ShadowSJG

How bad is racism/sexism, etc in the MLP fandom?

Recommended Posts

I'd also like to say this:

It's not about past crimes, it's about the effects of those crimes and how they shape society today.

And it's not about how individuals or individual companies or whatever treat minorities. Racism isn't just individuals' attitudes and actions, and it can't be reduced to easily identifiable instances of explicit discrimination; it's about systems. And I don't accept the definition of systematic as universal, something done without exception; it's about the overall effects of multiple institutions, norms, practices, and so on. And it's not about calling all white people racists, etc. It's about people who benefit from systemic privilege taking some responsibility for that system.

4 hours ago, Sunset Rose said:

Dangerous for the precedent it sets that open dialogue is waysided for favoring the "empirical expertise" of someone who only has the experience of being wronged. You won't win me over by saying only black people can define racism or only women can define sexism, that's just intellectually bankrupt.

 

Because it closes the door to people who may have a better solution that don't fall into your arbitrary category.

 

It's called due process for a reason. You're suggesting what is considered a hate crime be redefined by those it's meant to protect and you don't see a problem with that. I'm not saying oppressors get to oppress harder, I'm saying that everything supposed oppressors and presumed victims do fall into the same fair light of legal arbitration without one side having any consideration over the other based on a protected status because that is what is fair.

I can't tell if you're conflating the legitimacy of a victim's ordeal being only theirs to decide or not, but that's what it sounds like. Anyone is free to say they felt like they were marginalized because someone said something mean about them whether it had anything to do with being racist or sexist, but rules and laws aren't built on peoples' feelings. If you are wrong because you misunderstood someone then you have condemned an innocent person for no good reason.

 

Does it? Bait for what? It seemed pretty straightforward, but I can spell it out for you if I must;

Modern countries here having the meaning of a country where all protected classes having zero influence under legally and sociopolitical considerations. Meaning the fact that I am Baltic and female has absolutely no bearing on anything at all and the fact that you are presumably black and male has absolutely no bearing on anything at all whereas in other less modern countries, it might. Because that is what is just and fair.

 

That was aimed at you for ignoring responses up until that point and parroting the same thing over and over despite having it having been addressed repeatedly. It was sarcastic.

 

 

 

Yes, I'm standing by that the oppressed should be able to define what racism/sexism is. For example, in this thread, we have people like Harper claiming systematic racism doesn't exist yet figures such as Shaun King and Colin Kaepernick would beg to differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter where you go there's always racism/sexism. But I haven't witness any in this fandom so far, so I can't say much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

51 minutes ago, Gestum said:

How do you think they plan their ethnostate happening? By having the noble "Übermenschen" moving from the nice cites and into a ghetto somewhere out in the desert? Or are they going to get the barbarian "untermenschen" to move out into ghettos in the desert?

They could lay claim to the many uninhabited island chains in the south pacific or something. I'm not actually arguing for an ethnostate, I'm just curious as to how intersectionality argues against racists segregating themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

1 hour ago, Concerned Bystander said:

Every group of people of any considerable size will contain within it elements of almost every human behaviour.  That element may not be a complete cross-section of society as a whole, and depending on the group in question it may have more of certain behaviours and less of others.

From everything I have seen the MLP fandom is a pretty permissive environment, and although I have seen the full spectrum of political and social views I have seen very little real hostility and very little prejudice regarding sex or race.  That isn't to say that there isn't any of course, but I don't think there is proportionally more in the fandom than then there is in society as a whole.

In my personal experience as an Administrator and an occasional convention goer, the fandom is generally harmless, save for the outliers. I can bring up a few stories I've heard about and one or two I've witnessed, but we would be talking out four of five people out of thousands I have seen and interacted with over the years. In general, the worst you typically see is some young awkward kid trying to talk to a female just because they happen to be a girl, and do so with just about every woman. That isn't ever going to change, as much as I may have a personal distaste for how they go about it and can step in when needed. 

@ShadowSJG a little personal background.

My wife was brilliant and well educated. I met her when we were in highschool and she followed her dream into mental health. Her mother was unsupportive as she felt that her daughter should be a stay at home mother. This opinion was before we were dating and continued through the present. It always made me irate while she simply excused it because these were her parents and she loved them. When she passed away, my in-laws once commented that if she had listened to them my wife would have had more time with her children and they would have had more time with her mother. While I disagree with them, the reasoning behind their words does have some logic in that there is a personal opportunity cost in her decision to chase her dreams. We ended up doing both very well, but they do have a small point.

I am a father of a teenager. She bright, accomplished for her age, and has a great opportunity for success ahead of her. I have seen boys objectify her, and she brushed it off most times. Her  It is infuriating to me because she is my daughter and I would rather see her stand up to this. More to that, my in-laws have also suggested that she would be wasting her talents in university. In this case, I don't hold my tongue. Yet, she is very similar to her mother in that she says, "they mean well."

If my opinion held less value than my daughter's, and I believed I had no right to stand up for her or try and council her, she could very well be influenced negatively by these sorts of suggestions. By valuing my opinion on her role as a woman, I am better able to guide her into adulthood. One might say that my opinion is more important because of that factor.

Nuance is what I preach. This argument isn't a pair of tights where one size fits all. 

  • Brohoof 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Kyoshi said:

We've done so much and yet after ALL OF THAT, in 2018, we are having problems with white supremacist shit heads in this country being on the rise and Trump creating hatred and division amongst everyone. We also have school shootings happening all the time and then ensues endless debates that accomplish nothing. With stuff like this going on, cynicism just comes naturally. I have a more negative view of this country than the human race overall.

While I do share this feeling, it's one that should be directed at our government more than anyone. Government by its very definition has no right to exist. Not in America, or anywhere else. And all these social problems we see every day are attributed to not one, but every politician, and the Rothschilds' banking conglomerate that controls them like the puppets they really are. They don't care about us. They just want to maintain their power to rule over us, and they do it by manipulating the masses. Always highlighting the same issues in the media for the purposes of fear mongering, and never reporting on events conflicting with the narratives they want to push. Creating division between people with this fabricated left-right paradigm, creating this false hope that we can change how our country can progress by electing the right "leaders". Hijacking our education system so younger generations can be indoctrinated into accepting political correctness, and other oppressive philosophies rooted in socialism. Never taking the responsibility to punish neonazis, and even propping up these hate-spreading pieces of shit, so that said philosophies can appear warranted. Drudging up new excuses to justify legalized theft in the form of "taxes". Turning everything in our pop culture into a platform for spreading political agendas. And worst of all, convincing everybody that our constitutional rights have somehow become obsolete, and that taking them away will bring us more security. 

If the federal government can be dissolved, through a military coup, or by some miracle a libertarian shutdown, at least half the bullshit plaguing our society will go away. But we're all too caught up in this statist mindset to see the bigger picture. That the world "leaders" are the source of everything that's wrong with the human race. Nobody has a higher claim over our lives and property than us. And until we've collectively come to realize this and unite against them, we'll continue to suffer.

  • Brohoof 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

12 hours ago, Twiggy said:

They could lay claim to the many uninhabited island chains in the south pacific or something.

Yes. Because uninhabited island chains that can support a whole bunch of racisist that no country wants are a dime a dozen. 

12 hours ago, Twiggy said:

I'm just curious as to how intersectionality argues against racists segregating themselves.

Because the racists doesn't want to segregate themselves. If they wanted to then they would have already done that. Nobody is stopping them from building a village in the middle of nowhere and just live by themselvs. They want to make the USA into a white ethnostate.

 

  • Brohoof 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Twiggy said:

I'm just curious as to how intersectionality argues against racists segregating themselves.

Because said segregation would be achieved with forced relocation at best and genocide at worst.

  Like, nobody is arguing against racists moving away far from every sane person, but I've yet to met anyone in favor of an ethnostate that doesn't want to create said state in their own country by removing every ethnic minority rather than just moving away and creating their own country somewhere else. 

  • Brohoof 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

On 5/27/2018 at 4:44 PM, Steve Piranha said:

Experiencing the occasional racism or sexism doesn't makes them the oppressed minority like times past. In fact, I'm seeing the roles reversed, with this "reverse racism" bullshit and how easy is to make false rape accusations 

Alright, this posts irks me a bit. Firstly, while it's debatable just how much "reverse racism" there actually is, there's no way near enough that one could make the claim that the roles are starting to get reversed. 

Secondly, I don't get what point you're trying to make by bringing up false rape accusations. Alright, it's true that it's easy to make false rape accusations but then again, what kind of accusations aren't easy to make? To further prove the point I'm trying to make, false allegations of sexual violence are no higher than those reported in other categories of crime. I also want to point out that research suggests that the majority of false claims do not name an alleged perpetrator, and instead is more likely to be relatively vague accusations about a stranger. 

Also, let's not forget that it’s exceedingly rare for a false rape allegation to end in prison time. And I want to clarify that I don't suggests that the low conviction rates justifies it, but that it just makes it a bit silly for people to worry so much about it. 

  • Brohoof 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

I'd like to add to that reverse-racism point;

Is there a history of centuries of bad science devoted to 'proving' your intellectual inferiority?

Are there is massive effort at the state and local level to disenfranchise you guys of the right to vote?

Is there is a travel ban on you because of your religion?

Is there a danger for for you when you guys carry dangerous weaponry publicly?

Were your churches burned?

Were your lawns decorated with burning crosses?

Were your ancestors hung from trees on a massive scale?

Did your grandparents have to march in the streets facing threats of police violence, and death, demanding civil rights?

Were your grandparents forced to sit on the back of buses? Were there segregated areas of low quality for them?

Could interacting with the wrong person get you grandparents murdered?(I.E Emmit Till)

Are you guys more likely based on the colour of your skin to get killed by a police officer when you haven't commited a crime?

Are you guys pulled over, and searched simply for the colour of your skin?

Are there statues glorifying those who represent the slavery, rape, and discrimination of your people?

Are there groups today calling for your guys to be "ethnically cleansed" and go back home to where you're from?

Did your ancestors face years of rape, forced enslavements, brutal beatings, and death simply because of what they looked like?

Are there holidays which celebrate those who wiped out your ancestors, stole their land, and enslaved them?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ShadowSJG said:

Is there is a travel ban on you because of your religion?

It would take more time than I have to go through all of points, so I'm going to limit myself to this one for now.  Firstly, Islam is not a race, just want to make that clear.  Secondly, the travel ban of which you speak only covers a very few of the world's Muslim-majority countries, most Muslims were still free to travel to the US.  The ban was aimed at countries which are deemed to have dysfunctional governments and therefore can have no effective vetting procedures in place for those who wish to travel.  The ban also affected non-Muslims from those very same countries.

  • Brohoof 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Concerned Bystander said:

It would take more time than I have to go through all of points, so I'm going to limit myself to this one for now.  Firstly, Islam is not a race, just want to make that clear.  Secondly, the travel ban of which you speak only covers a very few of the world's Muslim-majority countries, most Muslims were still free to travel to the US.  The ban was aimed at countries which are deemed to have dysfunctional governments and therefore can have no effective vetting procedures in place for those who wish to travel.  The ban also affected non-Muslims from those very same countries.

That's one of the problems for reaching conclusions using feeling and a simplified sense of morality instead of using critical thinking and common sense :dry:. I know because I used to hold that self righteous sense of morality, WAY before it was cool :scoots:. Guess that makes me  a hipster  :D

Edited by Steve Piranha
  • Brohoof 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Concerned Bystander said:

It would take more time than I have to go through all of points, so I'm going to limit myself to this one for now.  Firstly, Islam is not a race, just want to make that clear.  Secondly, the travel ban of which you speak only covers a very few of the world's Muslim-majority countries, most Muslims were still free to travel to the US.  The ban was aimed at countries which are deemed to have dysfunctional governments and therefore can have no effective vetting procedures in place for those who wish to travel.  The ban also affected non-Muslims from those very same countries.

I am aware. I included this as Islamophobia and racism are linked.

Second, Muslim majority countries. Considering Trump has a history of Islamophobia(retweeting right wing issues on them.)

Also, the ban has been criticized as many terrorists aren't even from these countries. 

The order suspends entry into the U.S. from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. But critics have argued that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were not included, even though a report from the Cato Institute showed that the three countries were the point of origin for people responsible for 94.1 percent of American deaths due to terrorist attacks in the U.S. Eighteen of the 19 people responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks also hailed from those three countries.

6 minutes ago, Steve Piranha said:

That's one of the problems for reaching conclusions using feeling and a simplified sense of morality instead of using critical thinking and common sense :dry:. I know because I used to hold that self righteous sense of morality, WAY before it was cool :scoots:. Guess that makes me  a hipster  :D

Lol, 'critical thinking and 'common sense'. 'Facts don't care about feelings'

I'm sure if I bring up data/statistics which show how right wing white supremacist are a bigger terrorist threat and on the rise, you'll deny it or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShadowSJG said:

Second, Muslim majority countries. Considering Trump has a history of Islamophobia(retweeting right wing issues on them.)

The list of countries affected by the ban was actually drawn up by Obama's administration, it just wasn't implemented until Trump took office.

1 minute ago, ShadowSJG said:

But critics have argued that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were not included, even though a report from the Cato Institute showed that the three countries were the point of origin for people responsible for 94.1 percent of American deaths due to terrorist attacks in the U.S. Eighteen of the 19 people responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks also hailed from those three countries.

The criticism is valid, but the argument against it is that those countries are at least to some extent either allied to, or at least friendly towards, the US, and they have functional governments that are able to vet their own populations, even if that doesn't necessarily work in practice as 9/11 showed.

Edited by Concerned Bystander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Concerned Bystander said:

The list of countries affected by the ban was actually drawn up by Obama's administration, it just wasn't implemented until Trump took office.

The criticism is valid, but the argument against it is that those countries are at least to some extent either allied to, or at least friendly towards, the US, and they have functional governments that are able to vet their own populations, even if that doesn't necessarily work in practice as 9/11 showed.

The "seven countries" targeted by President Trump's 27 January 2017 executive order pertaining to immigration were not mentioned by name and instead originated with "countr[ies] or area of concern" first identified in the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (expanded to all seven countries "of concern" in February 2016).

However, 

The 2015 bill was attached as a rider to a "must pass" omnibus spending bill and did not create an outright ban on entry into the U.S. from designated countries.

 

On 27 January 2017 President Donald Trump issued an unnumbered Executive Order titled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” widely described as a “Muslim ban” targeting travelers to the U.S. from seven specific Muslim-majority countries. The order prompted controversy and protests across the United States amid widespread confusion about its contents and the manner in which it might be enforced.

 

An article by Seth J. Frantzman asserted countries affected by the order were not selected by President Trump and were in fact pinpointed as areas of concern in late 2015, during the administration of President Barack Obama:

According to most reports Trump was banning “nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days.” This bars people from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. US Senator Elizabeth Warren said “Let’s be clear: A Muslim ban by any other name is still a Muslim ban,” and Senator Chris Murphy claimed “Trump has now handed ISIS a path to rebirth.” Media, such as Vox and the Independent, compared the ban to banning Jews from entry during the Holocaust and bashed Trump for signing the order on Holocaust memorial day. World leaders are “condemning Trump’s Muslim ban,” according to headlines.

I had to see for myself, so I read the executive order. The order does seek “to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States.” It says that it seeks “Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.” It also says “I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” And it targets Syrians specifically. “I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

But, wait a sec. According to the reports “The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.” Critics had attacked Trump for selecting these seven countries and not selecting other states “linked to his sprawling business empire.” Bloomberg and Forbes bought into this.

But, wait a sec. I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it.

Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq”. Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban”? It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

Frantzman was correct (as was Mic.) about the absence of the names of seven countries from President Trump’s order: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen were not specifically cited in President Trump’s 27 January 2017 Executive Order, which held:

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

President Trump’s order appeared to have roots in the “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015,” the passage of which was reported in late 2015 and early 2016 as a response to shootings and terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris in November 2015. Although President Obama did in fact sign the bill into law in December 2015, it was attached as a rider on the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, an omnibus spending bill:

[Following] on widespread anxiety and fear following the Paris terrorist attacks and the San Bernardino shooting … Congresswoman Candice Miller slid the H.R. 158 rider into the must-pass budget bill, the Omnibus Appropriations Bill 2015 … this bill was passed almost unanimously in the House and signed into law by President Obama on December 16 [2015]. While the media heralded the relatively painless passage of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, coverage of H.R. 158 remains conspicuously absent.

H.R. 158 did not actually block travel or immigration by residents or citizens of any particular countries; rather, it terminated travel privileges afforded persons previously covered under the Visa Waiver Program, as described in a letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to members of Congress objecting to the bill:

The VWP is a long-established program that permits nationals of certain countries to enter the U.S. as visitors (tourists or business) without a visa, for up to 90 days.

H.R. 158 terminates travel privileges for all citizens of VWP countries who are dual nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, or Sudan. This revocation of VWP privileges would apply to all nationals of Iraq, Syria, Iran, or Sudan even if they have never resided in or traveled to Iraq or Syria.

By singling out these four nationalities to the exclusion of other dual nationals in VWP countries, H.R. 158 amounts to blanket discrimination based on nationality and
national origin without a rational basis

An article about the bill from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) also noted that it didn’t bar entry to the U.S. by persons traveling from certain areas of concern; it merely changed the process by which they must apply for visas:

Generally, [H.R. 158] prohibits natives of, or travelers to Syria or Iraq (or other countries that have been designated by the secretaries of State or Homeland Security as state supporters or sponsors of terror, such as Sudan and Iran) anytime from March 1, 2011, onward, from participating in the VWP, requiring instead that they seek visas through interviews by American consular officers. Exceptions are carved out for VWP nationals who served in military or civilian government capacities in Syria, Iraq, or other designated countries; the DHS secretary may issue waivers for others.

[These new restrictions] will likely prevent few aliens from entering via the VWP when their pasts are, at least on the surface, a blank slate. However if, after entry using the VWP, it’s discovered that an alien did visit Syria or Iraq, the fact that this was withheld provides federal immigration authorities the hook to arrest and expeditiously remove the individual for having been ineligible to enter under the program to begin with. Understand clearly, though, that is after the fact.

On 18 February 2016 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identified three additional countries (bringing the total to seven) that would also be covered by the limitations on Visa Waiver Program travel:

The Department of Homeland Security announced that it is continuing its implementation of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 with the addition of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen as three countries of concern, limiting Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals who have traveled to these countries.

The three additional countries designated today join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries subject to restrictions for Visa Waiver Program travel for certain individuals … Individuals impacted will still be able to apply for a visa using the regular immigration process at our embassies or consulates. For those who need a U.S. visa for urgent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States, U.S. embassies and consulates stand ready to provide visa interview appointments on an expedited basis. The new law does not ban travel to the United States, or admission into the United States, and the great majority of Visa Waiver Program travelers will not be affected.

As of November 2016 (before President Trump’s 20 January 2017 inauguration), a U.S. Customs & Border Protection FAQ page affirmed that travel restrictions remained in place for those specific seven countries but also noted that those “restrictions do not bar travel to the United States”:

[O]n December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016, which includes the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 (the Act). The Act, among other things, establishes new eligibility requirements for travel under the VWP. These new eligibility requirements do not bar travel to the United States. Instead, a traveler who does not meet the requirements must obtain a visa for travel to the United States, which generally includes an in-person interview at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate.

President Trump’s 27 January 2017 executive order mentioned only Syria by name; the six other countries associated with it were ones that had been identified by DHS as “of concern” as early as December 2015.

Don't know why my stuff is crossed out but you can read it still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShadowSJG said:

I'd like to add to that reverse-racism point;

Is there a history of centuries of bad science devoted to 'proving' your intellectual inferiority?

Are there is massive effort at the state and local level to disenfranchise you guys of the right to vote?

Is there is a travel ban on you because of your religion?

Is there a danger for for you when you guys carry dangerous weaponry publicly?

Were your churches burned?

Were your lawns decorated with burning crosses?

Were your ancestors hung from trees on a massive scale?

Did your grandparents have to march in the streets facing threats of police violence, and death, demanding civil rights?

Were your grandparents forced to sit on the back of buses? Were there segregated areas of low quality for them?

Could interacting with the wrong person get you grandparents murdered?(I.E Emmit Till)

Are you guys more likely based on the colour of your skin to get killed by a police officer when you haven't commited a crime?

Are you guys pulled over, and searched simply for the colour of your skin?

Are there statues glorifying those who represent the slavery, rape, and discrimination of your people?

Are there groups today calling for your guys to be "ethnically cleansed" and go back home to where you're from?

Did your ancestors face years of rape, forced enslavements, brutal beatings, and death simply because of what they looked like?

Are there holidays which celebrate those who wiped out your ancestors, stole their land, and enslaved them?

 

I fail to see which one of those points addresses the whimsical reverse racism. You are again trying to legitimize your own claims through oppression Olympics by implying your group had to be this oppressed to have a say on the matter of racism. Have you experienced any of those things? Cause I got an impression your worst current concern are dudes using the N word.

 

Now about that terrorism. This is what I got by a casual search:

454068560_Screenshot-2018-5-28Whatthedatashowsondomesticterrorismperpetrators.png.dc8f9b263e47a990febb152c0064bc7e.png

Fair enough. But I wanted more. See, most people these days think that right-wing terrorism is all racially motivated.

1862623103_Screenshot-2018-5-28ADarkandConstantRage25YearsofRight-WingTerrorismintheUnitedStates(1).png.c7e61ac9be721fc07c5c6410e9e2de5d.png218408533_Screenshot-2018-5-28ADarkandConstantRage25YearsofRight-WingTerrorismintheUnitedStates.png.a94d3ad8b531c09c411c78621a050766.png

Makes you think a little, doesn't it? No? How about this:

118920319_Screenshot-2018-5-28Non-MuslimsCarriedOutMorethan90ofAllTerroristAttacksonUSSoil.png.7b70a8ae8f39b3f03aff569ac94346d8.png1650351398_Screenshot-2018-5-28Terrorism20022005.png.4e2b7ed0a409c43b163060d36ee34e1b.png

Those darn white supremacist Latinos and Jews! And let's not forget left-wing white supremacists! They must be stopped!

Now let's compare:

148084412_Screenshot-2018-5-28Deathsduetoterroristattacksworldwidebyperpetrator2016Statistic.thumb.png.76867fd235d328a68acba0b146b1069f.png

1221047480_Screenshot-2018-5-28Terrorismterroristgroupsresponsibleforthemostattacksworldwidein2015Statisitic.thumb.png.ad3063918d2e4af787e37335fa7e46aa.png

Doesn't look good. And it's just a few years ... Mostly cause the site wanted money for the rest :P I for one can totally see the merits of screening and limited access.

  • Brohoof 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

To be clear, I was referring to domestic terrorist attacks. By that logic, do you think right wingers should be screened in the U.S? I know you'll say no.

Also, this is important:

In the end, we found evidence that generally supports the first part of de León’s claim -- that radical right wing terrorism is on the rise. Still, there’s a lack of agreement among experts and even within the U.S. government over how to define terrorism. As a result, some studies show political violence is on the rise among far right wing groups, but do not explicitly call all of these crimes terrorist attacks.

The second part of de León’s statement, comparing terror attacks by ideology, is also complicated. What’s clear is that far right groups have been tied to more terror incidents, often to deadly attacks or property damage. Meanwhile, Islamic jihadist inspired groups, while responsible for fewer terror attacks, have killed far more people on U.S. soil in recent decades.

The report Booker cited found that from 12 September 2001 to the end of 2016, there were 85 deadly attacks in the US by violent extremists, resulting in a total of 225 deaths.

Of those deaths, 106 people were killed by far-right extremists, in 62 separate attacks, while 119 people were killed by Islamist extremists, in 23 separate incidents.

So while the majority (73%) of the attacks were carried out by far-right extremists, more people were killed by Islamist terrorists.

However, as Politifact’s Amy Sherman points out, Booker used the term “white nationalists”, which is “not exactly the same thing” as far-right extremist groups.

The latter “are motivated by ideologies seeking an idealised future favouring a particular group”, says Sherman. “They include white supremacists and anti-government militias, among others.”

According to the GAO report, almost half the 85 attacks were committed by white supremacists.

But that “number could rise if we counted additional perpetrators who sympathised with white supremacist ideals but were not labelled as white supremacists by the GAO”, Sherman says.

Booker’s spokesperson explained the discrepancy in figures by arguing that although the report did not identify some of the perpetrators as white supremacists, other sources such as news accounts or court records showed they held white supremacist or racist views.

A deadly difference

Separate research carried out by the University of Maryland’sNational Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism reveals a slightly different picture.

It found that, during the same period as that cited by Booker, Islamist extremists carried out 31 attacks, leading to 119 deaths, while far-right extremists were responsible for killing 158 people, in 89 separate attacks.

So while both sources agree that far-right extremist attacks are far more common, they differ on the total number of deaths they have caused.

Whether Muslim or far-right extremists have killed more Americans “depends on how you measure such incidents and which source you use”, says Politico. “Sorting through attacks and placing them in the categories of terrorism, violent extremism or hate crimes can sometimes be extremely complicated.”

Who is right?

The evidence suggests that far-right groups are responsible for a higher number of attacks than Islamists extremists, but not necessarily more deaths.

It was misleading of Senator Booker to imply that white nationalist groups were behind the majority of attacks, as the figures he cited applied to far-right extremists as a whole.

 
Edited by ShadowSJG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ShadowSJG said:

To be clear, I was referring to domestic terrorist attacks. By that logic, do you think right wingers should be screened in the U.S? I know you'll say no.

Also, this is important:

In the end, we found evidence that generally supports the first part of de León’s claim -- that radical right wing terrorism is on the rise. Still, there’s a lack of agreement among experts and even within the U.S. government over how to define terrorism. As a result, some studies show political violence is on the rise among far right wing groups, but do not explicitly call all of these crimes terrorist attacks.

The second part of de León’s statement, comparing terror attacks by ideology, is also complicated. What’s clear is that far right groups have been tied to more terror incidents, often to deadly attacks or property damage. Meanwhile, Islamic jihadist inspired groups, while responsible for fewer terror attacks, have killed far more people on U.S. soil in recent decades.

The report Booker cited found that from 12 September 2001 to the end of 2016, there were 85 deadly attacks in the US by violent extremists, resulting in a total of 225 deaths.

Of those deaths, 106 people were killed by far-right extremists, in 62 separate attacks, while 119 people were killed by Islamist extremists, in 23 separate incidents.

So while the majority (73%) of the attacks were carried out by far-right extremists, more people were killed by Islamist terrorists.

However, as Politifact’s Amy Sherman points out, Booker used the term “white nationalists”, which is “not exactly the same thing” as far-right extremist groups.

The latter “are motivated by ideologies seeking an idealised future favouring a particular group”, says Sherman. “They include white supremacists and anti-government militias, among others.”

According to the GAO report, almost half the 85 attacks were committed by white supremacists.

But that “number could rise if we counted additional perpetrators who sympathised with white supremacist ideals but were not labelled as white supremacists by the GAO”, Sherman says.

Booker’s spokesperson explained the discrepancy in figures by arguing that although the report did not identify some of the perpetrators as white supremacists, other sources such as news accounts or court records showed they held white supremacist or racist views.

A deadly difference

Separate research carried out by the University of Maryland’sNational Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism reveals a slightly different picture.

It found that, during the same period as that cited by Booker, Islamist extremists carried out 31 attacks, leading to 119 deaths, while far-right extremists were responsible for killing 158 people, in 89 separate attacks.

So while both sources agree that far-right extremist attacks are far more common, they differ on the total number of deaths they have caused.

Whether Muslim or far-right extremists have killed more Americans “depends on how you measure such incidents and which source you use”, says Politico. “Sorting through attacks and placing them in the categories of terrorism, violent extremism or hate crimes can sometimes be extremely complicated.”

Who is right?

The evidence suggests that far-right groups are responsible for a higher number of attacks than Islamists extremists, but not necessarily more deaths.

It was misleading of Senator Booker to imply that white nationalist groups were behind the majority of attacks, as the figures he cited applied to far-right extremists as a whole.

 

Why shouldn't you screen people from other countries? Why shouldn't you try to minimize the risk of terrorist infiltration? Anyway, ignoring 9/11, most US attacks of Islamic terrorists were committed by those born in US with the Muslim population only around 3,45M. It is logical then that most terrorist attacks should be committed by those not of Islamic faith. Yet they are still responsible for 26-27% with greater death count to boot. Not all Muslims are extremists and neither are all right-wingers. However, if you compare the numbers of those who voted Trump in the last elections to the number of Muslims living in US you get a very nasty picture. Of course, you could always claim that Trump voters include left and center and that non-white voters don't count ;)
  • Brohoof 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badges

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.