Shooting at University of Washington (UPDATE: far-leftist shot)

[agent00f]

Maybe child-care credits that result in tax breaks? Sex-independent, but would obviously be cashed in far more often for females, that would result in similar net-takehome pay. Currently your childcare expenses are tax-deductible, but not your childcare opportunity costs. Maybe Ivanka's plan could be changed to include this.

Literally every other first world country has better maternity benefits for exactly these reasons. But then again literally every other first world country also has better cost control for healthcare, higher ed, and the list goes on for improved quality of life and its self-effects that a wealthy nation can certainly afford. No mystery here which part of this country prevents all that from ever happening.

 

[realibrad]

That 6% or whatever is only from a smaller subset of women who don't have kids or similar obligations. Such pops tend to be self-selective, like arguments that minorities get equal pay by only looking at immigrants, ie. have attributes not under study or otherwise measured.

This post isn't to meant to imply that you have miraculously learned to grasp the simplest of arguments, but rather meant for others who want to understand the study better.

What is your point? She looked at a group that was in higher income jobs because there she found a larger gap. Self selection does not look to be an issue here, unless you are calling her ability to do her job into question. Either way, not 20% like the previous dummy argued.

“It specifically says that I’m only looking at…individuals with incomes greater than $60,000 a year,” she told me. Part of this is because she has found that “the gender gap is larger in high-income jobs,”

https://newrepublic.com/article/117550/gender-pay-gap-and-77-cents-claudia-goldin-says-its-real

The 6% turns out to be from a group that had a larger difference. When you look at the overall picture, its actually less than 6%.

What economists do is they use data to figure out whether the individuals are the same; they try to make them comparable as possible; they squeeze out these differences and productive attributes; they look for individuals who have the same education, the same labor-force participation rates over their life cycle, etc. And they squeeze those out and we still get a number that’s less than one. So, does that mean that women are receiving lower pay for equal work? That is possibly the case in certain places, but by and large, it’s not that. It’s something else.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the...der-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

So, when adjusted for reasonable things, the 20% gap turns out to be due to things other than sexism like not working as many hours, or having the same experience.

 

[realibrad]

Maybe child-care credits that result in tax breaks? Sex-independent, but would obviously be cashed in far more often for females, that would result in similar net-takehome pay. Currently your childcare expenses are tax-deductible, but not your childcare opportunity costs. Maybe Ivanka's plan could be changed to include this.

That would probably work better. The devil is going to be in trying to quantify the credit size. Do you want to incentivize a person to have a child that has gone through college, or should everyone get the same amount?

The reason I ask is because educated parents are likely going to raise kids that will be more productive. Their opportunity costs are going to be greater than someone who is not as educated.

The problem with that is you then create a society where poor people that are less able to spend the time getting an education are not getting as much of a benefit.

Then there is the problem of people at the lower income range that do not pay federal taxes. If a father and mother are both below the poverty line, then what?

Lots more questions, but I do think its worth our society to talk about.

 

[agent00f]

What is your point? She looked at a group that was in higher income jobs because there she found a larger gap. Self selection does not look to be an issue here, unless you are calling her ability to do her job into question. Either way, not 20% like the previous dummy argued.

The 6% turns out to be from a group that had a larger difference. When you look at the overall picture, its actually less than 6%.

So, when adjusted for reasonable things, the 20% gap turns out to be due to things other than sexism like not working as many hours, or having the same experience.

All such studies have these issues, and necessarily so due to the limitations of sampling, which you might be informed about if you could ever read them or know anything about the fields. It just so happens that the limitation here looks significant given the nature of pop selection, ie they have the pop/data they do with only select women without such burdens and must make of it what they can. There are some cutting edge sophisticated math techniques that are presumed/theorized to reduce this, but I'd surprised if they're used on something like this given the way it's present.

I'm sure though that brain cell will come up with some dumbshit belief that it was somehow right all along despite lack of any discernible knowledge/experience/insight on these matters.

 

[realibrad]

All such studies have these issues, and necessarily so due to the limitations of sampling, which you might be informed about if you could ever read them or know anything about the fields. It just so happens that the limitation here looks significant given the nature of pop selection, ie they have the pop/data they do with only select women without such burdens and must make of it what they can. There are some cutting edge sophisticated math techniques that are presumed/theorized to reduce this, but I'd surprised if they're used on something like this given the way it's present.

I'm sure though that brain cell will come up with some dumbshit belief that it was somehow right all along despite lack of any discernible knowledge/experience/insight on these matters.

What are you talking about? They did not have a limitation of women that did not have "such burdens", they factored them out to compare apples to apples. Ill let her explain.

So, is this for equal work? Is it equal individuals? What economists do is they use data to figure out whether the individuals are the same; they try to make them comparable as possible; they squeeze out these differences and productive attributes; they look for individuals who have the same education, the same labor-force participation rates over their life cycle, etc. And they squeeze those out and we still get a number that’s less than one. So, does that mean that women are receiving lower pay for equal work? That is possibly the case in certain places, but by and large, it’s not that. It’s something else.

And here you can see where women with "such burdens" were looked at to compare.

Some of the best studies that we have of the gender pay gap, following individuals longitudinally, show that when they show up right out of college, or out of law school, or after they get their M.B.A. — all the studies that we have indicate that wages are pretty similar then. So if men were better bargainers, they would have been better right then. And it doesn’t look as if they’re better bargainers to a degree that shows up as a very large number. But further down the pike in their lives, by 10-15 years out, we see very large differences in their pay. But we also see large differences in where they are, in their job titles, and a lot of that occurs a year or two after a kid is born, and it occurs for women and not for men.

So, what I did was I took all of the occupations in the Census and then I looked at the top paying 105 occupations. So, the point that I’m drawing is about $60,000 a year. So, the occupations then divide into those in the corporate and finance sector, those in health, those in science and technology, which I can group together. And then there is this other group that’s just very hard to put in one or the other — lawyers, for example, would be in that one. And what I find — it’s very clear — is that the gender wage gaps, when you correct for the stuff you can correct for in the Census, you find that the biggest wage gaps are in the corporate, the financial sectors, also law, and the health occupations in which there is a high fraction of ownership, of self-employment — so the podiatrists, for example, the chiropractors. So, the ones that have the smallest difference between male and female earnings with these corrections are the technology occupations and the science occupations and the health occupations where there is a small degree of self-employment — as is true today for, for example, pharmacists.

The "burdens" were in the data, but they were corrected for as you do when you are doing this type of work dummy. Please try and keep up before flinging shit around.

 

[momeNt]

Literally every other first world country has better maternity benefits for exactly these reasons. But then again literally every other first world country also has better cost control for healthcare, higher ed, and the list goes on for improved quality of life and its self-effects that a wealthy nation can certainly afford. No mystery here which part of this country prevents all that from ever happening.

Do maternity benefits carry on for missing work for PTA conferences for when the child is 15 in other countries? The answer is no, they pretty much end once the child is off the tit. As I said, child care credits probably would need to extend to once the child is no longer a minor. Something no state does.

As to the bold, no reason to make this about every issue. It makes people lose focus. This is actually why we are talking about this in a Milo discussion thread. Nobody can keep their focus.

 

[agent00f]

What are you talking about? They did not have a limitation of women that did not have "such burdens", they factored them out to compare apples to apples. Ill let her explain.

And here you can see where women with "such burdens" were looked at to compare.

The "burdens" were in the data, but they were corrected for as you do when you are doing this type of work dummy. Please try and keep up before flinging shit around.

Hopeless dumbshittery right on cue. What she's talking about is regression on reasonably continuous variables, which can be done for hours, but not from "with kids" to "no kids", which is why they need to extrapolate from the subset as mentioned. This is absolutely trivial knowledge of how data or measuring or math or studies work, none of which you can ever be mistaken for understanding at any level.

This case is literally every interaction I've ever had with you in a nutshell, and I imagine this isn't the only place or time where this self-belief about things you have zero clue about manifests itself, the spiral of which rather perfectly explains these dunning kruger posterkids.

Do maternity benefits carry on for missing work for PTA conferences for when the child is 15 in other countries? The answer is no, they pretty much end once the child is off the tit. As I said, child care credits probably would need to extend to once the child is no longer a minor. Something no state does.

As to the bold, no reason to make this about every issue. It makes people lose focus. This is actually why we are talking about this in a Milo discussion thread. Nobody can keep their focus.

The underlying reason for the failures of any such initiates are the same, so it only makes sense to generalize just how pointless any specific strand of wishful thinking is.

 

[realibrad]

Hopeless dumbshittery right on cue. What she's talking about is regression on reasonably continuous variables, which can be done for hours, but not from "with kids" to "no kids", which is why they need to extrapolate from the subset as mentioned. This is absolutely trivial knowledge of how data or measuring or math or studies work, none of which you can ever be mistaken for understanding at any level.

You are throwing around shit hoping something sticks.

Regression work was done, but that has nothing to do with your claim that they were limited by data. They had census data and used that to control for relevant factors as explained by her.

Also, having kids is not a continuous variable as there are not an infinite number of possibilities of with kids or no kids dummy.

So now you should agree that they had robust data and we're not constrained by data missing anything.

Keep on shittin on.

 

[agent00f]

You are throwing around shit hoping something sticks.

Regression work was done, but that has nothing to do with your claim that they were limited by data. They had census data and used that to control for relevant factors as explained by her.

Also, having kids is not a continuous variable as there are not an infinite number of possibilities of with kids or no kids dummy.

So now you should agree that they had robust data and we're not constrained by data missing anything.

Keep on shittin on.

Just look at how hopelessly dumb you are:

Hopeless dumbshittery right on cue. What she's talking about is regression on reasonably continuous variables, which can be done for hours, but not from "with kids" to "no kids", which is why they need to extrapolate from the subset as mentioned.

You literally had zero clue what was said but feel compelled to mouth off anyway, and as history would prove it will remain that way.

Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever.

 

[realibrad]

Just look at how hopelessly dumb you are:



You literally had zero clue what was said but feel compelled to mouth off anyway, and as history would prove it will remain that way.

Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever.

Dummy, that is in the census data. The study was valid. You can try and shit on her work but it's still valid. Saying she had limited data is a ploy to cast doubt. I'm sure you will say her explicit conclusions are actually different from what I can understand. So when she says it's not sexism she means it is but I'm just too dumb.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What a funny turn......LMAO!!!!

 

[werepossum]

You still dont get it do you? The threat of extreme political from the right is larger, but that is due to comparative size. Linking to the article is misleading because he looked at things like total deaths attributed. As you correctly pointed out, looking at a single metric, in your example lynchings, a group can look better than what they actually are. So, saying that Islamic terrorism has killed an equal amount of people when compared to extreme right groups is misleading, because one group is 10x larger. That would mean that the actions by total members is far lower in the far right group. That would then mean that your chances of something happening per individual encounter is far lower when compared to Islamic terrorism. The basis of your argument is in agreement with mine, but you cant pull your head out of your ass to see it.

Judging the KKK by a single metric is just as misguided as judging Islamic terrorism and far right extremists by a single and or a few metrics. Neither is going to capture a reasonable picture.

He doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it. He has his answer - white racism - and it both explains every situation and justifies every behavior against white people.

He's a hateful man who deserves to be drowned out by saner voices.

lol Saner voices not found, just a bunch of destructive, insane special snowflake protesters railing against reality by attacking those not marching in lockstep.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Rush Limbaugh has been shitting into the guys skull for decades, so the leftists he imagines silencing everyone are everywhere...and nowhere...at the same time. And the evidence of it is that the word leftists is a word. It's just that simple.

and i'm sure if Rush Limbaugh went on the speaking circuit that violent authoritarian thugs like yourself would try to shut him up and try to stop people from attending his events with violence and intimidation. It's who you are and how much you hate free political speech.

 

[agent00f]

Dummy, that is in the census data. The study was valid. You can try and shit on her work but it's still valid. Saying she had limited data is a ploy to cast doubt. I'm sure you will say her explicit conclusions are actually different from what I can understand. So when she says it's not sexism she means it is but I'm just too dumb.

It's not my fault you'll never understand what's being said here, same as with everything else far as anyone can tell. Don't worry though, werepossum will still think you're really smart.

 

[woolfe9998]

You still dont get it do you? The threat of extreme political from the right is larger, but that is due to comparative size. Linking to the article is misleading because he looked at things like total deaths attributed. As you correctly pointed out, looking at a single metric, in your example lynchings, a group can look better than what they actually are. So, saying that Islamic terrorism has killed an equal amount of people when compared to extreme right groups is misleading, because one group is 10x larger. That would mean that the actions by total members is far lower in the far right group. That would then mean that your chances of something happening per individual encounter is far lower when compared to Islamic terrorism. The basis of your argument is in agreement with mine, but you cant pull your head out of your ass to see it.

Judging the KKK by a single metric is just as misguided as judging Islamic terrorism and far right extremists by a single and or a few metrics. Neither is going to capture a reasonable picture.

You want to explain why per capita threat, which is your preferred measure, is at all relevant to law enforcement and political priorities, which is really what the article is about? Politically, we hear lots of rhetoric from people like Trump about the danger of Islamic terrorism when the fact is we have more murders here in 3 days due to common crime than we have had due to Islamic terrorism in the 15 years since 9/11. Trump speaks of banning Muslims, temporarily or permanently, or from selected Muslim countries (the story changes almost daily) to address a threat which is minuscule in relative terms. And even if we're just speaking of terrorism, we have a domestic threat which law enforcement deems to be more serious. That assessment isn't based on what percentage of people in each group are violent or potentially violent. It's based on total threat. And it isn't based solely on the numbers killed either. As the article makes clear, it has to do with foiled attempts, and violent rhetoric/planning which are being monitored by law enforcement. It's an assessment of future threat. And that assessment of total future threat matters when we're discussing national policy in relation to issues like immigration, and how we prioritize law enforcement resources.

You seem to think the issue is about finger pointing over which group is worse than the other. As if it's just a pure value judgment and nothing else. But it's not. It's about understanding where the largest threats are coming from, and formulating real world policies to address the threats based on that assessment.

And it also raises the following political question: why does Trump constantly rail about such a tiny overall threat from Muslims and never make mention of the terrorist threat from the right? Whatever your opinion about per capita threat, law enforcement considers it a serious issue but Trump is only interested in terrorism from Muslims? I think we all know the answer to that question.

 

[realibrad]

You want to explain why per capita threat, which is your preferred measure, is at all relevant to law enforcement and political priorities, which is really what the article is about?

Dummy, its not my preferred measure. The article was trying to compare Right-wing extremist death counts with Islamic extremist death counts. I explained why that would be flawed, because one group is vastly smaller. By looking at a single metric such as death counts and then comparing that count to the number of people in the group, it would make the larger more dangerous group less of a threat per capita. You can see me explain this here.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...far-leftist-shot.2497550/page-7#post-38700816

Politically, we hear lots of rhetoric from people like Trump about the danger of Islamic terrorism when the fact is we have more murders here in 3 days due to common crime than we have had due to Islamic terrorism in the 15 years since 9/11.

Trump is an idiot so ill get that out of the way. That said, by that metric, poor people need to be seen as the danger they are, as of those criminals they are mainly poor. Poor people are a far bigger danger to society than the group of Right-wing extremists. Except, neither of us believe that because again, looking at body counts does not tell the full story, which has been my whole point.

Trump speaks of banning Muslims, temporarily or permanently, or from selected Muslim countries (the story changes almost daily) to address a threat which is minuscule in relative terms.

Trump banning Muslims would be about as un-American as you could get. It would be against everything I personally believe in, which is that you can ban an entire group of people based on religion.

And even if we're just speaking of terrorism, we have a domestic threat which law enforcement deems to be more serious. That assessment isn't based on what percentage of people in each group are violent or potentially violent. It's based on total threat. And it isn't based solely on the numbers killed either. As the article makes clear, it has to do with foiled attempts, and violent rhetoric/planning which are being monitored by law enforcement. It's an assessment of future threat. And that assessment of total future threat matters when we're discussing national policy in relation to issues like immigration, and how we prioritize law enforcement resources.

It would be very stupid to think that we should focus on Islamic terrorism in equal amounts to something like Right-wing extremists. Law enforcement is correct that one group represents a far greater threat. Islamic extremists are usually looking for body counts, while the other group does far more than murder. The net effect is highly likely to be grater for the Right-wing group. My point was that comparing Right-wing extremists to Islamic extremists is not apples to apples. You are talking about a few dozen Islamists vs thousands of Right-wing people.

You seem to think the issue is about finger pointing over which group is worse than the other. As if it's just a pure value judgment and nothing else. But it's not. It's about understanding where the largest threats are coming from, and formulating real world policies to address the threats based on that assessment.

No I don't, and you are an idiot if you think that.

And it also raises the following political question: why does Trump constantly rail about such a tiny overall threat from Muslims and never make mention of the terrorist threat from the right? Whatever your opinion about per capita threat, law enforcement considers it a serious issue but Trump is only interested in terrorism from Muslims? I think we all know the answer to that question.

As already mentioned, Trump is an idiot. That said, Islamic terrorism is not a tiny threat. While Islamic terrorism may not reach into as many areas as other groups, their body count is growing and not keeping an eye on that would be dumb. I do not think we should be devoting resources anywhere close to equal, but I don't think it should be zero either. Trump wants to pander to his base which is super worried about Muslims, so Trump is gonna Trump.

 

[woolfe9998]

Dummy, its not my preferred measure. The article was trying to compare Right-wing extremist death counts with Islamic extremist death counts. I explained why that would be flawed, because one group is vastly smaller. By looking at a single metric such as death counts and then comparing that count to the number of people in the group, it would make the larger more dangerous group less of a threat per capita. You can see me explain this here.

https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...far-leftist-shot.2497550/page-7#post-38700816

First of all, I have no idea why you started your post with name calling. I don't think anything in what I wrote warrants it.

The article isn't merely comparing death counts. If that was all it was doing, it would have been a much shorter article. What I am saying is that I think you missed what really matters about the article, which is that we hear loads of political rhetoric about Islamic terrorism and virtually nil about other forms of terrorism, including a domestic threat which law enforcement says, for a variety of reasons (not just past death count) is more serious. If we weren't paying such out-sized attention to Islamic terrorism while ignoring or downplaying other threats there would be no reason for this type of article.

Trump is an idiot so ill get that out of the way. That said, by that metric, poor people need to be seen as the danger they are, as of those criminals they are mainly poor. Poor people are a far bigger danger to society than the group of Right-wing extremists. Except, neither of us believe that because again, looking at body counts does not tell the full story, which has been my whole point.

We seem to agree that common crime is a more serious threat to American lives than terrorism in that one is about 1000x more likely to be killed by a common criminal than by a terrorist. I find it amusing, however, that you apply the "death toll" logic - reductio ad absurdum - to show that it leads to the conclusion that we should fear poor people, because it actually does lead to a related but slightly different conclusion, which is that we should be concerned about poverty. Poverty, in turn, is something which can be addressed through public policy. For example, strengthening education. Something we might address instead of fear mongering over terrorists and illegal immigrants. Again, it's about priorities and how ours are totally moronic.

Trump banning Muslims would be about as un-American as you could get. It would be against everything I personally believe in, which is that you can ban an entire group of people based on religion.

He's about to sign an executive order temporarily banning all immigration from seven specific Islamic countries and also temporarily banning all refugees. Refugees and others in need be damned. After all, Muslim terrorists, none of them immigrants AFAIK, have killed what, 100 Americans in 15 years? I'm pretty sure more Americans have died from tripping and falling in their bath tubs. Yet this is a priority item for the first week of his presidency.

It would be very stupid to think that we should focus on Islamic terrorism in equal amounts to something like Right-wing extremists. Law enforcement is correct that one group represents a far greater threat. Islamic extremists are usually looking for body counts, while the other group does far more than murder. The net effect is highly likely to be grater for the Right-wing group. My point was that comparing Right-wing extremists to Islamic extremists is not apples to apples. You are talking about a few dozen Islamists vs thousands of Right-wing people.

Yes, it isn't "apples to apples" and the two can't be compared solely on body counts. But that isn't really the point of the article. If this article has any raison d'etre, it is to address how screwy our national priorities are. And your point about per capita threat has no real bearing on that issue. If all the article was about was to simplistically compare body counts and declare one group "worse" than the other, then you'd be right. But that shallow, brainless argument isn't really what the article is saying. That is how you have chosen to simplify it to make it easy to refute, while ignoring the truly important implications of the article.

As already mentioned, Trump is an idiot. That said, Islamic terrorism is not a tiny threat. While Islamic terrorism may not reach into as many areas as other groups, their body count is growing and not keeping an eye on that would be dumb. I do not think we should be devoting resources anywhere close to equal, but I don't think it should be zero either. Trump wants to pander to his base which is super worried about Muslims, so Trump is gonna Trump.

I don't think anyone has argued that we shouldn't invest resources in preventing Islamic terrorism. The point of government, among other things, is to keep us safe from all threats.

Trump is doing more than pandering with rhetoric. He is already changing our immigration policies.

 

[agent00f]

You want to explain why per capita threat, which is your preferred measure, is at all relevant to law enforcement and political priorities, which is really what the article is about? Politically, we hear lots of rhetoric from people like Trump about the danger of Islamic terrorism when the fact is we have more murders here in 3 days due to common crime than we have had due to Islamic terrorism in the 15 years since 9/11. Trump speaks of banning Muslims, temporarily or permanently, or from selected Muslim countries (the story changes almost daily) to address a threat which is minuscule in relative terms. And even if we're just speaking of terrorism, we have a domestic threat which law enforcement deems to be more serious. That assessment isn't based on what percentage of people in each group are violent or potentially violent. It's based on total threat. And it isn't based solely on the numbers killed either. As the article makes clear, it has to do with foiled attempts, and violent rhetoric/planning which are being monitored by law enforcement. It's an assessment of future threat. And that assessment of total future threat matters when we're discussing national policy in relation to issues like immigration, and how we prioritize law enforcement resources.

You seem to think the issue is about finger pointing over which group is worse than the other. As if it's just a pure value judgment and nothing else. But it's not. It's about understanding where the largest threats are coming from, and formulating real world policies to address the threats based on that assessment.

And it also raises the following political question: why does Trump constantly rail about such a tiny overall threat from Muslims and never make mention of the terrorist threat from the right? Whatever your opinion about per capita threat, law enforcement considers it a serious issue but Trump is only interested in terrorism from Muslims? I think we all know the answer to that question.

If we're to have some legit conversation about per capita threat, be sure to count the foreign browns which are politically expendable for the sake of rural white welfare. Of course conservatives don't think of low status browns as real people, and to some degree understandably so if they're to live with their conscience (however diminished) of protecting their own.

 

[nickqt]

and i'm sure if Rush Limbaugh went on the speaking circuit that violent authoritarian thugs like yourself would try to shut him up and try to stop people from attending his events with violence and intimidation. It's who you are and how much you hate free political speech.

You're a fucking moron.

 

[agent00f]

Makes perfect sense why Rush Limbaugh fits into these people's notion of what higher ed is about. Sort of like how they think putting on glasses makes them smart.

 

[realibrad]

First of all, I have no idea why you started your post with name calling. I don't think anything in what I wrote warrants it.

Totally mischaracterizing my post. You could have read the next few post before responding, but you did not. You were lazy and misunderstood what was going on, which is dumb.

The article isn't merely comparing death counts. If that was all it was doing, it would have been a much shorter article. What I am saying is that I think you missed what really matters about the article, which is that we hear loads of political rhetoric about Islamic terrorism and virtually nil about other forms of terrorism, including a domestic threat which law enforcement says, for a variety of reasons (not just past death count) is more serious. If we weren't paying such out-sized attention to Islamic terrorism while ignoring or downplaying other threats there would be no reason for this type of article.

Okay, so the point out something that was compared between the two groups other than death counts. Read the article and show me where it was done.

We seem to agree that common crime is a more serious threat to American lives than terrorism in that one is about 1000x more likely to be killed by a common criminal than by a terrorist. I find it amusing, however, that you apply the "death toll" logic - reductio ad absurdum - to show that it leads to the conclusion that we should fear poor people, because it actually does lead to a related but slightly different conclusion, which is that we should be concerned about poverty. Poverty, in turn, is something which can be addressed through public policy. For example, strengthening education. Something we might address instead of fear mongering over terrorists and illegal immigrants. Again, it's about priorities and how ours are totally moronic.

I am saying that looking at it that way would be wrong to do and how it leads to flawed conclusions. "I" am not applying the logic because "I" thing its flawed to do so. I am showing how if its done, then it leads you to flawed conclusions. Also, education has been a problem long before terrorism. If you want to branch into that argument, don't. You literally have decades of schools failing before Islamic Terrorism even was a thought.

But, the point the article was making was not the common criminal was it? No, it was talking about Right-wing vs Islamic extremists. In that sense you are not 1000x more likely to be killed by a Right-wing extremist are you? Ill answer that for you, the answer is no. In that one regard you are actually more likely to die by an Islamic extremest given the same window of 2002 until today. Again, that would be the wrong way to look at it though, because while Islamic extremists have now killed more Americans, its a drop in the bucket right now.

He's about to sign an executive order temporarily banning all immigration from seven specific Islamic countries and also temporarily banning all refugees. Refugees and others in need be damned. After all, Muslim terrorists, none of them immigrants AFAIK, have killed what, 100 Americans in 15 years? I'm pretty sure more Americans have died from tripping and falling in their bath tubs. Yet this is a priority item for the first week of his presidency.

Same reason I see people that drink a diet coke while chain smoking. Fear of one thing is not as great as another even when people know the other is worse.

Yes, it isn't "apples to apples" and the two can't be compared solely on body counts. But that isn't really the point of the article. If this article has any raison d'etre, it is to address how screwy our national priorities are. And your point about per capita threat has no real bearing on that issue. If all the article was about was to simplistically compare body counts and declare one group "worse" than the other, then you'd be right. But that shallow, brainless argument isn't really what the article is saying. That is how you have chosen to simplify it to make it easy to refute, while ignoring the truly important implications of the article.

As said before, yes, there are far more dangerous things when compared to Islamic Terrorism. My one and only point about the article is that they only compare body counts, and if you read it, you should agree. I also know that the agencies referenced did not do that, and actually took far more into consideration, but that was not what the article went into. The only metric the article went into was body count.

I don't think anyone has argued that we shouldn't invest resources in preventing Islamic terrorism. The point of government, among other things, is to keep us safe from all threats.

I disagree there, but you may not have intended to be so absolute. I do think tacos can be a threat if you eat too many but I don't think the government needs to have policy on them.

Trump is doing more than pandering with rhetoric. He is already changing our immigration policies.

Like I said, Trump is gonna Trump. He got elected on rhetoric so why stop right?

 

[werepossum]

It's not my fault you'll never understand what's being said here, same as with everything else far as anyone can tell. Don't worry though, werepossum will still think you're really smart.

Yes, I will continue to think that.

You want to explain why per capita threat, which is your preferred measure, is at all relevant to law enforcement and political priorities, which is really what the article is about? Politically, we hear lots of rhetoric from people like Trump about the danger of Islamic terrorism when the fact is we have more murders here in 3 days due to common crime than we have had due to Islamic terrorism in the 15 years since 9/11. Trump speaks of banning Muslims, temporarily or permanently, or from selected Muslim countries (the story changes almost daily) to address a threat which is minuscule in relative terms. And even if we're just speaking of terrorism, we have a domestic threat which law enforcement deems to be more serious. That assessment isn't based on what percentage of people in each group are violent or potentially violent. It's based on total threat. And it isn't based solely on the numbers killed either. As the article makes clear, it has to do with foiled attempts, and violent rhetoric/planning which are being monitored by law enforcement. It's an assessment of future threat. And that assessment of total future threat matters when we're discussing national policy in relation to issues like immigration, and how we prioritize law enforcement resources.

You seem to think the issue is about finger pointing over which group is worse than the other. As if it's just a pure value judgment and nothing else. But it's not. It's about understanding where the largest threats are coming from, and formulating real world policies to address the threats based on that assessment.

And it also raises the following political question: why does Trump constantly rail about such a tiny overall threat from Muslims and never make mention of the terrorist threat from the right? Whatever your opinion about per capita threat, law enforcement considers it a serious issue but Trump is only interested in terrorism from Muslims? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Why on Earth would we continue to import people with a high incidence of terrorism simply because in terms of overall numbers, they are a small threat? That only makes sense if our intention is to increase their overall threat level. Trump's position is simple and common sense: Stop importing Muslims until we figure out how to correctly screen out the Islamic terrorists. Right now we cannot (or perhaps will not) do that even with Saudi Arabia, a nominal ally, and we're taking refugees from freakin' Syria where the government (A) has largely ceased to function and (B) hates us with good reason.

 

[agent00f]

Yes, I will continue to think that.

Guess you're never known for hitching your wagon to the right horse; chucky, brad, american conservatism, etc, a stable of real winners.

 

[Vic]

Bumping this thread as I didn't see this posted anywhere else. It appears that not only was the shooting not self-defense, but it was planned in advance.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...-melee-during-uw-speech-by-milo-yiannopoulos/

Couple charged with assault in shooting, melee during UW speech by Milo Yiannopoulos

Prosecutors allege the couple, Elizabeth Hokoana and Marc Hokoana, went to the Jan. 20 University of Washington demonstration “to provoke altercations with protesters.”

By

Mike Carter

and

Steve Miletich

Seattle Times staff reporters

Assault charges filed Monday against a Ravenna couple in connection with the shooting of a protester outside a speech by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos on Jan. 20 allege they went to the University of Washington campus that night looking for trouble.

Marc and Elizabeth Hokoana had armed themselves — him with pepper-spray and her with a Glock semi-automatic handgun in a holster under her coat — and went to the protest intending to goad demonstrators they knew would be there, King County prosecutors allege. Some witnesses said Marc Hokoana appeared to be intoxicated.

According to the charges, the day before Yiannopoulos was scheduled to talk at Kane Hall, Marc Hokoana had messaged a friend on Facebook, stating, “I can’t wait for tomorrow. I’m going to the milo event and if the snowflakes get out off hand I’m going to wade through their ranks and start cracking skulls.”

His friend asked him if he was “going to carry.”

Hokoana responded, “Nah, I’m going full melee,” but then wrote “Lily … is,” referring to his wife, Elizabeth.

The charges allege Elizabeth Hokoana fired a single round from the handgun into the stomach of 34-year-old Joshua Dukes, a member of the International Workers of the World (IWW), as Dukes confronted Marc Hokoana for using pepper spray in the crowd.

Dukes was critically wounded in the shooting.

Elizabeth Hokoana, 29, is charged with first-degree assault, with a firearm enhancement, and her husband, Marc, also 29, a one-time UW student, is charged with third-degree assault over his alleged use of pepper spray.

Prosecutors will seek bail for each of them at $50,000 when they are arraigned on May 8. The couple remain free.

If convicted as charged, Elizabeth Hokoana could face up to 10 years in prison. The standard sentencing range for third-degree assault is one to three months in jail, with no prior convictions, plus 12 months of community custody

“The degree of planning involved in this crime demonstrates the danger that these defendants present to the community,” wrote Senior Deputy Prosecutor Mary Barbosa, who has been reviewing the University of Washington police investigation into the shooting for nearly two weeks.

The shooting, Barbosa noted, “was not an impulsive act done in a moment of fear.”

Evidence in the charging papers “demonstrates that the defendants went to the event at the UW campus with the intent to provoke altercations with protesters who they knew would be at this controversial event,” Barbosa wrote.

“The defendants created a situation designed to allow Elizabeth Hokoana to shoot the victim in the middle of an extremely crowded event under the guise of defending her or her husband,” she added.

Steve Wells, the attorney for Elizabeth Hokoana, and Kim Gordon, Marc Hokoana’s attorney, issued a joint statement Monday vowing to fight the charges, reiterating earlier claims that the shooting was justified.

“We have provided the police and the prosecution evidence showing that our clients acted lawfully in defense of others,” the statement said. “The accuser, Joshua Dukes, has repeatedly stated that he does not want this to go through the criminal-justice system. We are disappointed that the prosecution has decided otherwise. We look forward to presenting our case to a jury and we anticipate an acquittal.”



Dukes’ attorney, Sarah Lippek, has said her client did not want criminal charges to be filed and had hoped to engage in “restorative justice” with the couple.

“Being shot was devastating for Mr. Dukes, his family, and his community. The Hokoanas harmed many people by their violent actions,” Lippek wrote.

Dukes hopes the couple will take accountability for their actions, Lippek wrote, as well as taking weapons into “already unstable circumstances” and escalating the violence.

She said restorative justice allows dialogue between those who have caused harm and their victims to identify how accountability can be reached.

“The process is not a substitute for accountability, but a tool to reach it,” Lippek wrote, saying a criminal prosecution doesn’t usually allow for such interaction.



A police statement of probable cause outlines an investigation that included talking to several witnesses as well as a detailed review and professional analysis of numerous cellphone videos of the protest and shooting. Some of the videos were later enhanced and reviewed by experts, according to the charges.

The Seattle Times obtained copies of the videos under a public-records request.

Several witnesses identified Marc Hokoana as an agitator who was goading the protesters, police wrote.

The shooting came after Marc Hokoana, in a Facebook message reviewed by The Seattle Times before it was taken down, messaged Yiannopoulos and said he had lost his “Make America Great Again” hat after being punched. He asked Yiannopoulos if he would autograph a new one, but Yiannopoulos never replied.

The charges identified a witness, “B.F.,” who saw and took still photographs of a scuffle involving an Asian man who “had a red Make America Great Again hat he lost in a fight” and who detectives identified through the photos as Marc Hokoana.

“B.F. stated that the individual kept going over to the group of protesters and agitating the group by calling them snowflakes, libtards and saying that (Trump) was their president,” according to the charges. “B.F. stated that the man seemed to be there only to provoke the crowd.”

The charges allege Marc Hokoana used a small tear-gas gun on members of the crowd. Dukes had apparently moved to break up a conflict between Hokoana and a group when he was shot.



The Hokoanas turned themselves in to UW police about two hours after the shooting and said they had been involved in a “self-defense” shooting.

However, the charging documents allege the Hokoanas went to the UW campus that night looking for a reason to use to use the weapons they were carrying.

One video clip reviewed by a detective “showed Elizabeth Hokoana with her right hand under her coat as her husband, Marc Hokoana, was directly in front of her in the video assisting a person as he confronted the protesters.”

The movement, the detective said, “was consistent with a person who was attempting to pull a concealed pistol from a holster.”

That video clip was taken a half-hour before the shooting, according to the charges.

A review of several videos of the actual shooting by Grant Fredericks of Forensic Video Solutions, an independent video expert, indicated that Mark Hokoana was facing away from Dukes at the time of the shooting while Elizabeth Hokoana was looking right at Dukes when the shot was fired, and then backed away from him.

David Hallimore, an audio specialist with Recorded Evidence Solutions, said he was able to extract some audio from the recording. He says Marc Hokoana can be heard telling Elizabeth to “calm down” and “Don’t shoot anyone.”

“Marc Hokoana can then be heard telling Elizabeth Hokoana that others in the crowd, ‘They have to start this. They have to start it.’ ”

 

[ch33zw1z]

MAGA, one way or another.