Sam Harris has recently taken it upon himself to write a speech for Hillary to give, apparently to reassure the neo-cons that she will be sufficiently aggressive in the Middle East to satisfy their blood-thirst. I already think Clinton is too militaristic, so adding Harris’s odious ideas to the mix would make her even more right wing than I can stand. Perhaps David Duke will next write a speech for her on appropriate race relations?
Iris has edited and made additions to his speech to make it a little more humane and sensible (hey, if he is arrogant enough to tell Hillary Clinton what to say, turnabout is fair play). All of her changes and additions are in blue.
It sure takes a lot of blue ink to make Harris palatable. How about if we skip the middle man and make Iris Clinton’s official speechwriter?
Y’all might want to read Sincere Kirabo’s take on Harris’s racism podcast. Are you surprised that Harris made himself look worse?
Harris only regards overt forms of racism as indication of “true” racism. This is why he demarcates racism in such a way (27:04-27:14) that categorizes racists as being “a tiny minority in our society at this point” and the remaining white population as “people of goodwill, and people of moral enlightenment.” He continued to prop up this belief by alleging whites who voted for Obama (27:32) have “cancelled their personal racism” and by using terms (27:38; 30:40) like “real racist.”
Of course this kind of rhetoric is music to the ears of all those who firmly believe intent trumps the presence of attitudes and behaviors ingrained through exposure to our cultural environment. Harris treats the widespread nature of implicit racism as innocuous and demands we reserve the label of “racist” for card-carrying Klansmen, though many of them would also deny being racist. Because, somehow, the adverse influence of racism that effects employment, housing, education, legislation, racial profiling, and mass incarceration are rendered null and void because many who are complicit with or involved in these processes are well-meaning.
Out of context, aaaarghlglwarghl!
and
are both asinine things to say for politicians who are outside of the Muslim experience. Both of them are half-truths at best, don’t offer any real insight or solutions to any real world problem, and are unactionable statements in general.
And Sam Harris’s weirdly disproportionate attention to Islam has become just plain creepy at this point.
What a condescending fuck.
Where is the call for Americans to oppose the idea of bombing brown people? How many Americans approve of or even yearn for bombing Muslims? And where is the call for Americans to oppose the continued eradication attempts of Indians?
Harris has a basic case of violence done by darker skinned people is somehow in a different category of evil.
But… but…
What a thinky rational skeptic! Thought-lead me, Sam!
At the moment I cannot recall where or who (hence the lack of a link), but recently (last week or so) I read an opinion piece on the current seeming-trend for unsoliciated advice to Secretary Clinton’s campaign to (paraphrasing) “move
rightwardswingnutwards” to attract the thugs allegedly not supporting teh trum-prat. What it basically boiled down to was pointing out — with added snark — the advice amounted to adopting / spouting / believing multiple thug claims which have not or cannot work: “Do X (which hasn’t worked) because that’s what’s wanted (despite patently not working)”.Anyways, this Sam-the-bigot-Harris nonsense seems to be more mold from that mould.
(The more I try to recall, it seems it may have been Paul Klugman (in the dead-tree edition of the International New York Times), but I cannot now find the article…)
It is stunning how completely and utterly blinkered you and your ilk are. The notion that special attention to Islam at this moment in history is somehow WRONG or that the tenets of a religion can AND DO lead to actions (in this case violent and non-violent jihad) is so blindingly obvious that only complete ignorami and ideologically blinded idjits like you guys could believe it. Why don’t you read Dabiq, the actual ISIS magazine of which the most recent edition has an article titled “Why we hate you and why we fight you.” It spells it out clearly and even MOCKS the likes of you for continually denying the clear and obvious RELIGIOUS motivation of their actions. No, instead you make completely vacuous arguments and try to demonstrate that IN THE UNITED STATES more people suffer at the hands of Christian terrorism than Islamic terrorism. Congratulations, you’ve just made an argument as stupid as any creationist. You ignore the giant mountain of evidence over in the middle east and now spreading into Europe because it is rather inconvenient to your claim and instead focus on a completely unrepresentative sample because it conveniently DOES support your presupposition and absolutely insane ideological narrative.
Of course, I have no illusions PZ or anyone here will actually change their minds on this topic: the noises continually made here are of deep ideological belief rather than skeptical scientific inquiry. Y’all are just better at making it SOUND like rational scientific inquiry than most nutjobs. I’d love to see how your ilk will take that article in Dabiq and try and spin it so that it really ISN’T the religion motivating their actions despite the fact that they’ve spent many thousands of words (which are better written than most of the drivel here) saying unequivocally that their motivation IS religious complete with references to the Qu’uran and Hadith and even the Bible! Is there ANYTHING that can convince the likes of y’all that it is in fact Islam that is the root motivation here? Is the argument you truly believe that ANY religious group under the same sorts of existential pressures and oppressive foreign policy would act in this way? Are you REALLY trying to say that if we snapped our fingers and changed all the world’s Muslims into equally devout Jains, leaving everything else exactly the same, that there would be another Jain version of ISIS acting in exactly the same way? Because if you can really believe that and argue that with a straight face then everything truly is lost.
The kind of motivated and soft-headed reasoning being employed by PZ and the others here is not just profoundly unhelpful but will unfortunately place you on the wrong side of history and the fact that such completely vapid and obviously wrong ideas are being adopted at large by the regressive left is quite literally going to be the cause of many thousands (and probably even hundreds of thousands) of unnecessary deaths. It’s really quite disgusting to watch the so-called liberal left descend into this insane tribalistic and authoritarian thinking. I hope that this won’t lead to the world being torn asunder, but my hopes aren’t high.
You know, this blog has definitely gone south and it has taken me too long to realize it. I’ve been coming here for a long time, PZ, because I enjoy your brand of no-nonsense realism and humor. But it is becoming more and more difficult to find actual ideas in these pages, ideas that advance the cause of atheism and humanism. When you disagree with someone – an actual person, not the grumpy man caricature that represents Sam Harris and everyone else you disagree with (I have *always* found that quoting cartoon more disrespectful than funny) – you should at the very least provide a link to their original words. Iris’ takedown is completely idiotic, a total waste of my time – she is of course not even trying to interact with the ideas of Harris’ piece (and neither are you) – she is just expressing a prior grudge she holds towards its author. I really do get the feeling from the way you presented the piece (more humane and sensible?) that you didn’t read either one.
For those who prefer to read without the constant interruptions of an angry person telling you what to think, here it is:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/what-hillary-clinton-should-say-about-islam-and-the-war-on-terror
Saad #2
True, and I would add, where is the call for Americans to “oppose the specific ideas” within its Christian traditions that inspire colonialism, imperialism, militarism, racism, and general bigotry. I certainly don’t hear it from any politicians, but I also don’t hear from Harris and similar thunk-leaders.
I completely agree with you Camilo. I used to read Pharyngula regularly and still feel that my own feminism (not this ridiculous 3rd wave Anita Sarkeesian bullshit) was largely informed by PZ and others. I still find his occasional posts on actual biology worth reading. But quite literally everything else has plummeted to this abyss of ideologically motivated reasoning and completely vacuous thought based, as best as I can tell, on a deep self loathing of “white heterosexual privilege.” If you are brown, you MUST be better than any white person. And if you aren’t brown then you simply can’t speak with any authority on “brown matters.” And if you are white, particularly of the male cis-gendered heterosexual type, then you must self-flagellate endlessly for the historical and (supposed) ongoing subjugation of the brown folk. If you say something that doesn’t tow the party line, then you are persona non grata and everything you say is tainted. It is, in fact, a stunning example of racism, bigotry, and suppression of free speech that is only matched by the lack of self awareness of PZ and others when they promulgate it.
I also found Iris’ takedown completely moronic. So much so that it literally hurt my brain to read it and by halfway through I was literally yelling out loud that I couldn’t believe that ANYONE with two brain cells to rub together could POSSIBLY believe this ridiculous piffle. And of course PZ doesn’t link to the original work – that would require too much intellectual honesty and violate the tribal mentality he has formed where once someone is shunned they should never be addressed directly, but merely filtered through other like-minded folks in the echo chamber. Because the one thing that this group of people dislike even more than Sam Harris is any sort of dissenting thought. In fact, I’m surprised your comment made it through and will see if my two will or not.
camilo #5
Iris provided that link in the first paragraph of her post.
Did you read it?
Anyway, thank you for sharing, have a nice day.
OT, but I’m seeing a banner ad for The Atheist Delusion, which is pretty funny.
A Harris fanboi? Engage hushfile.
How much would we need to pay Clinton to say that? Maybe we can do a kickstarter.
camilo@#5:
But it is becoming more and more difficult to find actual ideas in these pages, ideas that advance the cause of atheism and humanism.
Making fun of Harris does advance the cause of humanism. Probably atheism, too.
camilo,
You do realize that Iris provides numerous links to back up her assertions, right? i.e., evidence, something which is noticeably lacking in Harris’s work.
Oh, poor camilo @5 had their widdle fee-fees hurt because their All-Knowing and Beatific and Perfect and Wondrous Hero, The Great and Wise Sam Harris, was not sufficiently worshiped and praised and ass-kissed. That camilo’s All-Knowing and Beatific and Perfect and Wondrous Hero was not sufficiently worshiped and praised and ass-kissed relentlessly by someone who thinks independent thoughts must really destroy their ego. Poor, poor camilo.
Meanwhile: Why should PZ give a buffoon like Harris any more mouse-clicks? Anyone who feels compelled to read His drivel should, while having very little good sense, at least have enough technical ability to find His words on their own. Or is that asking too much from His hero worshipers?
I kept on reading Harris’s piece….
This is just racism. I don’t think he even has an idea how that sounds. Who is this “our” whose values these American Muslims are committed to? He means white people, right? When white people commit to those values, they’re their values. When American Muslims commit to those values, they’re supporting white people’s values.
I think it’s very telling that Harris doesn’t present any suggestions on what to do. He says things like Muslims should speak out against the bad values of Islam and non-Muslims must work with Muslims to oppose these ideas. What does that mean? What would that look like when put into practice? What he wants American Muslims to be doing is already happening.
*Yawn*. It’s not even interesting Sam Harris. It’s boring same-old Sam Harris.
Political correctness run amok! Yes, that dastardly political correctness that dares to suggest that we treat peaceful muslims, who make up the majority of victims of radical Islam, differently from Islamic terrorists. That dreaded political correctness, that dares to suggest that treating all muslims as potential terrorists is irrationally bigoted and counterproductive to the goal of peace and stability.
Islam is uniquely dangerous! Yes, unique. As long as you don’t count Christianity, which several decades back was leveraged to justify the wholesale slaughter of millions in Europe, and even today breeds witch hunters and abortion clinic bombers, and spreads dangerous and deadly ideas about science, sexuality, and gender all over the world. As long as you don’t count American exceptionalism, that breeds an unfounded attitude of moral and intellectual superiority that has led to our meddling in the politics and conflicts of countries the world over, often to dangerous and deadly results. As long as you don’t count any of the countless other forms of tribalism that are at the root of most deadly international conflicts throughout history and throughout the world today, of which radical Islam is just one manifestation and currently the one in the international spotlight.
Wake me up when Sammy boy comes up with something newly and interestingly asinine. The old stuff just doesn’t do it for me anymore.
Oh dear. It seems your clipboard didn’t catch the ctrl-C. You accidentally pasted the link to the angry person telling me what to think.
Wow. A Harris fan accusing others of having no ideas.
I wonder how thick the filters are his perception goes through before it reaches his brains.
Too bad I’m immune to this kind of irony, otherwise I’d laugh.
Soooo, any day now we’re going to see American cops mimicking their french colleagues and order veiled women to undress at gunpoint in order to protect “Enlightened Western Values“?
It would be a good start if the US police forces were committed to your values.
Hm, perhaps I should clarify “your values” but likely most of us will understand what I mean.
So, in other words, given the whiteness of the ISIS sympathizer who was shot by the police recently in Ontario we should profile everybody. Should I be profiled because I don’t drink alcohol?
@4 blf:
While I certainly wouldn’t offer Clinton this advice, I do see the wisdom (from her perspective) of moving to the right. Trump has been rather a polarizing figure among the Republicans; many of their big names are preparing to jump ship. If Clinton moves farther to the right, she can win the votes of those uncertain Republicans who can’t bring themselves to support Trump— and even a handful of those votes would basically guarantee her the White House.
#21 militantagnostic
First off, yes, anyone who doesn’t drink beer should definitely be profiled. And second, is that really a quote from Harris, and if so from where?
me@4, Found it! No Right Turn (and it is by Paul Krugman, but was about three weeks ago). A short excerpt:
The thugs are in a mess of their own making; The thugs’s policies are mostly idiotic, don’t work, or cannot work; Thugs lie and there is no good reason to believe they would really support a putative President Ms Clinton; and her “coalition of the sane” is rather fragile, held together mostly by total loathing of teh trum-prat. It seems rather likely to break-up post-election (win or not). Deliberately altering course and steering for the rocks as a salute to lying thugs abandoning the other ship to save their gravy-train will increase problems post-election (teh trum-prat loathing is so strong it will presumably hold together until the election).
# 23 John Harshman
You bet it is …
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling
Hahaha. It’s adorable camilo thinks I’m angry.
In Defense of Profiling (April-2013).
me@27: Ooops, April-2012 (my offering to Tpyos relation, FaatFiinngers).
@27 blf:
But that quote is out of context!
It doesn’t matter that you linked to the context— it makes Sam Harris look bad, and anything that makes The All-Knowing Perfect Harris look bad is “out of context” by definition. In fact, “out of context” is to Harrisites as “ungodly” or “blasphemous” is to Christians— an all-purpose “I win the argument no matter what” button.
Someone needs to tell Harris that Hillary doesn’t need his advice to get neocons on her side — they’re already on her side, both because they know she’s saner than Trump, and because they know the Republicans have already disowned them because their policies have failed. Clinton is their only hope of staying employed and relevant, so they’re with her (or at least trying to suck up to her) regardless of what she says about Islam.
Also, someone need to remind Harris that he’s already endorsed Clinton himself, and admitted that Trump is too clueless, incompetent and bigoted to handle the Presidency. Is he now walking back his endorsement and threatening to supporti someone he’s already (correctly) called a dangerously unqualified idiot?
Well, that’s appalling. And he added a bit later with further justifications.
But I’m still going with the beer profiling, especially if you are also deaf in one ear, have trouble balancing, and have developed a strong interest in the Cars.
We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim
Neck-bearded hipsters, up against the wall!
There’s never a shortage of inexperienced white men around to tell a succesful woman how she should be doing her job.
I have a bottle of cidre (the proper kind) cooling in the ‘fridge, an unruly beard (the sideways hedgehog kind), and know a certain penguin (a one of a kind) — do I qualify?
Flounce off then Camillo. Honestly, why would I bother reading Harris’s blog? It’ll be the same old Islamaphobic, generalized bullshit watered down with insincere qualifiers.
It would look like normal people and [the good] Muslims flying side-by-side to bomb the living fuck out of [the bad] Muslim villages and wedding parties.
Sam Harris and I will just have to agree to disagree about what words mean and what reality is.
And I hope he didn’t pay very much for this lame sophistry. It’s definitely four- or fifth-rate. Like something a Trump supporter would try to use before leaving your Facebook page forever after a comprehensive takedown.
Hey, who do we write to if we want to get Sam Harris’s new definition of “racism” into the Political Correctness Dictionary?
It means that he’s been purposely ignoring the thousands upon thousand of Muslims decrying the terrorism done in the name of their religion.
Is there a script people work from when announcing a flounce?
Step one: Announce how this blog that the commenter has never or rarely commented on used to be good, even if the post in question isn’t a departure from anything posted there in years.
Step two: Complain about groupthink or how everyone just doesn’t understand your or your hero’s genius.
Step three: Freeform arguments that should cast doubt on the idea that you even bothered to read the article.
Step four: Declare that you or your hero is right, and then briefly depart.
Step five (optional, but highly recommended): Fail to remain flounced even for the one thread you announced your departure in.
What camilo did was not a flounce.
It was a drive-by.
Harris is just an intellectual nobody, the atheist Glenn Beck.
chigau,
I like to think of it as a drive-by flounce. Like a stranger hammering on your door at 3am, to announce that they’re not your friend any more, and you’ll be sorry you were so mean to them.
@nelliebly #33
Haha, so much this.
@chigau #41
Yeah, I doubt we’ll see him again.
That relies on the unstated premise that such a move would not lose her as many or more votes as it would gain – to Stein, or to non-voting. Do you have any evidence for that premise?
KG: If Clinton moves right and wins a Trump voter, and at the same time loses a Stein voter, she’s still ahead: Trump lost a voter, and she has the same number of voters. Stein isn’t going to win, so the number of votes she gets is not relevant to Clinton.
I suspect the gambit of moving right is as much about forcing Trump to take ever more extreme positions. He has to distinguish himself from her; if she says she’s going to negotiate a political settlement in Syria, he says he’s going to bomb the crap out of them, and lots of people say “well that’s worked well so far, so let’s do it”. If she says she’s going to bomb the crap out of Syria, Trump now has to argue for nuking the fuck out of Syria.
By making Trump even more extreme than he already is, the hope would be that he loses voters, and Clinton gains strategic voters who don’t necessarily care about her.
It’s a dangerous gambit because of course it legitimizes the alt-right.
Basically, far as I can tell, this election has become a referendum on Trumpism.
True (to a first approximation), but if she loses 2.01 voters to Stein or non-voting for every Trump voter she gains, she loses overall. But that’s just if we’re interested in who wins the popular vote – which isn’t worth a pitcher of warm piss, as LBJ said of the Vice-Presidency*, and as Al Gore discovered in 2000. The effect on the electoral college vote is much harder to calculate – it would all depend on where votes are won and lost.
I don’t know that Clinton is moving right. (I don’t know she’s not, either – I’m open to considering evidence for and against.) Paul Krugman, in the article blf linked to @24, says:
*Generally but falsely reported as “warm spit”.
“When I speak of profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim,” I am not narrowly focused on people with dark skin. In fact, I included myself in the description of the type of person I think should be profiled (twice).” – Sam Harris
I think that Harris’ main point is that little old ladies aren’t likely to be suicide bombers (and vice versa), and we should proportion our limited security resources with this in mind.
It’s sort of analogous to college classes on sexual consent which “teach men not to rape.” These classes profile men. That’s because, although most men are not rapists, the vast majority of rapists are men. It doesn’t make sense to spend an equal amount of time “teaching women not to rape.”
And if it’s acceptable to profile people based on gender, it should also be acceptable to profile people based on religion, right?
Gee, they would be if they weren’t searched too. Any security person will tell you that.
Nope, there is no reason to profile based on religion. In the USA, the religion profiled should be Xians. They are the major domestic terrorists. Which SH would know if he bothered with that pesky reality, rather than just thinking in paranoid fashion about the problem without reference to reality. He simply can’t see anything other than Muslims doing terrorism.
“Gee, they would be if they weren’t searched too.”
A few things. I don’t think Harris is recommending that little old ladies get to skip security altogether. Rather he’s saying that it doesn’t make sense to single them out as if they’re just as likely to commit a terrorist act. Terrorism doesn’t have a huge representative population sample of willing participants to which to draw their talent from. They’re almost always exclusively younger males for a reason. And these people are also committing terrorist acts for personal reasons. They want to be martyrs. They won’t stop being the majority of perpetrators (and thus the group that should be profiled) because security goes softer on old ladies.
“Nope, there is no reason to profile based on religion.”
“In the USA, the religion profiled should be Xians.”
Lol.
And no, Christians are not the major domestic terrorists. That’s ridiculous. I’m willing to bet that Omar Mateen by himself killed more people than Christian-motivated terrorists have killed in the last 30 years.
Nah. Harris wants ethnic profiling. The reality is that is has moved the goalposts repeatedly in regards to his views on profiling.
Jessie Foster:
That’s only a reasonable interpretation if you imagine there are no little old ladies who meet Harris’ criterion of being “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim”.
Since I doubt you actually imagine that, it follows that I think you’re bullshitting.
Assertion without evidence, dismissed as fuckwittery. My wife’s wheelchair with its tubular construction could hold a lot of explosives. Which is why everybody must be searched, or nobody should be searched.
Evidence you and Harris are full of shit.
Link
Most Sovereign Citizens are Xians.
That makes two pieces of evidence I showed you. Unless you link to third party evidence, your claims will be dismissed as paranoid fuckwittery.
Barring the near-impossibility of screening based on religion with any degree of efficacy (What are you going to do, just ask them? What about people that lie? What about non-observant muslims who don’t wear religious garb? What about the huge amount of Chinese and Indonesian muslims?), I don’t think numbers killed in terrorist attacks is a good metric for the relative danger of one group compared to others.
If you hand a christian terrorist a gun and a muslim terrorist a gun, and they both shoot at a crowd of the same size, they’ll probably kill a varying amount of people. If the muslim hypothetically kills more people, it’s not like he magically landed more shots due to being muslim – there’s hundreds of different factors that could affect the final death toll of any particular terrorist attack.
I don’t think there’s really any one factor you could point to in order to declare one group a more pertinent terrorist threat, but I would absolutely rate frequency of attempted attacks ahead of the efficacy of individual attacks as a metric.
Also, McVeigh was a Catholic and did his bombings in response to the Federal government’s dealing with the Branch Davidians and Christian identity movement. He killed 168 in his bombing in 1995, so I think 168 is more than 50. I might be wrong though.
Does anyone have the link to that expert on airport security screening who Harris ended up debating picking Harris’ whole profiling argument to pieces on hand for Jessie Foster? I’m not sure I have it.
Jessie Foster wrote:
What they lack in bodycount, they more than make up with volume: The NAF reports that there have been over 100 acid attacks, 101 incidents of arson or bombings, 14 murders, and 654 Anthrax hoax letters sent since 1993. And that’s just the anti-abortion violence. There’s also been plenty of religiously-based anti-LGBT, anti-government or white supremacist violence during that period.
Athywren, do you refer to https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2012/05/to_profile_or_not_to.html ?
My quote: “Rather he’s saying that it doesn’t make sense to single them out as if they’re just as likely to commit a terrorist act.”
Your response: “Assertion without evidence, dismissed as fuckwittery.”
..What? I think you’ve misread something. There’s two assertions in my quote. The first is that Sam Harris thinks that little old ladies shouldn’t be singled out by security. This is the entire point of the article he wrote on profiling, and it doesn’t make any sense to dispute this. Just look at the FIRST PICTURE on the article.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling
Proceeding under the belief that you’re a semi-rational human being, you must be disputing the second, more implicit assertion in my quote: that little old ladies are much less likely to commit terrorist acts.
Do you hold the belief that, among terrorists, old ladies are as equally represented (relative to population demographics) as young Muslim men?
“Most Sovereign Citizens are Xians.”
And most of them have two ears, two eyes, one nose, and one mouth as well. People with faces are clearly the main terrorist threat.
Correlation does not imply causation.
When you talk about terrorism, you talk about the ideology that motivates the terrorism. Sovereign citizens aren’t motivated by Christianity, so that becomes an irrelevant fact when bringing them up.
“Unless you link to third party evidence”
k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Keep in mind that we’re just talking about the U.S. here. Muslims are less than 1% of the population. It is indisputable that the greatest global terrorist threat is Islamic terrorism.
Athywren – not the moon you’re looking for@55
Is this it? Harris posted the link at the bottom of his first article.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-trouble-with-profiling
Also, I wanted to address this but missed it:
Jessie Foster wrote:
Why wouldn’t it make sense? The concept of consent doesn’t begin and end at sex. Most human interactions require it in varying degrees. Ignoring the wishes of others and imposing yourself upon them forms the foundation of a great deal of intimidation, bullying and harassment. Women are just as capable at these as men are.
@Vivec
Efficacy often reflects intent though. Christian terrorists are rarely looking to arbitrarily kill as many people as possible, so their attacks are typically of a much smaller scale, and therefore represent less of a threat.
Ah, so we’re doing ~no true terrorist~?
When a christian terrorist commits an attack, its absolutely not influenced by christianity (which is bullshit in the case of sovereign citizens, many of whom dislike the government specifically because it’s not a christian theocracy), but when a muslim commits a terrorist attack it was absolutely instigated by their religion (and, of course, not our own decades of international terrorism against their countries)?
@ck, the Irate Lump
For the purposes of my analogy, I was talking just in the context of rape and sexual assault.
If so, it does very, very poorly.
A christian terrorist could set up multiple propane bombs, with the potential to kill dozens and fail to detonate any, losing to a muslim terrorist that kills two people with an axe.
@Vivec
I assume the motivation of a terrorist mostly by what the terrorist says his/her motivation is.
Vivec wrote:
He was raised Catholic, but there is some doubt if he considered himself Catholic at the time of the bombing. Before his execution, he wrote that he considered himself agnostic. He seemed more influenced by the racist shit-novel The Turner Diaries and other right-wing anti-government propaganda than anything else.
It’s always hard to pin a religion on domestic terrorists because the media doesn’t like to talk about it, the cops don’t like to talk about it, and the politicians don’t like to talk about it. Unless the terrorist announces their motivation before committing their attack, it may never make it to the news in favor of talking about how or how they were or other such nonsense.
@Vivec
Most Christian terrorism targets abortion clinics and abortion doctors.
Most Islamic terrorism targets large groups of people.
The latter is going to inherently produce more casualties.
Then you’re ignoring important data in order to justify treating a proximate cause as an ultimate cause.
For example, the social factors that could push a young muslim person into accepting a particularly violent sect of Islam (that just coincidentally happens to target the countries that have been destroying his country for decades).
Right, but I think the frequency of attacks is a far better metric for the danger a group poses than kill count.
One 9/11 ever is a much smaller threat, in my opinion, than hundreds of radical christians killing doctors and road cops for decades.
Sam Harris is not EVIDENCE. He is paranoid opinion. You mentioned him twice, taking away each time from what one piece of evidence you present. You are zero (minus one actually) on evidence,
Now, who am I, a scientist, going to believe? Experts in the field, or a lay persons like you and SH? The EXPERTS win every time.
Which is YOUR problem, not mine. Either evidence up, and acknowledge Xians are a problem in the US, or your acknowledge your Islamophobic problem.
@Vivec
“For example, the social factors that could push a young muslim person into accepting a particularly violent sect of Islam (that just coincidentally happens to target the countries that have been destroying his country for decades).”
The social factors which push someone into accepting Radical Islam are obviously going to vary greatly depending on the situation. You have terrorists who have been victimized by the West and you have terrorists who have enjoyed the benefits of living in the West.
It’s also important to note that the people who have been targeted most and have suffered the most from Islamic terrorism are other Muslims.
@Nerd
“Sam Harris is not EVIDENCE. He is paranoid opinion.”
Lol. He is when you’re evidencing your reference of his opinion. I said Sam Harris was making a certain point. If I have to back up the claim that Sam Harris was making that point, the BEST SOURCE OF EVIDENCE is his own words.
@Vivec
“Right, but I think the frequency of attacks is a far better metric for the danger a group poses than kill count.”
Means, ideology, frequency, and kill count all matter. You can’t just look at one if you’re determining the threat of a terrorist group.
Right, but many of those terrorist groups sprung up directly in response to western terrorism and imperialism.
Uh, yes? I literally said that @54. My argument is that, compared to the other three, kill count is probably the shittiest predictor.
Right, but how many people in that latter group have friends, families, or countries of origin suffering from western imperialism and terrorism? You don’t have to directly suffer from US terrorism to have a bone to pick with them.
Evidenceless point, dismissed as fuckwittery.
Sam Harris drools, evidence rules. Get with the program. If SH has third party evidence, bring the link here. SH is a fuckwitted Islamophobe to be dismissed upon inspection and lack of third party evidence….
@Nerd
You’re either trolling me right now, or you’re incapable of understanding the words I am typing. Either reason is good enough to stop responding to you. If you want to continue, demonstrate some rudimentary reading comprehension and articulate, in your own words, what I meant in my previous response to you.
Until then, bye.
@Vivec
“Right, but many of those terrorist groups sprung up directly in response to western terrorism and imperialism.”
And when they blow up fellow Muslims in their own country the motivation is obviously religious. It may be that the West has helped facilitate the conditions which gave rise to them, but they clearly aren’t fighting a purely political battle against the West when they do so.
“My argument is that, compared to the other three, kill count is probably the shittiest predictor.”
Christian anti-abortion terrorists have killed 8 people in the last 20 years. To be clear, you consider this to represent a greater threat than the Muslim terrorists who killed 3000 people in 2001?
“Right, but how many people in that latter group have friends, families, or countries of origin suffering from western imperialism and terrorism?”
I don’t know. Omar Mateen was probably motivated more by religious guilt over his sexuality than he was by anti-west animus.
I disagree with that as well. Killing dissenters to prop up your own group is pretty stock standard political maneuvering. “My way or the sword” has never been a purely religious animus.
I don’t accept that Christian anti-abortion terrorists are the sum total of domestic Christian terrorism, nor do I consider a lucky one-off plane highjacking proof of an ongoing existential threat.
And, as mentioned above, I think that one-off high-casualty events are a far lesser problem than continuous low-casualty events.
Sure, probably. But I simply don’t believe the majority of people fighting for a terrorist group founded in response to both US intervention and a previous terrorist group founded in response to US intervention always have purely religious reasons for joining up.
We’re also so far beyond the topic at hand it’s not even funny. Increased airport screening targeting a socially disadvantaged group in a way that can’t possibly be effective would not have prevented Omar Mateen from doing what he did.
@Vivec
“I disagree with that as well. Killing dissenters to prop up your own group is pretty stock standard political maneuvering. “My way or the sword” has never been a purely religious animus.”
A behavior does not have to be unique to religion for it to be motivated by religion.
“I don’t accept that Christian anti-abortion terrorists are the sum total of domestic Christian terrorism”
Maybe if you add up the last 20 years of Christian terrorism against LGBT people the casualty figures will be comparable to what happened in Orlando. Probably not though. Are there any other sources besides this?
“I think that one-off high-casualty events are a far lesser problem than continuous low-casualty events.”
Muslim terrorist attacks in the U.S. haven’t been one-off events though. Fort Hood? Boston Marathon? San Bernardino? Chattanooga? Orlando?
“purely religious reasons for joining up.”
What reasons do they have to target France?
“Increased airport screening targeting a socially disadvantaged group in a way that can’t possibly be effective would not have prevented Omar Mateen from doing what he did.”
Well, duh. Omar Mateen shot up a nightclub, not an airport. Increased security at Taco Bell wouldn’t have stopped 9/11 either.
You’re really good at “true but trivial” facts. You’re the one asserting that an oppressive group – one that is both political and religious – killing people opposed to it must necessarily be doing such on purely religious grounds, which I don’t think is supported by the evidence.
For like the third time, I do not think kill counts are a particularly important metric. Quibbling over numbers is therefore irrelevant to my point.
Mass casualty events on the scale of 9/11 have been.
Even if I did think kill count was a meaningful metric, which I don’t, I’d consider occasional low-medium to high casualty events a lesser threat than continued, constant, frequent low-casualty events.
It’s a major western power that’s comparatively easy to get to? “Stop fucking with us or we’ll kill you wherever we’re able” is a pretty well established defensive tactic, especially when you’re a minor power.
Right, hence why he’s irrelevant to the topic of airport screening.
I’m not trolling you, I am exposing your evidenceless lies and bullshit. So I will continue to respond, as I will be showing the lurkers your and Sam Harris’ lack of honesty, integrity, and most of all EVIDENCE.
Now, where is your evidence that security experts think SH’s idea has merit and a methodology to follow through on.
Put up or shut the fuck up. As SH is unable to due, which shows he is lying and bullshitting.
@Vivec
They’re telling you why they’re doing it. That’s the entire point of terrorism. I just don’t see why we shouldn’t think that Islamic terror is motivated primarily by religion.
“Even if I did think kill count was a meaningful metric, which I don’t, I’d consider occasional low-medium to high casualty events a lesser threat than continued, constant, frequent low-casualty events.”
Here’s an extreme hypothetical. Which terrorist organization would you consider to be the greater threat?
A) Terrorist organization which has detonated two nuclear weapons in major metropolitan areas over a period of 10 years.
B) Terrorist organization which has assassinated 50 abortion doctors (all separate incidents) over a period of 10 years.
““Stop fucking with us or we’ll kill you wherever we’re able” is a pretty well established defensive tactic, especially when you’re a minor power.”
What is France doing and what has France done to Muslim countries to prompt this?
Because said islamic terror groups sprung up in response to Western terrorism and imperialism and feature the injustices committed by western powers very heavily in their documents.
Man, you Harrisites are really fond of inane hypotheticals involving nukes, aren’t you? I’m not any more willing to entertain yours than I am Harris’ hypothetical justification for torture.
Well, France is currently one of the countries actively fighting ISIS (They began their largest airstrikes less than a day after the Bataclan attack), but I’m going to assume you’re talking farther back.
First off, it’s largely irrelevant. Their message isn’t “fuck off specific countries that are attacking us”, their message is “fuck off western powers.” Attacking France is an attack of opportunity against a major power that sends a clear message to other western powers – if you mess with ISIS, we’ll strike you and your friends. It’s like killing a mob boss’ friend to send a message to him.
Secondly, France actually does feature heavily in ISIS propaganda, largely because of their spotty history with muslims – ranging from the current Burqa ban to the farther-back incidents like the colonization of Algeria.
I get that it’s attractive to boil down complex geopolitical issues down to simple trolley scenarios, but trust me, it doesn’t remotely reflect reality. It might fly in your local philosophy department, but the history and political science professors next door are definitely laughing at you.
“I’m not any more willing to entertain yours”
I didn’t think so. What, exactly, was inane about my hypothetical? You’ve repeatedly said that you’d consider a terrorist organization which commits frequent low-casualty attacks to be more of a threat than a terrorist organization which commits occasional high casualty attacks. I gave you a hypothetical of a terrorist organization which commits frequent low-casualty attacks compared with a terrorist organization which commits occasional high casualty attacks. It should have been a pretty easy choice for you.
“if you mess with ISIS, we’ll strike you and your friends.”
I’d recommend this article. It’s pretty long, but it’s definitely worth a read.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Because I live in the real world, and your hypothetical doesn’t remotely map to the real world. First off, you’re generalizing from a specific situation – the multiple centuries of low-casualty christian terrorism vs the very few high-casualty events within three decades – to an inane simplistic scenario that doesn’t convey a fraction of the actual complexity or context.
Your hypothetical is no more pertinent to the real world than asking whether I am more afraid of Klingons or Romulans.
Also, nah, we kinda all dissected that article when it was new. Long story short: it’s a highly controversial interpretation of the ISIS situation and isn’t remotely the gotcha you Harrisites treat it like.
In fact, pretty much this entire conversation is just repeating what was already said in earlier comment threads.
Feel free to read the myriad of responses to the same tired Harrisite islamiphobic drivel, because I’m done re-writing what I and others wrote months ago.
@Vivec
I was actually being generous to your position.
Because, even if I were to accept that the frequency of terror attacks always matters more than kill count (obviously absurd), Christian terror attacks are still less frequent than Muslim terror attacks in the U.S. This is despite the fact that Muslims are less than 1% of the population and Christians are 70%.
“the multiple centuries”
Lol. And, uh, if you go back a couple million years you’ll find that the early hominids who eventually became Christians were much more violent than the early hominids who eventually became Muslims. We have to include this in our analysis of the threat that extremists of each group pose in 2016.
@Vivec
I could only find two blog posts about the article. Both seems pretty positive.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/anjuli/2016/03/15/what-isis-we-really-want-a-response-to-graeme-wood/
“The March 2015 issue of The Altantic carried a brilliant piece by Graeme Wood entitled What ISIS really wants[1]. In it he offers a well-researched and well-reasoned exposition of that organisation and the ideology of its members and supporters, taking in both misconceptions entertained by Western policy-makers and illusions maintained by mainstream Muslims, through interviews with significant Western ISIS supporters and at least one major critic of Islam. It is hard to find fault with Wood’s many insights”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zingularity/2015/02/17/us-support-for-ground-war-ticks-up/#more-12849
“Graeme Wood at The Atlantic has posted a powerful, comprehensive introduction to ISIS which reviews the nascent movement’s recent history, stated goals, and current status. It is highly recommended for anyone with even casual interest, and especially to those concerned we may we well be in the middle of a real war here shortly.”
Only if you operate under a definition of terrorism that inherently includes every muslim perpetrator of a mass-casualty event and discounts christian ones unless the christian literally says “I am doing this literally only because of my religion”
Uh, no, but when we’re specifically talking about the US – a country founded by imperialism and sustained by atrocities and terrorism performed by Christians citing their religion as an excuse for those atrocities, followed by decade after decade of Christians murdering people for ostensibly religious reasons, while christian extremists get positions of political power and enforce their ostensibly christian policies – the historical and political context is relevant.
Christianity and Christian radicals are a much bigger threat to people in the US than terrorist organizations on the other side of the planet could ever hope to be.
You could try clicking that link in my post. The article is discussed in the comments. We’ve covered it in other comment threads too.
I’ll keep my opinions about anjuli’s blog to myself, but you can probably infer how a lot of us feel about their rhetoric.
The thing about the nukes…
Think about the only group that has ever murdered a large number of civilians with nukes. Treat all members of that group as terrorists who have repeatedly killed large numbers to get their way and who still do.
@Vivec
“Only if you operate under a definition of terrorism that inherently includes every muslim perpetrator of a mass-casualty event and discounts christian ones unless the christian literally says “I am doing this literally only because of my religion””
Well, no. If you’d like to name a mass-casualty event in the U.S. which was perpetrated by a Muslims but was not inspired by Islam, I’ll be happy to accept that that event was not an Islamic terrorist attack. I can’t actually think of any off the top of my head, but it must have happened, right?
It’s kinda odd that if a Muslim commits a terrorist act while screaming “Allahu Akbar” you’re very quick to deflect away from the obvious religious motivations, while simultaneously being very eager to assign Christianity as a motive in much less obvious cases.
“the historical and political context is relevant.”
Don’t forget about the crusades. That was, like, another bad thing Christians did.
“Christianity and Christian radicals are a much bigger threat to people in the US than terrorist organizations on the other side of the planet”
I agree with this actually. The political influence of Christians is currently more damaging to the US than Islamic terror is.
“The article is discussed in the comments.”
Saw like one guy say it was controversial. Not really a refutation and nothing even approaching the dissection I was promised.
Do I think that religion plays literally zero part in Islamic terrorism? Of course not. But I’m not going to ignore the complex sociopolitical reasons why someone would join up with a radical islamic terrorist group (that also serves as a political establishment and was founded in reaction to political situations). Writing it off as them just being particularly devout is both lazy and false.
In regards to the supposed “much less obvious” cases, what exactly do you call christian bigots murdering and terrorizing LGBT people in the name of their religion?
Why is it a terrorist attack when a muslim kills one person with a hatchet, but not a terrorist attack when a christian murders a gay person with their own weapon of choice?
Hey, if you think the context is irrelevant, go ahead. If I had to pick ~250 years of christian-led domestic genocides, terrorism, and low-casualty murders that show little sign of stopping, or like ~2000 dead in a single strike that will be significantly harder to pull off a second time, I’d probably consider the former a more significant threat.
If I considered death count a meaningful statistic, which I don’t.
@Vivec
“If I had to pick ~250 years of christian-led domestic genocides, terrorism, and low-casualty murders that show little sign of stopping, or like ~2000 dead in a single strike that will be significantly harder to pull off a second time, I’d probably consider the former a more significant threat.”
Huh. Me, I’m relatively unconcerned about the prospect of 250 year old dead Christians rising from their graves to resume their slaughter of Native Americans. Not what I would call a significant threat.
In regards to terrorism, I’m concerned mostly with what people are doing right now, or what they will probably do in the future.
“In regards to the supposed “much less obvious” cases, what exactly do you call christian bigots murdering and terrorizing LGBT people in the name of their religion?”
Terrorism. Care to list the number of incidents of Christians killing LGBT people in the name of Christianity?
@Vivec
I feel like this isn’t really going anywhere. You can have the last word if you’d like.
Thanks for the discussion, bye.
@John Morales, 57
Yes, thank you. Schneier. I knew he had a funny-sounding (to my english ears) voice, but I couldn’t quite place it.
@Jessie Foster, 59
Yes, and the one John Morales linked to – the ones that make it clear that the Harris approach to profiling puts us in greater danger, and that promoting his approach there is quite unwise, yes.
&95
Psssst! (I don’t think they mean only the ones from 250 years ago. And I’m frankly concerned about your intellectual honesty, as I see no reason why you would seriously think that either.)
Er, name, not voice. It’s early, and I’m only technically awake right now.
@Athywren
Same goes for you. I’ve wasted way too much time here. I concede all points about every subject ever. I need sleep now.
What? Vivec can have the last word, but I can’t? I’m offended now. :<
It’s Terrorism® only if a Muslim does it.
It’s a MajorThreatToWesternCivilization® only if a Muslim does it.
Yes, I’m not talking about zombies. I’m saying that christianity has been eating away at our country for centuries and caused far more misery than ISIS ever could here. Based on history, it’d be far better to profile white christian males.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States
Of course, you’re just going to “infer” a non-religious cause for every single one, because in your head a person has no religious inspiration to a murder unless they clearly and concisely say “I am literally only doing this for Jesus.”
TL;DR you’re a dishonest fuck and a true believer Harrisite, so fuck off.
chigau, #101
Best summary of all of Harris’ posts and talks on this topic ever.
Yes, dead on, and that speaks to their bigotry/Islamophobia/paranoia.
You Jessie Foster have a problem. I don’t have to share your problem, nor do I want to. Stand over in the corner and cover your head with a towel. If you can’t see them, they can’t see you.
The fact that security experts and the police see Xian Sovereign Citizens as a real problem simply cannot and will not be seen by JF and SH. But then, it doesn’t support their irrational fears and bigotry.
Native Americans aren’t worried about 250-year-old zombies. They’re worried about racists who shoot them now, and a government operating under the very much Christian-inspired doctrine of American Exceptionalism that violates their rights on a regular basis.
If a Muslim kills people in the name of Allah, it’s terrorism.
If a Christian kills people in the name of Jesus, it’s terrorism.
If there is no evidence to indicate the motives of a specific Muslim killer, I will not assume what his motivation may have been. I will not assume he was necessarily motivated by his religion.
If there is no evidence to indicate the motives of a specific Christian killer, I will not assume what his motivation may have been. I will not assume he was necessarily motivated by his religion.
It is possible for a Muslim to kill someone for reasons unrelated to their religion.
It is possible for a Christian to kill someone for reasons unrelated to their religion.
Hope this clears up everyone’s misconceptions.
Jessie Foster
Why is it terrorism only if it involves religion?
and
bless your heart
@chigau
It isn’t. My previous post was, surprisingly, not actually a complete analysis of every aspect of terrorism, religion, and religious terrorism and I apologize for any confusion over that fact.
Nope. Did it clear up yours? You haven’t shut the fuck up.
I’m more scared of Xian terrorists than Islamic terrorists for a simple reason. The Islamic terrorist are mostly over there, and the Xian terrorists are in my backyard. Think the Bungling Bundy Militias, pater and filius.
Also, show me, with evidence, how to absolutely identify a Muslim in a line-up of men in navy-blue slacks and a white shirt. I don’t think you, or SH, and do that.
This is what I mean by put up or shut up. Either Harris or you has a method, in which case Homeland Security might be interested, or he and you have nothing but irrational fears, and no way to implement and positive profiling that will actually make travel safer.
@Nerd
“Nope.”
Really? I don’t know how much more simple I can make it. Okay, let me try again.
Terrorism bad.
Muslim terrorist bad.
Christian terrorist bad.
Hope this helps. Read slowly if you’re having trouble, lol.
Jessie Foster, then what is the point of profiling any particular religion, when clearly anyone can be a terrorist?
@Lofty
What’s the point of college courses which “teach men not to rape?” Clearly women can also rape. We shouldn’t be profiling men.
Because as we all know, college courses on consent victimise innocent men, who are totally a socially disadvantaged group in the US.
Oh, wait, no, they’re almost entirely dissimilar scenarios and conflating them is yet another case of Harrisite gobbeldygook. What’s next, another trolley dilemma?
Jessie Foster
lol
What is wrong with you?
lol
@Vivec
They’re actually almost exactly the same scenarios. Because the people profiled by college consent classes are younger men. And Jihadists also tend to be…wait for it…younger men.
So we’re profiling the same people in each scenario!
And you’ve just said you don’t have a problem with profiling men. I guess we’re done here, huh?
@chigau
“What is wrong with you?”
I’m autistic. That doesn’t mean something is wrong with me, you ableist bigot. Check your fucking privilege.
Subjecting innocent members of a socially disadvantaged group to additional unnecessary invasive screening is not remotely the same as having men take a college course on consent.
You’re a dishonest fuck.
Autism doesn’t force you to co-sign bigoted policies, so even if this wasn’t a petty rhetorical jab, it’d be fucking off topic.
@Vivec
” innocent members of a socially disadvantaged group”
Are you saying young MEN are a socially disadvantaged group?
“You’re a dishonest fuck.”
Stop invalidating my experience, shitlord.
Read a discussion between Harris and Schneier on profiling, and I think Schneier brought up some good points. Harris is obviously a very smart guy, but he tends to think more conceptually rather than practically on some subjects. Introducing a layer of complexity to security through profiling would increase the chance for human error by poorly-trained TSA agents, decrease the efficiency of an already inefficient system, and possibly allow for new exploits by terrorists.
I think that profiling makes sense as a concept, but that, absent a highly skilled security force, it wouldn’t be useful in the real world.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile
Study on profiling:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
[meta]
Jessie Foster @116:
So, when asked what is wrong with you, you retort that you are autistic, then clarify that being autistic does not entail wrongness, and then respond as if chigau had claimed otherwise.
(What you are is muddled)
@John
I think you might be autistic too
@Jessie
Whereas you’re just a common or garden variety asshole.
Jessie Foster
Huh. Me, I’m very much concerned about the effects of 250 year old christian dominion doctrine currently being used to build a toxic crude tar sand pipeline through Indian land, jeopardizing the water supply of the Standing Rock Nation.
Using SJW Language™ to score points? Check!
Turning around to use the very word as an accusation of wrongness against a stranger on the web in an armchair diagnosis? Check!
Conclusion: weapons grade asshole.
Vivec
Just ask poor Brock Turner who can’t enjoy T-bone steaks anymore.
Jessy calling chiqau abeist for not saying anything ableist, waving around autistic membership card as a “get to say shitty things and get away with it” device, and then use autistic herself to demean someone else.
Anything still believing Jenny is arguing in good faith?
How about shutting the fuck up. You aren’t offering anything worthy of discussion. You think you’re smart, but it doesn’t show.
Example
HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO TO PROFILE? That is where SH’s fuckwittery falls apart, and yours does to.
Show us how to absolutely identify the Muslim in a group of men or women in the same clothes, like navy blue pants/skirts and white shirts/blouses. What is the conclusive identifier?
Either put up something, or the idea falls apart.
You have nothing, you know you have nothing, and only want to show your paranoia to the world.
Harris is suggesting we profile muslims, or even “anyone who could concievably be a muslim.” That includes more than just men.
Even if it was just muslim men, they are still a socially disadvantaged group compared to christian men, intersectionality and all.
Hell, even if it was just white christian men, it’d still be different than a consent class. Consent classes don’t involve invasive screening and searches.
Jessie Foster can’t grasp the concept that as soon as a profile is adopted by security forces, the terrorist organizations will find somebody not in that group to do the terrorists act. Which is why everybody must be subject to the same investigations. As any security expert will, and has told them. They just don’t grasp the idea. Nor do they listen to experts.
The smart non-expert showing up the experts is found in fiction, not in real life.
I think profiling and screening white men would be too costly and time consuming. We’ll have to find another way to prevent mass shootings.
Plus profiling white people would be a violation of their privacy and freedom.
@Nerd
“HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHO TO PROFILE?”
More a question of who you shouldn’t apply extra security attention to. An 80 year old Japanese woman is not a likely Jihadist and thus should not be subject to a random screening outside the typical security measures.
Assuming a highly trained security force, the optimal security method involves a mix of randomness and profiling, where secondary screening is still somewhat random across the population but still tends to focus on certain demographics.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
@Saad
“I think profiling and screening white men would be too costly and time consuming. We’ll have to find another way to prevent mass shootings.”
Well, that’s wrong also. Adjusting for population size, white people actually don’t actually commit a disproportionate amount of mass shootings.
Between 1982 and 2016, white people committed 58% of mass shootings.
Non-Hispanic white people make up about 62% of the population.
So, in your hypothetical, it wouldn’t make sense to target white people disproportionately. White people should be profiled and screened exactly relative to their population size (6 out of 10 of those screened should be white).
http://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
@Vivec
“Harris is suggesting we profile muslims, or even “anyone who could concievably be a muslim.” That includes more than just men.”
Since, outside of wearing religious garb, you can’t often detect someone’s belief system, you have to go with outward appearances. Which means focusing more on younger men, who are more likely to be Muslim terrorists than elderly women. Obviously there are women terrorists, but extra screenings should disproportionately target younger men.
Jessie Foster, #131
But white men won’t like that. They’d stand up for their right to privacy and freedom. And there are a lot of white men in America with guns so that would be a huge problem.
I just think white men shouldn’t be stopped and searched when they’re out and about minding their own business.
@Saad
“I just think white men shouldn’t be stopped and searched when they’re out and about minding their own business.”
Of course. No one should be. We don’t want to emulate Nazi Germany. Security is only appropriate if you’re trying to gain access to a vulnerable place like an airport.
My point was just that disproportionately profiling white people in order to prevent mass shootings doesn’t make sense, given that white people commit mass shootings at a rate almost directly proportionate to their population size.
I think we’re in agreement then. I like the idea of profiling Muslims. My father should be discriminated against based on his looks and name.
I just think when you do it to an innocent blond haired man named Marty, it becomes unconscionable.
We’re on the right side here.
@Saad
“blond haired man named Marty”
Islam isn’t a race. There are Muslims with blond hair.
Harris said nothing of the sort. He has said, time and again, to specificaly target muslims or anyone who looks like they could concievably be a muslim.
This additional interpretation is the standard sort of rationalization all true believers do to avoid the logical conclusion of their horrid beliefs.
Islam is disproportionately followed by people pf color.
Any policy that is targetted towards Islam will inherently victimize more people of color than white people.
Also, I think I just got islamiphobe harrisite bingo.
If we’re not going to take appearance into consideration, how do you propose we target people who “appear to be muslim or could conceivably be muslim”?
I’m not asking about your additional interpretation, just Harris’ own words. How do you identify the group specified in the quotes?
I presume people Sam Harris wants profiled emit magical beams which can only be detected by his acolytes.
@Vivec
“More specifically, I argue that we should anti-profile—paying less attention to people who, based on the totality of their characteristics, could not conceivably be jihadists. Once again, I would not put you or myself in this category, but many people one sees at the airport would fall into it.”
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile
“Could potentially be a muslim” and “could not conceivably be a jihadist” still encloses an incredibly massive group encompassing everyone but the exceptionally disabled, or the very young and very old.
@Vivec
Yes it does.
Methinks you’re pulling a Vizzini here. It’s not remotely “inconceivable” for an eldery japanese woman to be a jihadist. It’s unlikely, but that isn’t what inconceivable means.
So your solution is to specifically profile everyone but the very young, very old, or exceptionally disabled?
Because juat about every human being falls in the “could be a muslim” and “could concievably be a jihadist” group.
Profile only if the individual emits mysterious magical rays!
@Vivec
Yes, kind of. And like I said, I don’t think actually implementing this would be effective given the training level of TSA agents.
So Harris’ suggestion is both worthless and barely different from our current system of screening pretty much everyone?
And you continue to follow him?
Congrats, you really are a true believer.
@Vivec
I rarely agree with someone on every subject (I don’t think it’s ever happened). I think Harris is correct on some issues. I think he’s incorrect on other issues, like this one.
I don’t know what it means to “follow” him either.
So you spent this while thread dishonestly stanning for someone you don’t even agree with?
Okay, you’re not a Harrisite, you’re just a pro-profiling idiot that horrifically undervalues their own time.
Bye.
@Vivec
No, I don’t think you understand.
There’s a difference between debating the legitimacy of profiling as a concept, versus debating the practicality of it’s implementation in a certain situation.
So I agree with Harris that the problem is Islamic Jihadists, and you should thus be looking for people who fit that profile, but I disagree with how effectively the TSA would be able to do this.
“pro-profiling idiot”
So are you. You have no problem profiling men because the majority of rapists are men. And that’s a fair position to hold, depending on what the profiling actually entails.
It’s also neither “inconceivable” nor unheard of that people prep the luggage and equipment of other people, like elderly Japanese women…
Your unsupported (like Sam Harris’) opinion. Dismissed without evidence now, later, and forever.
Evidence is something you don’t/won’t understand. Philosophy isn’t evidence unless it is EXPERT opinion. SH and YOU aren’t experts until you SHOW your credentials. SH never has, nor have you. Therefore, you are dismissed on what you say about security.
An 80 year old woman may need some type of support, like cane, walker, or portable oxygen generator. All of which are potential hiding places for explosive devices, as any expert, but not naive dilettantes like you, knows.
The first is philosophical, and therefore dismissable as mental masturbation, while the other is evidence based and only changed by actual facts.
@Giliell
“It’s also neither “inconceivable” nor unheard of that people prep the luggage and equipment of other people, like elderly Japanese women…”
Good point. You always need a base level of security which applies to everyone.
@Nerd
Again, you don’t understand what I’m saying. Nearly everything you’ve written in this thread is either a bizarre non sequitur or a spectacular misunderstanding.
You really need to hone your critical reading skills. Turn down the emotion a little, read slowly, and then consider the intent of the author based not just on the words, but also the context in which they’re said.
And I understand that practicing is a key to improving, but I’d prefer if you didn’t practice on me. It’s frustrating to talk to someone who literally cannot understand you.
Good luck
Jessie Foster, #157
The anti-Muslim Bingo card begins.
You’re so behind on this stuff, it isn’t even funny.
Oh, so you are for stopping and searching all blond-haired men. How vile.
No fuckwit, you don’t understand what you are saying. You think pure philosophy trumps/refutes EVIDENCE. It doesn’t, ever. That where you go wrong.
There is a reason why science beats philosophy hands down every time. Empirical evidence. Without evidence, philosophy is mental masturbation. Feels good, but proves nothing.
Where fuck is your evidence that profiling isn’t discriminatory (i.e. darker than a brown paper bag) and actually works better than every X person? PUT UP OR SHUT THE FUCK UP. Welcome to science and freethinking, not mental masturbation.
I’ve been arguing this since the first time SH’s fuckwittery on this topic was presented by PZ. Evidence to back SH after years of infestation of his sycophants is ZERO. You come along and irrationally think you are presenting something new.
Nope, nothing new. Same old rehashed fuckwittery. So, what NEW do you bring, other than your motormouthing?
@Saad
“The anti-Muslim Bingo card begins.”
Err, so it’s anti-Muslim to say that Islam is a religion which anyone can adopt regardless of race?
Do you believe that only brown people are allowed to be Muslims?
@Nerd
“Where fuck is your evidence that profiling isn’t discriminatory (i.e. darker than a brown paper bag) and actually works better than every X person?”
This is the third time I’ve posted this. Like I said, your reading skills need A LOT of work.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
And since I already know you will get only as far as reading the title before flipping your shit, let me quote the study:
“A mathematically optimal strategy would be “square-root biased sampling,” the geometric mean between strong profiling and uniform sampling, with secondary screenings distributed broadly, although not uniformly, over the population.”
ta-da
Jessie Foster @160:
Obviously, a Muslim could be of any ethnicity.
Therefore, if one targets those who “could conceivably be Muslim”, no ethnicity is excluded.
Now, care to essay a similar examination of the implication with regard to age rather than ethnicity? ;)
(If you do, you will see why “little old ladies” are not excluded from the targeting, as I noted at #52)
@John
You’re going to be like the 5th person to argue that little old ladies aren’t very unlikely suicide bombers.
[meta]
Jessie, you can’t escape the logic, can you?
Point being, you can’t exclude them on the basis that they “could conceivably be Muslim”.
BTW, your attempt to appease Nerd and bolster your contention (that Harris is being reasonable) is feeble:
<snicker>
That reference refers to sampling methodology, while Harris refers to a sampling criterion. The dispute at hand, however, is the purported merit of the unique and specific mandatory criterion for selecting samples which Harris advocates.
—
PS “A mathematically optimal strategy” rather than “The mathematically optimal strategy”, eh?
YOU FAIL. Typical of SH sycophants, you don’t understand what evidence is and what it says. You lose on philosophy 10 time out of 10.
Philosophy is dependent, on the Axioms (my background is mathematics), and if the Axioms (presuppositional thinking, just like godbots and creationionists) is wrong, you can’t be wrong.
Example, in Illinois, where I live, they decided, based on philosophy, that the the death penalty was OK. But, after a few years, when it was noticed that the courts were overturning convictions more than they were executing,
“something was wrong with the system”. Then they properly looked into the FACTS of the situation, put a moratorium on executions, and eventually repealed the death penalty due to chronic problems in the system. Which included a huge monetary differential between the defense and prosecution, the use of jailhouse informants who got reduced sentences for “snitching” (if they ever really shared a jail with the defendant) that were constantly overturned, and just plain racism based on those who were tried (mostly minority) for the capitol offense. So, Illinois rightly decided their previous philosophy was bullshit based on reality.
What will it take for YOU to admit your philosophy is bullshit?
@John
You’re looking for Jihadists. If it is unlikely for elderly women to be Jihadists, you don’t profile them.
“That reference refers to sampling methodology, while Harris refers to a sampling criterion.”
Err, Nerd brought up the methodology specifically. He asked for evidence that profiling works better than random selection.
“PS “A mathematically optimal strategy” rather than “The mathematically optimal strategy”, eh?”
A mathematically optimal strategy works better than completely random selection, therefore any possible better strategy is just a question of the degree to which you implement profiling.
@Nerd
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1716.full?sid=3bc684ec-b593-41e9-b03e-2e3f32bc42b0
Jessie, I see you persevere at evading the point about the reasonableness of Harris’ advocady.
Were Harris’ criterion merely that someone in fact were Muslim, that would be practically problematic but definite. But it’s not — the criterion is actually anyone who “could conceivably be Muslim”, which is rather indefinite.
And you quoted to the effect that a combination of the two is optimal, which is a different proposition. Specifically, Harris claims that profiling on a specific criterion should be employed, and the article claims that profiling alone is sub-optimal. His basis for that claim is that there is a causal link between being a Muslim and being a terrorist, so that no Muslim should be excluded from (ahem) being preferentially sampled.
(Sigh)
What’s remarkable is your ignorance of the distinction between the definite article and the indefinite article. Linguistic precision is clearly not the writers’ forte.
Jessie:
Actually, the specific term used was “Muslim”, not “Jihadist” — I take it you don’t imagine that they are one and the same thing.
Therefore, you should have written “You’re looking for Muslims. If it is unlikely for elderly women to be Muslims, you don’t profile them.”, did you care to honestly interpretively paraphrase Harris.
(Your squirming is futile)
@John
Follow up explanation from Harris:
“More specifically, I argue that we should anti-profile—paying less attention to people who, based on the totality of their characteristics, could not conceivably be jihadists.”
I’m assuming he means “conceivable” in a more casual sense. Obviously you could imagine that an old lady is a Jihadist. You could also imagine that she’s a WWE wrestler.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/to-profile-or-not-to-profile
“What’s remarkable is your ignorance of the distinction between the definite article and the indefinite article.”
Here, I’ll quote the study:
“Shown in green are the corresponding efficiencies for the democratic, but suboptimal, strategies of uniform sampling”
Uniform sampling is suboptimal. Any better strategy therefore implements some amount of profiling. Clear?
Jesse:
Interesting post-facto “explanation”, given he initially made the claim about Muslims rather than about Jihadists. As you have tacitly conceded, they are not the same thing.
Better (if puerile) to have written “paying less attention to people who, based on the totality of their characteristics, could not conceivably be terrorists.” — that would include all Jihadist terrorists but not single out Muslims.
Clear, but evasive.
The issue is not whether to profile or not, but what the profiling criteria should be if profiling is indeed used.
@John
“that would include all Jihadist terrorists but not single out Muslims.”
Better to have college courses which teach everyone not to rape, rather than college courses which teach men not to rape. By singling out men we fail to include all rapists.
Agree?
“Clear, but evasive.”
Well, you seemed to be under the impression that the study did not indicate that uniform random sampling was not the optimal strategy. I was addressing this directly, which is the opposite of being evasive.
“The issue is not whether to profile or not”
Coulda fooled me.
[meta]
Jessie:
Really.
In relation to your redundantly adduced article, I wrote “And you quoted to the effect that a combination of the two is optimal, which is a different proposition. Specifically, Harris claims that profiling on a specific criterion should be employed, and the article claims that profiling alone is sub-optimal.”
Is it not obvious that if the combination is what’s optimal, then either element by itself is sub-optimal?
You perceive dimly. The point you evade is Harris’ irrationality about this issue and its corresponding foolish advocacy; the issue about the definite vs. the indefinite article is whether there is more than one optimum (which that phrasing implies is the case).
I wrote that specifically in relation to the article you adduced, not about Harris’ claim or this discussion about your belief in its supposed merit. It’s about its relevance.
For completeness:
Let me put on Harris’ hat:
“More specifically, I argue that we should anti-teach—paying less attention to people who, based on the totality of their characteristics, could not conceivably be
jihadistsrapists.”(heh)
@John
“Specifically, Harris claims that profiling on a specific criterion should be employed, and the article claims that profiling alone is sub-optimal.”
Harris:
“As you know, I’m not recommending “strong profiling”—and using “square-root biased sampling” seems to be another way of saying that we should profile, but we should keep the profile pretty broad; we should notice the differences between people, but we shouldn’t be overly impressed by those differences (i.e., we should be using the square-root of the prior probability that a person is a terrorist, rather than the probability itself). This research advocates that secondary screenings be “distributed broadly, although not uniformly, over the population.” That sounds pretty good to me. ”
“the issue about the definite vs. the indefinite article is whether there is more than one optimum (which that phrasing implies is the case).”
Yes. And I was just trying to clear up any possible misconceptions that the study does not directly say that uniform random sampling is suboptimal. It was a response to you noting the presence of “a” rather than “the” in the quote I cited. The only reason you would’ve brought this up would be if you believed that the study left open the possibility that uniform random sampling was another optimal strategy.
“It’s about its relevance.”
Again, it’s relevant because someone asked for evidence that random sampling was not the best strategy.
Jessie Foster:
Surely you don’t imagine that this claim (note my emphasis*) refutes that Harris is in favour of profiling.
And just how to profile?
“We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.”
—
* Initially, it was Muslim. Then it was Jihadist. Now it’s terrorist.
(cf. my #171)
@John
“Surely you don’t imagine that this claim (note my emphasis*) refutes that Harris is in favour of profiling.”
No, this was meant to refute the idea that Harris is in favor of strong profiling.
In direct response to this: “Specifically, Harris claims that profiling on a specific criterion should be employed, and the article claims that profiling alone is sub-optimal.”
Jessie, heh. Fine. Harris is not in favour of “strong profiling”, merely in favour of specifically profiling anyone conceivably Muslim. Motivated weak profiling, in other words.
By the way, he went on after the bit you quoted: “I continue to believe, however, that certain people can be definitely excluded from the search space—Betty White—thereby raising our odds of catching real terrorists.”
(Betty White can be definitely excluded from the search space!)
Why are we only looking for Jihadists again? Even if we grant that an 80 year old Japanese woman is unlikely to be a Jihadist (or unlikely to have had her bags tampered with by one) so what? She might be eager to see the Japanese Empire rise to glory again, and willing to die to advance that cause. That might not seem particularly likely, but such people exist. As much as deciding to ignore those individuals who you deem to be no likely threat makes us more vulnerable to terrorists, so does deciding to ignore those causes outside of Islamic terrorism. Profiling for Jihadists, because you choose to ignore all the other groups terrorising people on a regular basis in order to assert that Jihadists are the greatest threat to us in the west, is only going to give other terrorist groups an opening.