The Banality of Evil

[agent00f]

Lordy did that one hit me good. Couple days ago I had a woman go absolutely ballistic on me because she overheard a conversation I was having with someone else. I responded to a statement with, (paraphrasing here) 'Commanche used to go full ISIS on their neighbors. Ask any Apache or Texas Ranger, they'll tell ya.'

I agree with your last sentence too, with the qualifier of that area seems to have a lot of people who are particularly hostile to information that might cause a worldview re-evaluation.

The more positive modern view of natives is meant to counteract a long history of severe discrimination.

The "did you know blacks profited from the slave trade" people are hardly the historians among us.

 

[interchange]

Predictable fair and balanced BothSides tripe.

Fair and balanced? Do you wish judgment? I can render it.

And then perhaps we will be curious about what drove you to elicit this judgment from me -- what happened to you to make you feel so misunderstood such that your curiosity was mistaken for dangerousness and you were left with no power.

 

[agent00f]

Fair and balanced? Do you wish judgment? I can render it.

And then perhaps we will be curious about what drove you to elicit this judgment from me -- what happened to you to make you feel so misunderstood such that your curiosity was mistaken for dangerousness and you were left with no power.

I don't think you're too dumb to know what fair and balanced refers to.

 

[interchange]

I don't think you're too dumb to know what fair and balanced refers to.

You still think I need more hate for you in order to understand your world?

 

[woolfe9998]

One of his teachers has said that this guy had severe mental issues and was on anti-psychotic medication.

And another said he was infatuated with Nazis in high school. Wrote an adoring term paper about Nazi military power.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/james-fields-jr-infatuated-nazis-teacher-article-1.3408241

 

[woolfe9998]

I agree and I think this is an important insight. There are lots of people defending those statues, the confederacy, etc, not because they are racists but because there's a real sense of southern cultural identity and the confederacy was the one time the south almost made it on its own instead of always being in the north's shadow. In addition there's been a concerted campaign by unscrupulous individuals to whitewash the horrors of the confederacy.

So maybe some of these people are dupes and some of them even willing dupes, but it doesn't mean they are unreachable.

I can buy this to a point. However, I think the fact they could care less how it makes black people feel suggests that the bulk of them are racist to some extent or other. They may not all be full blown white supremacists. A handful may be free of racism. It's not like these people do not realize that they had slavery in the south long after it was abolished elsewhere in this country and the world at large. Even these so-called revisionists know that much.

 

[agent00f]

You still think I need more hate for you in order to understand your world?

"Fair and balanced" and BothSides were your guys' ideas.

 

[Atreus21]

2% vs 74%

yes, it is so clear that both problems are so equally weighted that we must drop everything and address both as if they are equally problematic. FFS, people. for a forum of smart techies, you all suckass when it comes to data.

Okay, then the dallas police shooting last year. Does that not count either?

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, then the dallas police shooting last year. Does that not count either?

Can you point us to literally any empirical evidence that shows left wing terrorism to be even remotely as prevalent as right wing terrorism? If you can't, isn't it time to stop pretending like this is somehow a problem that both sides have?

The problem is overwhelmingly with conservatives committing acts of terrorism. Conservatives have been radicalizing for decades now and these are some of the consequences. It's time to take ownership of them.

 

[realibrad]

Okay, then the dallas police shooting last year. Does that not count either?

There might be a growing base of people on the Left, but its still unequal in acts of terrorism.

The Left sure does riot more I suppose, but riots are not terrorism.

 

[NesuD]

I agree and I think this is an important insight. There are lots of people defending those statues, the confederacy, etc, not because they are racists but because there's a real sense of southern cultural identity and the confederacy was the one time the south almost made it on its own instead of always being in the north's shadow. In addition there's been a concerted campaign by unscrupulous individuals to whitewash the horrors of the confederacy.

So maybe some of these people are dupes and some of them even willing dupes, but it doesn't mean they are unreachable.

The white washing in reality happened almost a century and a half ago. This notion that southerners have of their history and their heroes are a false construct that was allowed by the north after the war to reunite the south with the north. It is far to complex to into here but there is a very good book written by David W. Blight called Race and Reunion that covers it better than anything I've read. Just as an aside he was actually my high school Civil War and Reconstruction teacher before he went back to school for his Phd. He is one of the smartest men I've ever met. Most of us have that one teacher who we remember for the rest of our lives and he is mine.

 

[Atreus21]

Can you point us to literally any empirical evidence that shows left wing terrorism to be even remotely as prevalent as right wing terrorism? If you can't, isn't it time to stop pretending like this is somehow a problem that both sides have?

The problem is overwhelmingly with conservatives committing acts of terrorism. Conservatives have been radicalizing for decades now and these are some of the consequences. It's time to take ownership of them.

https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly

His data sources are the Global Terrorism Database at the University of Maryland and the RAND Corporation.

He classifies membership in Left Wing or Right Wing as follows:

I grouped the ideology of the attackers into four broad groups: Islamists, Nationalists and Right Wingers, Left Wingers, and Unknown/Other. Global Terrorism Database descriptions of the attackers and news stories were my guide in organizing the groups by ideology. Islamists and unknown/other straightforward. Left Wing terrorists include Communists, Socialists, animal rights activists, anti-white racists, LGBT extremists, attackers inspired by Black Lives Matter, and ethnic or national separatists who also embrace Socialism. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists include white nationalists, Neo-Confederates, non-socialist secessionists, nationalists, anti-Communists, fascists, anti-Muslim attackers, anti-immigration extremists, Sovereign Citizens, bombers who targeted the IRS, militia movements, and abortion clinic bombers. Some of the marginal attacks are open to reinterpretation but the ideology of the attackers by death and injury are straightforward in virtually all cases.

That seems fair to me.

So:

Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists are the second deadliest group of terrorists by ideology and account for 228 murders and 6.9 percent of all terrorist deaths. The chance of being murdered in a Nationalist or Right Wing terrorist attack was 1 in 33 million per year. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the second deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history after 9/11, killed 168 people and accounted for 74 percent of the murders committed by Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists. Left Wing terrorists killed only 19 people in terrorist attacks during this time but 15 since 2016. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have only killed 5 since then, including Charlottesville. Meanwhile, the annual chance of being murdered by a Left Wing terrorist was about 1 in 400 million per year. Regardless of the recent upswing in deaths from Left Wing terrorism since 2016, Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have killed about 12 times as many people since 1992. Terrorists with unknown or other motivations were the least deadly.

In light of this I concede that more terrorist tendencies have come from the right's fringes than the left's since 1992, but I do think it's notable that that this trend hasn't held since 2016.

 

[fskimospy]

https://www.cato.org/blog/terrorism-deaths-ideology-charlottesville-anomaly

His data sources are the Global Terrorism Database at the University of Maryland and the RAND Corporation.

He classifies membership in Left Wing or Right Wing as follows:

That seems fair to me.

So:

In light of this I concede that more terrorist tendencies have come from the right's fringes than the left's since 1992, but I do think it's notable that that this trend hasn't held since 2016.

Oh man is that cherry picking though. That trend hasn't held since 2016... that's ONE YEAR. Even accepting his definitions, right wing terrorism has killed considerably more people than left wing terrorism each and every year for the last quarter decade or so. One year means very little compared to that.

 

[Atreus21]

Oh man is that cherry picking though. That trend hasn't held since 2016... that's ONE YEAR. Even accepting his definitions, right wing terrorism has killed considerably more people than left wing terrorism each and every year for the last quarter decade or so. One year means very little compared to that.

I don't know. My opinion is that the final years of Obama, the increased polarization, and Trump's presidency have served to send partisans on both extremes over the edge.

Nonetheless I concede the point.

 

[woolfe9998]

Oh man is that cherry picking though. That trend hasn't held since 2016... that's ONE YEAR. Even accepting his definitions, right wing terrorism has killed considerably more people than left wing terrorism each and every year for the last quarter decade or so. One year means very little compared to that.

It's also fair to point out this from his link:

Other organizations seem to count many religiously or racially motivated crimes as terrorist offenses, an overcounting that I attempted to avoid.

This touches on a definitional problem when it comes to "terrorism." Does this analysis include, for example, Dylann Roof's mass murder at the Charlottesville church? We don't know. I do think there is a grey area, a place where the distinction between hate crime and terrorist act becomes blurry. It's probably best to consider a racially motivated attack meant to make a public statement (like Roof wanting to start a "race war") as an act of terrorism in addition to being a hate crime. While many other hate crimes may not qualify as terrorism. Also, with regard to "religiously motivated" crimes, are bombings and shootings at abortion clinics included or excluded?

I'd like to know what definitional standard was applied by CATO here. It makes a huge difference in the final numbers.

 

[Perknose]

Also, with regard to "religiously motivated" crimes, are bombings and shootings at abortion clinics included or excluded?

Blowing up abortion clinics, assassinating doctors who perform them, and the vicious and relentless harassment of said clinics, those who work at them, and those who use their services ALL qualifies as domestic terrorism in my book.

I'd like to know what definitional standard was applied by CATO here. It makes a huge difference in the final numbers.

Yeah, the Cato Institute, founded by Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers, putting forth rigorously objective research, untainted by deeply partisan intent? Color me skeptical!

 

[woolfe9998]

Blowing up abortion clinics, assassinating doctors who perform them, and the vicious and relentless harassment of said clinics, those who work at them, and those who use their services ALL qualifies as domestic terrorism in my book.

Yeah, the Cato Institute, founded by Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers, putting forth rigorously objective research, untainted by deeply partisan intent? Color me skeptical!

I agree, yet in spite of the potential bias introduced by this right wing think tank, it's remarkable that they nevertheless conclude that people are 12x more likely to die from right wing terrorism than from left wing terrorism. If they are applying an overly strict definition of terrorism in order to exclude hate crimes and abortion related attacks, the actual ratio is likely much higher.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree, yet in spite of the potential bias introduced by this right wing think tank, it's remarkable that they nevertheless conclude that people are 12x more likely to die from right wing terrorism than from left wing terrorism. If they are applying an overly strict definition of terrorism in order to exclude hate crimes and abortion related attacks, the actual ratio is likely much higher.

It's also interesting that despite recent attacks on police by left wing terrorists the principal threat to police over the last several decades has again, been right wing terrorism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tizens-rightwing-terrorism-hate-us-government

According to data from the Anti-Defamation League, at least 45 police officers have been killed by domestic extremists since 2001. Of these, 10 were killed by leftwing extremists, 34 by rightwing extremists, and one by homegrown Islamist extremists.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's also interesting that despite recent attacks on police by left wing terrorists the principal threat to police over the last several decades has again, been right wing terrorism.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...tizens-rightwing-terrorism-hate-us-government

It's also questionable whether to consider black nationalists as leftists. I don't think they have much in common with the left. Black and white nationalists both believe in racial separation. Liberals vehemently oppose it. I wouldn't call them right wingers either. I think they deserve their own category. I mention black nationalists because at least some of these attacks on police have come from people with that world view.

 

[bshole]

I don't know. My opinion is that the final years of Obama, the increased polarization, and Trump's presidency have served to send partisans on both extremes over the edge.

Nonetheless I concede the point.

And I like you more for it. It shows that you have some respect for objective reality and data.

 

[woolfe9998]

Blowing up abortion clinics, assassinating doctors who perform them, and the vicious and relentless harassment of said clinics, those who work at them, and those who use their services ALL qualifies as domestic terrorism in my book.

Yeah, the Cato Institute, founded by Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers, putting forth rigorously objective research, untainted by deeply partisan intent? Color me skeptical!

I also just thought of something else which should be pretty obvious about "religiously motivated" attacks. As people on the right are so fond of pointing out, religion is a motivation for Islamist attacks. I will presume that CATO included all of these attacks. If so, I can't see any justification for excluding any attacks motivated by other religions such as Christianity.

 

[hal2kilo]

I also just thought of something else which should be pretty obvious about "religiously motivated" attacks. As people on the right are so fond of pointing out, religion is a motivation for Islamist attacks. I will presume that CATO included all of these attacks. If so, I can't see any justification for excluding any attacks motivated by other religions such as Christianity.

I wanted to bring that point up when it was mention above. Essentially, all of the Islamic terrorism is religion base, so why exclude the Christian "radical extremists".

 

[agent00f]

I don't know. My opinion is that the final years of Obama, the increased polarization, and Trump's presidency have served to send partisans on both extremes over the edge.

Nonetheless I concede the point.

Won't worry, this guy'll be back with the same bat schtick same bat conservative channel next time when he suddenly remembers real degens never concede anything.

 

[dphantom]

Blowing up abortion clinics, assassinating doctors who perform them, and the vicious and relentless harassment of said clinics, those who work at them, and those who use their services ALL qualifies as domestic terrorism in my book.

Yeah, the Cato Institute, founded by Charles Koch and funded by the Koch brothers, putting forth rigorously objective research, untainted by deeply partisan intent? Color me skeptical!

Then I am sure you would agree the Soros funded such as Media Matters or Atlantic Council are equally culpable in disseminating false flag and other propaganda materials. I mean, these are evil billionaires so I am sure one would treat any billionaire as a parasite on the body politic.

 

[agent00f]

Then I am sure you would agree the Soros funded such as Media Matters or Atlantic Council are equally culpable in disseminating false flag and other propaganda materials. I mean, these are evil billionaires so I am sure one would treat any billionaire as a parasite on the body politic.

Hardly a mystery where trump's klan-defending BothSides arguments come from.