Systemically, you are contributing to the problem.

Seb
Member
Tue Jun 11 05:29:13
"poor Orthodox Serbs are not driving trucks into crowds."

Poor Orthodox Serbs were massacring Muslims and various other ethnic groups only a few decades ago.

Anyway, as we have now seen, you've started from a theory (Islam as a faith is intrinsically more prone to being used to fuel hostility) then mashed numbers together to support it.

Christianity was long used to justify European imperialism and slavery. Was it the faith that caused that? Or was it window dressing?
jergul
large member
Tue Jun 11 08:47:20
Forwyn
I should ask Bosnia if muslims there are upset because you bombed the crap out of Serbia?

My choice of "Irish" is incidentally not coincidental.

Do you, or do you not think that we might see an uptick of UK+NI dommestic terrorism in the event of a hard Brexit?

Why would that be if it simply is a case of some religious groups being more prone to terrorism than others?
Sam Adams
Member
Tue Jun 11 18:21:46
Oh look i found seb

http://plu...L0HNIogB56r8I8-OCQQz0bDw7A8Cfw
Seb
Member
Wed Jun 12 05:34:33
Off topic. Start another thread.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share