Austin terrorist was part of Christian survivalist group

Ana the Ist said:

Maybe I just don't understand the left's thinking on this then...I thought the whole reason we don't hear them say "But remember that not every young white conservative is a terrorist, Nazi, mass shooter, etc" is because it's contextually inappropriate.

You think it's because of some other reason?

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think it's because there isn't a danger in this country of young white men being marginalized and ostracized from society on the basis of the actions of a handful of the members of that group. The same is not true of Muslims.

Lol perhaps if you're cherry picking or engaging in some funny math. Every article I've ever read making that claim is basically under the asterisk "if we exclude 9/11 and all Americans killed at U.S. embassies or otherwise abroad".

Click to expand...

I don't know why attacks on embassies would count towards what American citizens should fear at home, but either way, 9/11 skews the numbers because it was incredibly efficient. 19 attackers averaged over 150 kills a piece. The Las Vegas shooter barely managed 1/3 of that and he had a pile of quasi-machine guns, an elevated position, and a pool of targets the size of a football field. Otherwise, true "terrorist" attacks tend to be no more deadly (or frequent IIRC) than your typical attack perpetrated by a white guy.

Landon Caeli said:

No, no, this thread is solely about RIOT. We have to stick to the topic here, guys... We have to.

I hear their science experiments were super scary, making bombs out of water and rubber balloons.

Click to expand...

I once made a rocket out of a bottle and pressurized water. That should put me on a watch list somewhere.

Aldebaran said:

Hardly. I've seen plenty of cases when Obama was president where he would say, "We should not jump to conclusions" when someone with clear Islamic ties committed a terroristic act.

Click to expand...

Fort Hood "workplace violence."

SummerMadness said:

You're not wrong, people do not start physically attacking white Christians or murdering white people in general because of a perceived threat of their religion. You don't hear a story about some European Jews getting killed at a bar because someone thought they were white Christian terrorists. You don't have a rash of crimes directed at white Christians after an abortion clinic attack or the armed takeover of a federal building. However, the same cannot be said of attacks directed at Muslims. The notion of broad brushing an entire religion or culture is considered absurd when the perpetrator is white, but people seem to have no problem talking about the "Other's" culture being dangerous and uncivilized. So it makes sense they need to remind the public, "Hey, you know how you don't curse and beat every white guy because the white man next door beat his wife? Well, don't do that because you read a news story about a Muslim person committing a crime, it's the same thing." For some reason they don't see it's the same thing, but those are just their blinders going up to their bias.

Click to expand...

This would be a good point...but iluvatar already established that he thinks we shouldn't wait for an incident to happen before we try to stop any negative perceptions about the race or beliefs of the perpetrator.

It's like taking a person with a $1 million salary and a person with a $50,000 salary and saying the average salary is $525,000; yes, that's true, but it does not give a sense of the salary that people have. Events like terrorism tend to follow a power law distribution anyway, so using averages would not be helpful because rare events occur, but they do not define the actual experience of terrorism (that's also why you would not include domestic properties on foreign soil). It's more than just skewing, it's a poor understanding of how to explain the actual risk the average citizen experiences. If you work in an US embassy, looking at attacks that occur on US soil is not very helpful, it will make things look safer than they truly are.

Click to expand...

Again, this would be a good point except that we aren't trying to figure out average incomes. We aren't even trying to figure out the average number of victims per terrorist attack. What we're trying to figure out is if Muslim terrorists...or white terrorists...kill more people.

So what we're looking at is a total body count for each group. It makes zero sense to eliminate an attack simply because it was unusually effective. The only reason to remove 9-11 from the stats is to make Muslim terrorists appear to be less of a threat.

Ana the Ist said:

This would be a good point...but iluvatar already established that he thinks we shouldn't wait for an incident to happen before we try to stop any negative perceptions about the race or beliefs of the perpetrator.

Click to expand...

huh? I did?

Again, this would be a good point except that we aren't trying to figure out average incomes. We aren't even trying to figure out the average number of victims per terrorist attack. What we're trying to figure out is if Muslim terrorists...or white terrorists...kill more people.

So what we're looking at is a total body count for each group. It makes zero sense to eliminate an attack simply because it was unusually effective. The only reason to remove 9-11 from the stats is to make Muslim terrorists appear to be less of a threat.

Click to expand...

No, the reason to remove 9/11 from the stats is to give a more realistic picture of the average attacker.

Or, if you want to leave in 9/11, how about we use the median number of people killed per attack instead of the mean?

iluvatar5150 said:

huh? I did?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I said there's a time and place for everything in regards to waiting for such an incident to occur, and then addressing it....instead of addressing it right after a terror attack. You said...

"Sure, but I don't think they have to be separate times."

No, the reason to remove 9/11 from the stats is to give a more realistic picture of the average attacker.

Or, if you want to leave in 9/11, how about we use the median number of people killed per attack instead of the mean?

Click to expand...

Are we looking for a "realistic picture of the average attacker"?

Or are we looking at which group is more justifiable to be afraid of?

If you want to change it now, just say so...but this was the post I originally replied to...

"But if you're just a rando trying not to get shot/blown up, then yeah, maybe you should fear the rednecks as much as the mooslims."

If we're looking at who the average rando should be afraid of...then we're looking at body count and not much else.

Ana the Ist said:

Yeah, I said there's a time and place for everything in regards to waiting for such an incident to occur, and then addressing it....instead of addressing it right after a terror attack. You said...

"Sure, but I don't think they have to be separate times."

Click to expand...

As far as I understood things, you were arguing that the "time and place" was some time after an attack. I was arguing that the "time and place" can include immediately after. Your new comment seems to suggest that I advocate pre-emptively trying to stave off anti-Muslim fear.

I guess I don't necessarily have a problem with doing it pre-emptively, but that wasn't what I intended to convey.

Are we looking for a "realistic picture of the average attacker"?

Or are we looking at which group is more justifiable to be afraid of?

Click to expand...

I don't see those as different questions.

If we're looking at who the average rando should be afraid of...then we're looking at body count and not much else.

Click to expand...

By that logic, we should probably all fear doomsday-level asteroid impacts way more than we fear radical mooslims in the US. Rough wikipedia numbers suggest a mean annual body count of something like 1,000/yr.

iluvatar5150 said:

As far as I understood things, you were arguing that the "time and place" was some time after an attack. I was arguing that the "time and place" can include immediately after. Your new comment seems to suggest that I advocate pre-emptively trying to stave off anti-Muslim fear.

I guess I don't necessarily have a problem with doing it pre-emptively, but that wasn't what I intended to convey.

Click to expand...

I think you're confusing your earlier statement...but just in case I'm wrong, what exactly did you intend to convey?

I don't see those as different questions.

Click to expand...

Really? I'd normally call cow pies on this...but I don't recall anytime you were dishonest just so you wouldn't have to admit you're wrong. So maybe you can explain why the "picture of the average attacker" is in any way important to a discussion on what kind of terrorist is worth being justifiably afraid of?

In my understanding, the terrorist one can be justifiably afraid of is the most dangerous one. The only other option would be the kind that does the most attacks....but since that would include attempted or planned attacks that were stopped by authorities, it's a more difficult number to come by.

By that logic, we should probably all fear doomsday-level asteroid impacts way more than we fear radical mooslims in the US. Rough wikipedia numbers suggest a mean annual body count of something like 1,000/yr.

Click to expand...

Well it's a discussion of which terrorist is more dangerous...and therefore justifiably feared.

Suppose over a 10 year period, we had 100 white neo Nazis commit an attack every year that killed 10 people each time. Over the same ten years...one Muslim terrorist organization managed to get a nuclear weapon and one guy brought it into Chicago where he detonated it....killing a million people.

When we look back at terrorism over that ten years...we could say that the neo Nazis committed more attacks. We could even say that they were more active. When it comes to who is more dangerous though...the Muslim terrorists are, and we'd save more lives by focusing on them.

Me said:

Ana the Ist said:

We're talking about situations where people died or an attempt to kill people was made. It seems more appropriate to be more concerned in that moment about future attacks...regardless of who commits them.

When a politician voices their concerns about bigotry against Muslims instead...it looks like they're more concerned about that then they are concerned about the people who just died.

Obviously, hate crimes are awful...but there's a time and place to address everything.

Click to expand...

Sure, but I don't think they have to be separate times.

Click to expand...

My understanding of your point was that you think that while hate crimes are bad and worthy of addressing, you think that there's a better time to address them than in the immediate aftermath of an attack by radical Islamists.

My point (whether or not I articulated it well) was that while I understand your point and can sympathize with it, I don't necessarily agree with it. I think the proper time and place to try to stave off hate crimes (or other, less-severe actions against Muslims) can be in the immediate aftermath of such an attack, precisely because of the high risk of retaliatory actions and general bigotry. If that risk were low, then I'd probably be in your camp.

Really? I'd normally call cow pies on this...but I don't recall anytime you were dishonest just so you wouldn't have to admit you're wrong. So maybe you can explain why the "picture of the average attacker" is in any way important to a discussion on what kind of terrorist is worth being justifiably afraid of?

In my understanding, the terrorist one can be justifiably afraid of is the most dangerous one.

Click to expand...

IMO, the one most worth being afraid of is the one you're most likely to run into.

Well it's a discussion of which terrorist is more dangerous...and therefore justifiably feared.

Suppose over a 10 year period, we had 100 white neo Nazis commit an attack every year that killed 10 people each time. Over the same ten years...one Muslim terrorist organization managed to get a nuclear weapon and one guy brought it into Chicago where he detonated it....killing a million people.

When we look back at terrorism over that ten years...we could say that the neo Nazis committed more attacks. We could even say that they were more active. When it comes to who is more dangerous though...the Muslim terrorists are, and we'd save more lives by focusing on them.

Click to expand...

Are we talking about using resources efficiently or are we talking about who to be afraid of? Because those are two different questions. Yes, if you want to maximize lives saved per dollar spent, then you should probably focus on the high-kill-count outliers. But if you're wanting to develop a healthy basis of fear/wariness on which to guide your daily life, idk that that's the best way to do it.

jovanovic said:

gonnie, that article is strange.

christianity is the only religion which is social accepted to bash. left-wingers and liberals all over the world calls christianity a violent religion and that christians are bad people, the left and liberals do not call out other religions for being violent.

Click to expand...

Not true, I think most religions have a violent past. And try to use their religion, to force their belief on everyone.

iluvatar5150 said:

My understanding of your point was that you think that while hate crimes are bad and worthy of addressing, you think that there's a better time to address them than in the immediate aftermath of an attack by radical Islamists.

My point (whether or not I articulated it well) was that while I understand your point and can sympathize with it, I don't necessarily agree with it. I think the proper time and place to try to stave off hate crimes (or other, less-severe actions against Muslims) can be in the immediate aftermath of such an attack, precisely because of the high risk of retaliatory actions and general bigotry. If that risk were low, then I'd probably be in your camp.

Click to expand...

Well...that's basically what I thought you were saying. In other words, it doesn't need to necessarily be an issue at the time a public figure makes a statement about it...because it's better to address it before it becomes a problem.

So why don't you think they ever make such statements about whenever a white male is involved in some horrible incident (terrorism or otherwise)?

I know you said that you think such attacks are rare, and that's debatable (especially in regards to attacks on Trump supporters near the election and since)....but since you think it's better to address these things before they happen, there doesn't seem to be a valid reason not to address them after an incident like this.

IMO, the one most worth being afraid of is the one you're most likely to run into.

Click to expand...

So we should try to count even attempted or planned attacks that are stopped before they happen or even those which failed (like the guy who set his pants on fire with an underwear bomb on an airplane)....

No offense, but that seems like a pretty poor metric to use. In theory, there could be a group which has made many attempts but the majority weren't successful...or we're outright stopped...but they would appear to be "worse" than a group that has made fewer attacks but has killed far more people.

Are we talking about using resources efficiently or are we talking about who to be afraid of? Because those are two different questions.

Click to expand...

Lol I know...and I'm talking about who we should be afraid of....and it has nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with body count.

If 100 white neo Nazis killed 1000 people over a 10 year period....and 20 Muslims killed 750 people over the same 10 years, I'd still say the neo Nazis are the more justifiably scary even though they're clearly less efficient. They've killed more people...so they're obviously a bigger threat to the lives of Americans.

Similarly, if another group....say Mexican narco-terrorists...had committed 200 attacks over the same 10 years, but had only killed 300 people...they would be at the bottom of the list even though I've got the highest chances of running into one of them.

Body count is really the only metric to go by. Whatever group has killed the most is clearly the most dangerous....and obviously the biggest threat to American lives.

Ana the Ist said:

Well...that's basically what I thought you were saying. In other words, it doesn't need to necessarily be an issue at the time a public figure makes a statement about it...because it's better to address it before it becomes a problem.

So why don't you think they ever make such statements about whenever a white male is involved in some horrible incident (terrorism or otherwise)?

Click to expand...

They never make statements along the lines of #notallwhitemen because white men in this country aren't in danger of being stereotyped as terrorists and ostracized for it. Muslims are.

iluvatar5150 said:

They never make statements along the lines of #notallwhitemen because white men in this country aren't in danger of being stereotyped as terrorists and ostracized for it. Muslims are.

Click to expand...

You think those statements are about stereotyping Muslims as terrorists and not just bigotry in general?