U.S. Politics, 6

[jurble]

I'm old and stuck in my ways.* If it bothers you, I'll change it.

*Or forgetful, you choose.

'tis fine if you're old.

[BloodRider]

I listened to all 13.5 minutes of it.

Parts of it are not bad. One woman who said that just as white people don't own George Washington, black people don't own Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Quite so. There's another woman who said that she's worried about illegal immigrants because of the health risk that it may pose. That's a legitimate concern.

Yeah - me too, and I can see some of those points. Still let me point out that the way to significantly curb the spread of disease via illegal immigration is to set up a working worker visa program, and check their health at the border. Also works for terrorists!

[Altherion]

Then you may not have paid as close attention to what you're saying as you might have. You said that X is "bound to happen" because the average for that event is Y. That's the abuse of the law of average.

Except that this is not what I said. My words were "almost certainly bound" and they are correct. To take your coin analogy, yes, there is a chance that if you toss a fair coin 10 times, you will get heads every time, but that chance is slightly worse than 1 in 1000 -- you are almost certainly bound to get tails at least once.

No. Your argument that this event is insignificant is based on your assumption that arson in this country is randomly distributed both in frequency and in geographic location, when, in fact, we know that certain types of arsons are not random, like the ones that target churches.

They're random enough. Of course, they have a more global component of overall national sentiment (currently fairly negative because of the NYC mosque), but it's dominated by what is going on locally. This didn't happen in NYC, it happened in Tennessee.

Because, possibly, the even is topical in the context of protests against mosques, including at least one other in Tennessee? You don't think that the presence of anti-mosque protest and the arson at a mosque construction site might be related? Or you don't think that the incident is suitable for national TV given the current fervor over the PArk51 project?

Of course it is topical -- that's why I said they're manipulating the events into a story.

[BloodRider]

No. But if you saw a moslem leader who engaged in similar charitable activities, do you think he'd be considered a Christian because of that?

The point is that some moslems apparently believe honestly that he's a secret moslem. Presumably, that's not due to bigotry, but a combination of his upbringing, where he lived, and how he behaves. It is therefore possible that someone who is not a moslem can come to the same conclusion based on those exact same facts without being a bigot.

I think the problem is that we sometimes throw around the term "bigotry" a bit loosely. John Kerry was attacked by some in the 2004 election based on a sense that he was somehow too European, not a "real American", or too "French-like". Yet, he obviously was as blue-blooded a white guy as it comes. So were those attacks that he wasn't a "real American" based on bigotry?

Thats how you view that article? It seemed to me that statements in the article were the equivalent of saying "Bill Clinton is our first black president." Ie Not actually true, but (for the people who say such things) emotionally significant. Based presumably on the idea that this person comes closer to understanding the situation on the ground for a certain minority than any person of that significance has in the past.

I still think its goofy as fuck, and stupid politically to say such things. Mainly because your opponents are gonna use that statement against you and against that political leader. As seen here......

[The Progressive]

Thats how you view that article? It seemed to me that statements in the article were the equivalent of saying "Bill Clinton is our first black president." Ie Not actually true, but (for the people who say such things) emotionally significant. Based presumably on the idea that this person comes closer to understanding the situation on the ground for a certain minority than any person of that significance has in the past.

I still think its goofy as fuck, and stupid politically to say such things. Mainly because your opponents are gonna use that statement against you and against that political leader. As seen here......

I thought it was a pretty clear cut case of wishful thinking too on the part of a minority group viewed with suspicion and hostility by the majority group. Your example of Bill Clinton being called as the "first Black president" underscore that ........ it's not like people are saying that Bill Clinton is black, but more like "hey this guy understand us".

[Jon AS]

What's with this Moslem spelling? If you want to use an archaic spelling use Musselman, at least that's actually a word.

The various comments about the "correct" spelling have made me curious, where does it say that "Moslem" is wrong (or possibly offensive)? Wikipedia mentions it as an alternative spelling, as do several dictionaries.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't think it's fair to refer to that story as an example of the media "manipulating" a story. It was a Tennessee paper reporting on a fire at a Tennessee mosque construction site. On the other hand, blaming Sarah Palin for that is ridiculous. The person to be blamed is the yahoo who poured gas on the construction equipment.

Yes and no. Although, no, I do not hold Palin personally responsible for the incident, I think she has played a large part in establishing a climate in which these sorts of actions are likely to happen. Personally, I feel that when you stir a controversy (for whatever reason), you can't entirely disassociate yourself from the fallout. Palin is among those who have sown the seeds of intolerance and resentment, so I think it's disingenuous for her to disavow the harvest.

[Shryke]

It's not that Palin is directly responsible, it's that she is simply part and parcel of a larger movement to stir up hate against specific types of Americans.

And a very vocal and public one at that.

I didn't mention her specifically for a reason after all. It's not like stirring up hate against Muslims started only a month ago.

[Trebla]

It's not that Palin is directly responsible, it's that she is simply part and parcel of a larger movement to stir up hate against specific types of Americans.

And a very vocal and public one at that.

I didn't mention her specifically for a reason after all. It's not like stirring up hate against Muslims started only a month ago.

Chris Rock did a spot-on bit on one of his standups about the Muslim-bashing and what it leads to. I've looked everywhere for the exact quote but it was something like:

Imitating Americans: "Fuck them Muslims, I'm American, I'M AMERICAN"

"Well, it worries me because I know ni**ers and Jews are NEXT"

Next turned into gays and illegals.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes and no. Although, no, I do not hold Palin personally responsible for the incident, I think she has played a large part in establishing a climate in which these sorts of actions are likely to happen. Personally, I feel that when you stir a controversy (for whatever reason), you can't entirely disassociate yourself from the fallout. Palin is among those who have sown the seeds of intolerance and resentment, so I think it's disingenuous for her to disavow the harvest.

There was a story a few days ago regarding a large number of threats, including death threats, left on the voice mail of a tea party group. I didn't bother posting or linking it because few here woild care.

However, should blame for that go to those who have loudly and vociferously condemned the tea parties? Not to me. The fact that some people cross the line shouldn't suppress the free speech of those who don't. And that's what you're really doing when you blame Palin for the actions of other people.

[BloodRider]

There was a story a few days ago regarding a large number of threats, including death threats, left on the voice mail of a tea party group. I didn't bother posting or linking it because few here woild care.

However, should blame for that go to those who have loudly and vociferously condemned the tea parties? Not to me. The fact that some people cross the line shouldn't suppress the free speech of those who don't. And that's what you're really doing when you blame Palin for the actions of other people.

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. IE there are varying degrees of responsibility. Hitler never signed any documents or was "on record" as approving the final solution. Does that mean he is absolved of all responsibility?*

And yeah - I am wondering why Dick Army has not called the police in on this one. Were I to get death threats - especially specific ones - you can be damn sure I would call the FBI. Yet I see no effort to do so on the part of Freedomworks. We shall see, but for the time being I'm gonna say this needs much more evidence before I can give the claim credence.

*Note I am making a very narrow comparison here - I am categorically not comparing Palin to Hitler - I am pointing out the illogic of FLoW's arguments. And yes I am adding this disclaimer so that others can not put words in my mouth, or clamber up on their cross again.

[Guest Raidne]

One woman who said that just as white people don't own George Washington, black people don't own Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

On the Daily Show, John Stewart was going on about that "yeah, black people don't own Martin Luther King, Jr, white people own...oh shit."

Great stuff. Also, note that Beck originally denied even knowing that the event was scheduled for MLK day at first. I don't know which option there is sadder.

Also, I feel like I remember thinking Altherion was smart. Why is that?

The various comments about the "correct" spelling have made me curious, where does it say that "Moslem" is wrong (or possibly offensive)? Wikipedia mentions it as an alternative spelling, as do several dictionaries.

I posted a link to a UK media guide in the other thread that explains it.

Is it correct to write Muslim or

Moslem?

Muslim is preferred. People refer to

themselves as Muslims. Many regard

Moslem as a term of abuse, like

people of African descent dislike

being called negroes. Also avoid

Mohammedan and Musselman.

It's linked in the wikipedia article you linked, also, btw.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Altherion

Except that this is not what I said.

Except that it is:

See, this is how the media manipulates the story without actually lying. There are on the order of 30000 reported instances of arson per year in the US. That's a little under 100 per day or about 2500 per month. If they wait 15 days, from pure statistics alone, there's almost certainly bound to be at least 1 in the general vicinity of a mosque (or at least a mosque under construction).

My words were "almost certainly bound" and they are correct.

dding the conditional ("almost certainly") does nothing to ameliorate the fundamental error in your reasoning.

To take your coin analogy, yes, there is a chance that if you toss a fair coin 10 times, you will get heads every time, but that chance is slightly worse than 1 in 1000 -- you are almost certainly bound to get tails at least once.

The explanation you just gave here is the textbook definition of the fallacy of the law of average. You're also confounding the terms of the debate. In this line I just quoted, you are talking about the accumulated probability of a defined set of events (landing 10 heads in 10 tosses). In the original statement, you were taking the national average and making a prediction about the next event. The two are not the same. What you did with the original statement is similar to saying that "since the probability of landing 10 heads on 10 tosses is 0.0009765, and we have already had 9 heads in the last 9 tosses, the tenth toss would almost certainly be a tail."

Not to mention, your "it's random enough" comment with regards to the occurrence of arson is quite incorrect. Arsons can be for emotional reasons, wherein they target structures of emotional significance, e.g. churches or abortion clinics, or they are for economic gains, e.g. insurance fraud, or they are for pure malice. In any case, the definition of arson is that there's intent behind it and it's deliberate, so it is not a set of random events. Not every building in the vicinity is equally likely to be targets of arson, unlike coin tosses, where every toss is equally likely to give a head or a tail.

Overall, your point that the media is focusing on one incident of arson when there are probably multiple incidents that same day is correct, but the way you use statistics is wrong.

[Jon AS]

I posted a link to a UK media guide in the other thread that explains it.

It's linked in the wikipedia article you linked, also, btw.

Thanks. I actually read the German version of the Wikipedia article which doesn't mention it.;)

Neither does the German encyclopedia I consulted (I used a hard copy! Felt really strange...), oddly.

Mohameddan goes without saying, but Moslem just seems like a different kind of transliteration/pronounciation so I'd be curious to find out how it got negative connotations, but probably not curious enough to do research. Thanks again.

[Bellis]

I posted a link to a UK media guide in the other thread that explains it.

It's linked in the wikipedia article you linked, also, btw.

Musselman is a funny one, because that just sounds like a Hindi (or Urdu) transliteration to me. It's very British Raj, but not offensive, per se.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's the ethnicity definition of religion, common in most parts of the world, and common not so long ago in the west. You are of the faith community of your ancestors, regardless of your personal beliefs.

If this is the case, then is it really so bizarre that some Americans consider him a moslem?

I posted a link to a UK media guide in the other thread that explains it.

I'm not picking on you, Raidne, but why should the UK media define for the rest of the world what is acceptable?

This moslem v. muslim thing is just extremely odd to me. The islamic religion didn't originate with the Roman alphabet, so it's really just a phonetic translation, and not a completely different word such as Mohammedan, or negro v. black, etc.

[Bellis]

If this is the case, then is it really so bizarre that some Americans consider him a moslem?

No, it's not. But I doubt the Muslims who think he's "one of them" are any more informed about his life or upbringing than the tea partiers who think he's Muslim. On the other hand, he's brown, and has a Muslim middle name, and so the argument that he knows what it's like to be Muslim in the West and is therefore an honorary Muslim sort of stands. cf: Clinton = black.

[BloodRider]

Wow - Daily show shows the connection between the "terrorist funder of the terror mosque" and a backer of Fox news.

SPOILERS: They are the same dude! But for some reason Fox fails to mention that.

But you know - everything is A OK with the media.

[Altherion]

The explanation you just gave here is the textbook definition of the fallacy of the law of average. You're also confounding the terms of the debate. In this line I just quoted, you are talking about the accumulated probability of a defined set of events (landing 10 heads in 10 tosses). In the original statement, you were taking the national average and making a prediction about the next event. The two are not the same. What you did with the original statement is similar to saying that "since the probability of landing 10 heads on 10 tosses is 0.0009765, and we have already had 9 heads in the last 9 tosses, the tenth toss would almost certainly be a tail."

Say what? Your last statement is not true (the probability of the tenth toss being a tail is exactly 50%, of course), but what the devil does it have to do with what I said? I never said anything about about the arson occurring at a specific point. I stated an interval (15 days) and said that within that interval, there is almost certainly going to be at least 1 arson in the general vicinity of a mosque. Nowhere in that statement is the order of arsons specified and in fact the very usage of "at least one" precludes the discussion of a specific -- it doesn't make sense to say "at least one" for one point, it has to be over an interval.

Not to mention, your "it's random enough" comment with regards to the occurrence of arson is quite incorrect. Arsons can be for emotional reasons, wherein they target structures of emotional significance, e.g. churches or abortion clinics, or they are for economic gains, e.g. insurance fraud, or they are for pure malice. In any case, the definition of arson is that there's intent behind it and it's deliberate, so it is not a set of random events. Not every building in the vicinity is equally likely to be targets of arson, unlike coin tosses, where every toss is equally likely to give a head or a tail.

Yes. This is why I said "arson should be fairly randomly with houses of worship getting a larger share (people are more likely to go after them than, say, a water treatment plant)". They are done for all of those reasons, but the point is, with a nationwide sample, you will have a hundred or so every day and after 15 days the distribution will be fairly random with certain locations (e.g. houses of worship) more likely to be attacked.

Overall, your point that the media is focusing on one incident of arson when there are probably multiple incidents that same day is correct, but the way you use statistics is wrong.

You are misinterpreting what I said and I am not sure why. Maybe "If they wait 15 days, from pure statistics alone, there's almost certainly bound to be at least 1 in the general vicinity of a mosque" is a bit imprecise (I should have said that 15 days is the interval over which the incident is likely to happen), but there is no way you could derive that "flip 9 coins, get 9 heads, what's the 10th?" scenario from it. For one thing, there is no point to which to assign the event (does it happen at the stroke of midnight on the 16th day?) and for another, the usage of "at least one" in that context is nonsensical -- nobody rational would ever erroneously say "flip 9 coins, get 9 heads, the 10th one is almost certainly bound to be at least one head".

[Guest Raidne]

From Slate:

Finally, Kathy Park wants to know why “Moslem” is considered an offensive spelling. The problem with spelling the Arabic word meaning “one who surrenders to God” as “Moslem” and not “Muslim” is that people end up pronouncing it mawslem, which is a different word that means “oppressor.”