Its important to remember just where politics were last fucking week. In this article, it is argued that the FBI is doing too much and "entraps" individuals into committing crimes. And yet we have a case today where we have the FBI letting someone go. Because Omar had no direct connections to ISIS or other terror groups, and because the FBI couldn't pin anything on him.
People need to think about what the tactics the FBI should be using, and whether or not they're going too far. And also whether or not the tactics don't go far enough.
These are not necessarily at odds. One can be concerned about both a false positive rate AND a false negative rate. It's not really a linear line where there's only "too far" and "not far enough".
Granted, people saying things like that rights should be stripped while someone is under investigation are being kind of dumb about it. That's be frigging horrible from a rights standpoint, and it would ALSO not really work with the idea of a covert investigation. It's one of those impulses to "do something" that need to be curbed a bit to look at rationally.
Copper Bezel wrote:
I can agree that homophobia exists, but bathroom laws aren't making people want to beat up gay people.
Well, they're largely empowering people to harass trans people and people who "look trans", but yeah, they actually do help to fuel and enable hatred toward LGBT people in general.
Oh yeah, this is actually a really good example of how broader homophobia enables and normalizes more extreme actions. It's encouraging confrontation(because, how ELSE is it going to be enforced), and banning people from doing stuff. Laws of the "you shall not" variety like this tend to lean on force for enforcement.
Some people maybe don't need any encouragement to use more force.
Sure, it isn't relevant to *this* specific issue, but neither are handgun control laws and gun show sales, and people are talking about those.
CorruptUser wrote:Yeah, that's what I do want. Owning a gun should require at least as much training and restrictions as owning a car.
Owning a car pretty much requires showing up to the dealer with enough money. Or a vaguely decent credit score. Or a willingness to sign paperwork for high rates of interest. Mostly though, they'll sell a car to anybody.
Some training is required for use in public, which is roughly analogous to carry permits.
In most respects, owning a gun is already significantly more difficult than owning a car. I mean, no states have a waiting period to get a car, do they? Get to drive right off the lot with it.
And yeah, it's pretty irrelevant to this case. This fellow had no issue gaining access to car or gun, and wouldn't have under pretty much any past or proposed restrictions short of "ban 'em all".
Tyndmyr wrote:A redefinition is not an argument. It doesn't change the fundamental nature of what's happening. You're avoiding the problem and talking around it, not disproving it.
My argument is not "a redefinition," and I don't accept that "the fundamental nature of what's happening" is what you and Lucrece have been claiming.
If you're going to keep accusing me of things like this, I expect that you'll substantiate your claims by saying what, specifically, you're objecting to.
Tyndmyr wrote:Ah, see, you gish galloped from Islam, to American Islam, and ignored that a healthy majority of those STILL don't accept that homosexuality should be socially accepted. 61% of people is a lot of people, and is totally justification for saying that they have a problem, as a community.
I'm sorry, you seem to have confused me with someone who says that no significant number of Muslims are homophobic. What I actually said, as you can easily verify by reading my second-last post in this discussion, is that many Muslims are not homophobic.
What you perceive as a "Gish gallop" is simply an illusion of motion produced by misplaced goalposts.
Let's refresh your memory. The fundamental nature of what is happening is that people are dying. We can observe that this happens disproportionately to LGBT folks. We can observe that Islam is responsible for a disproportionate amount of killing.
Label those things whatever you will, but they're still obviously problems. They're not exactly the same problem, but they *do* have a very obvious overlap.
KnightExemplar wrote:No. Those are simply jackholes who use laws from places they're not from.
If ISIS starts beheading people in Iraq, that doesn't make it right here. If some redneck state bans Gay Marriage, it doesn't make it right in my state. But jackholes will use world events as an excuse to be a jackhole. But in reality, they were a jackhole all along.
In large part, yes. But those sorts of jackholes are not evenly distributed, and horrible events like murder usually are not. So, culture and social norms do make a difference. Yeah, things leak across borders, and thus, a problem elsewhere can become a problem here....
But to some extent, people do *create* assholes, or at least, amplify their dickishness. This ain't just laws of course. Laws are a reflection of norms more than they are the cause of them...but they're still a sign of an underlying culture problem.
BattleMoose wrote:But recognize the influence and impact
Islam Christianity has had in expressing revulsion for lgbtq people.
Why single out a specific (foreign) religion when it's a big part of the (default national) religion too?
I have absolutely no problem calling out Christianity, either, when it's being homophobic, and have done so repeatedly.
I do note that right now, by the numbers, Islam is more dangerous, so of course it takes center stage a lot, but of course we also shouldn't shy away from discussing other factual shortcomings, historical atrocities, etc.
sardia wrote:You didn't sound like you knew that gun laws loosen after a mass shooting. After each one, you usually post about how the left will leverage tragedies to get gun laws passed. Isn't that mindset incongruent with your belief that maybe the next big tragedy will hurt the gun industry? If anything, the paranoia is hurting customers because prices keep rising in response to a crackdown that never happens. I'd be pretty upset if someone was driving up prices year after year because they're 'afraid' of the world ending. After the first few years, I'd call them out on their bullshit. That, or it's a bubble.
They will TRY. And cmon, my predictions on that are both obvious, and invariably correct.
You've mistaken my views for your strawman beliefs of a generic gun owner. I routinely post that gun issues are a third rail topic that are a strategic error for Democrats to pursue.
Obama's the world's best gun salesman, maybe.