dem turbulent priests though.
dem turbulent priests though.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I'm not Lewk. I disagreed with Lewk when he called for monitoring all Muslims/Mosques.Originally Posted by Loki
Yes they would.
That's a stretch, its talking about the law. If it was someone saying "we should shoot illegals" then yes I'd think it merits an investigation."Cops should just be able to shoot illegal immigrants" is calling for mass murder. I don't think it merits an investigation.
No it's not unless you think people are God. Saying God will do something versus calling on people to do something are two very different things."God will smite down the sinning homosexual" is calling for mass-murder. I don't think it merits an investigation.
That's not calling for people to shoot cops, its sarcasm. If someone was genuinely calling for cops to be shot I'd 100% be OK with it being investigated but no I'm not talking about sarcasm etc"At this point, we have two options. We can shoot the police when they get within 50' of us and then turn ourselves in peaceably for that crime, or we can mind our own business and get shot for walking while black" after the latest unlawful shooting makes the headlines is calling for mass-murder but should not be investigated.
That was bullshit, crosshairs means target and is not a death thing. That's not remotely equivalent.Remember the Giffords shooting, that US representative that got shot by a lone crazy? Half this board was convinced that using some variety of crosshairs or bullseye in campaign imagery was effectively calling for mass-murder. The terms you are using for speech worth investigating demonstrate the same kind of broad over-interpretation and apply far more broadly than what should or feasibly CAN be investigated.
I'd like to introduce you to Twitter...
Hope is the denial of reality
People get investigated all the time from Tweets.
Not in America (as long as they don't threaten to kill specific people). You'd have to really, really try.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well, it's not quite that hard. You can always find a petty despot (be it a county sheriff, a school administrator, etc) who will jump on the flimsiest or pretexts. But those investigations won't go anywhere.
You have to make actual threats (and frequently an investigation would still be fairly anemic with only that as a basis) to actually earn the law enforcement agencies devoting resources to conduct an investigation, Rand, that or demonstrate having done actual planning. Otherwise it's just empty words. There's a pretty big gap between "should' and "going to"
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Twitter received 2520 (from the US) account information requests last year. We've seen trends for stupid and abusive shit dwarf that (ie, the seizure attack, the alt-right armies, etc). There at 67 million active US twitter accounts.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I've never called for preemptive violence against blacks. I also don't think belonging to a mosque should automatically warrant an investigation. I think law enforcement should be intelligent and use information where it can get it to use resources appropriately. If certain neighborhoods have more crime than others police should be there more often. What people say on twitter and/or facebook is only one component, I expect law enforcement to draw connections using multiple data sources.
IE red flags appear when someone does the following:
Makes public pro jihad statements
Goes to a radical mosque for worship
Books a flight to the Middle East
These things don't trigger persecution and prosecution they trigger investigation. Depending on the manpower and number of potential threats you may only need two of the following. Or maybe just one - it just all depends. Ultimately you are playing a game of statistics doing your very best to identify who may have been radicalized.
Now let me ask you this Loki. Do you think people should be investigated prior to a crime being committed? IE do you believe in a fully passive homeland security process? IE someone can say Osama is great (not illegal) book a flight to the middle east (not illegal) buy a bunch of weapons (not illegal) link to videos of be-headings (not illegal) and the police/FBI/homeland/insert relevant agency know all this and they should do nothing? I can't fathom the though process that would support this and I don't want to accuse you of actually thinking that so please let me know if this is actually what you want to see happen.
If a black man and a Muslim man both run from a police officer, which one do you believe should be shot first?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Ok Lewk I'll bite. If you believe people should be investigated because what they say might indicate that they might break the law why did you object when the IRS investigated tea party groups were saying taxes were illegitimate? Surely that's an indication they're 'pro' breaking the law.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
You are aware that terrorist groups often also use codes rather than outright calling for action? I mean, legally, it's hard to draw the line so surely that US representative should be investigated then right?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
No reason why anemic investigations shouldn't suffice.
So if a teenager Tweeted that he should shoot his classmates deserve to die and he should get a gun that wouldn't be concerning or involve a follow-up conversation?
A target? A target for what? From where does that symbolism derive? Are they saying, "Target this woman with your prayers and friendly postcards"? Fuck's sake. Regardless of one's feelings about whether or not this sort of thing should be prosecuted I think it's fair to characterize the objection that "crosshairs means target and is not a death thing" as being singularly clueless. Crosshairs indicate a target, historically a target for some sort of deadly weapon. It's just as reasonable an interpretation as interpreting "jihad" to mean "mass murder of Americans". Perhaps more so.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's not singularly clueless, I think you're being ignorant or "singularly clueless" of our respective electoral systems.
In constituency-based electoral systems like the USA and the UK have then "target seats" are seats that are held by the opposition party that your party wants to gain for themselves. That's politics for you.
UK examples:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015gui...ative-targets/
http://labourlist.org/2013/01/labour...eats-for-2015/
http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/up...eat-of-redcar/
US examples:
http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/target-seat/
http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politic...rump-districts
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ts-2018-234777
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...targets-219118
Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...iors-1.3213217
Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/australi...ction-campaign
Yes, this argument was advanced the last time too. The symbolism and Palin's associated "reload" tweet both evoked the use of firearms. What you're saying is that we should interpret people's comments in a charitable way, looking at context as well as making assumptions about their intentions. I tend to agree but the same courtesy should be extended to others.
Now, I'll be honest with you: if a Muslim makes public statements endorsing terrorism and other Jihadist violence, or if a mosque regularly invites pro-terrorism speakers to preach hatred and extremism, I do think those specific people should be looked into. We know that some mosques recruit extremists and we know (I think) that Muslims with extremist views are more likely than many others to be radicalized. But, then again, I'm not a proponent of unlimited freedom of speech and I'm also not inclined to see all "real Muslims" as extremists.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Lewkowskian levels of ignoring context. Rand is doing his Comical Ali shtick again.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I said at the time that "reload" etc was weird, I don't like Palin one bit.
But target is perfectly standard normal language. You can find literally thousands of articles about targets in politics. Heck in business to we have targets. Healthcare here operates to targets. Go to A&E and the target is you should be seen in 4 hours, that doesn't mean someone pulls out a firearm within 4 hours. It isn't being charitable to know what the word target literally means.
Rand, a target on a person and a target on a business goal are two very, very different things.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I'll very happily say that I don't want a state that knows everything I've said, tracks every movement I've made, keeps a running tally of my every purchase, or actively monitors my web activity. I'm okay with giving up a little bit of perceived security in order to prevent a panopticon style surveillance state.
Except Muslim neighborhoods do not have more crime than others. Yet you want to investigate them more. You know what's a better predictor of violent crime in the US than making pro-jihadi statements? Making white supremacist statements. There are far more crimes committed by the latter in the US. Do you think we should investigate those more? Or should we only focus on potential crime for people likely to hurt someone like you?
And I hate to argue facts with you, but most ISIS recruits don't go to radical mosques. Even in Europe, they're either radicalized online or by charismatic preachers who are actually banned from preaching in mosques (because of their radicalism). So should we start following all Muslims around and check their browsing habits just to make sure they're not radicalizing?
Hope is the denial of reality
They're really, really not. They are being used as the exact same metaphor for a goal (another metaphor). A target on a person only means something else in a FAR more limited context (and frankly, in that context, you're just about never going to actually have any of the graphics for a target as an aiming tool in the first place).
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I understand where you are coming from on this but we aren't talking about complete tracking of every individual's every move but we are looking at using existing databases of information intelligently. There is no expectation of privacy for public internet posts and public travel.
Don't be an idiot - I'm all in favor of investigating white supremacists who make violent statements as well. In fact I'm in favor of all evidenced based review of what draws a correlation and what doesn't. I'm not suggesting "follow all Muslims 100% because fuck them they are all terrorists!" I'm saying that I believe that people who vigorously support violent terrorism verbally are more likely than the average duck to actually do violent terrorism and that homeland security/relevant local police should look into the matter.
Actually there is. You can't get records on private travel except by voluntary cooperation or a court order. A taxi company, bus line, or airline are entirely within their rights to tell inquiring law enforcement to take a hike unless they have a court order for a specific person's records with their company (they generally don't do that, but they're within their rights to. That information ISN'T public). Ditto for the hosts of public internet posts. Wraith could refuse to divulge information he might have about our real identities, and the company hosting the domain here or the ISP servicing them are also free to refuse (though Wraith is the only one who probably would). There are no government databases for such a mass of data (not even the NSA tries to track public travel) nor should we or you want there to be.
Lewk, the sort of information you think actually gets tracked doesn't. If law enforcement (or private investigators) want to put that sort of data together, they have to painstakingly collect and collate it first. Which means they kinda want and need a reason to do so. Want one because they tend to already have more cases than there is strictly time to successfully investigate, and need because they need to persuade either a judge or the people actually holding the information to let them have it for every single piece of data they collect.
And yes, people who vigorously support violent terrorism are more likely than the average duck to actually engage in it. But not by enough of a margin to justify what you're asking, particularly if we ignore those two changed goal posts of yours (one, that you were only talking about people who vigorously support it rather than who express any support of it whatsoever, no matter how tepid or one-time it is, and two, that suddenly jihad only means terrorism when it actually covers much MUCH more material than just "Islamic terrorism")
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.wptv.com/news/region-st-l...fs-office-says
I see cases like this at least once a week. At what point do we start additional policing in white neighborhoods, Lewk?
Hope is the denial of reality
I for one would welcome them.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/father-al...212508572.html
White men still responsible for far more violence than Muslims in this country. At which point will we get a travel ban against them?
Hope is the denial of reality
The comparison would be white immigrants and it would need to be based on % before we would even consider something like that and it would then need to be determined more by national origin than by skin color (which is behavior-less).
There's substantial evidence that immigrants commit less crime than citizens...
Last edited by Loki; 03-14-2017 at 12:14 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well duh they are no longer illegal.
While I'm making a joke - keep in mind that it is true. Plenty of people do illegal activity because they operate in the gray economy due to their status.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote