The Hofoid House of Absurd & Ignorant Posts VII

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The Brad Pitt issue is why I make use of hyphens. I love my father—currently going by the name “Brad Pitt”—and God. Having sentences work involves intelligence, nuance, and tact. Opting to not deploy a handy comma involves none of these. The lack of the Oxford comma renders one’s words an aesthetic nightmarescape.

[James Monroe]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

1-White != Christian. Not all white people are Christian. There also are white people who are Muslim, including some terrorists.

Until last year I didn't realize that Timothy McVeigh wasn't actually Christian, but an open agnostic who happened to be right-wing. It's dangerous to presume any right-winger is some wacky fundamentalist Christian if the motives have nothing to do with religion or lack therefore.

[7,052,770]

^ God, I hate Oxford commas for some reason ... it's the battle I'm willing to perish for.

It was considerate of you to type this trash post straight into this thread.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Brad Pitt issue is why I make use of hyphens. I love my father—currently going by the name “Brad Pitt”—and God. Having sentences work involves intelligence, nuance, and tact. Opting to not deploy a handy comma involves none of these. The lack of the Oxford comma renders one’s words an aesthetic nightmarescape.

I agree on the need to use hyphens rather than commas to offset appositives. I use the Oxford comma; but all it generally does is clarify something that is clarified by context most of the time. Moreover, most of the ambiguity could be solved by using something besides commas to offset appositives.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

That isn't true outside of your insular world of paranoia, resentment, and fear tho.

Because its not like I literally linked to statistics or anything.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Anyway, its because there's a strong bias against declaring (christian) right wing terror as terror.

This comment is in regards to an explicitly anti-Christian group.

I was referring to how islamic terrorism is treated.

It's treated as a bigger problem because it is the bigger problem.

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

That isn't true outside of your insular world of paranoia, resentment, and fear tho.

Because its not like I literally linked to statistics or anything.

Vox is as good as a source as Fox. Try harder.

[SNJ1985]

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

That is false even if you only count incidents in the United States.

https://areomagazine.com/2017/05/28/no-youre-not-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extremist-than-an-islamic-terrorist/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

White terrorists kill more people than islamic terrorists by a pretty big margin.

That is false even if you only count incidents in the United States.

https://areomagazine.com/2017/05/28/no-youre-not-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-right-wing-extremist-than-an-islamic-terrorist/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A research project I did during my last semester of undergrad (but for a graduate class) essentially replicated this question, but for a period covering 2012-2015 (the last four years in the Global Terrorism Database). After reading incident reports, it came out to there being 100 terrorist incidents on American soil during those four years (very handy for percentages).

What it came out to was 59 right-wing attacks, 8 left-wing attacks, 16 Islamic, and 17 what I called "Indeterminate"--incidents that ended up in the database, but did not have a directly political implication to them or were hard to place, such as Christopher Dorner. In retrospect, some of these probably constituted hate crimes rather than terrorism, and motivation had to be inferred.

But while "right-wing" incidents (I made categories of Islamophobic, white supremacist, religious, anti-government, and anti-gun control) resulted in 59 incidents, they yielded 38 wounded and 32 dead (.644, .542). Islamic attacks, with 16 incidents yielded 293 wounded and 33 dead (18.3, 2.06). There are obviously far more right-wing Americans in the United States than there are Muslims, and my explanation would be that "right-wing violence" is far more "incidental" in nature--the events counted by the GTD included such an occurrence as a man getting drunk then putting glue in the locks of an abortion clinic. This obviously dilutes numbers, but the total wounded and dead still pile up more on the Islamic side of the counter. Most "Islamic" attacks or incidents involved a generally greater amount of planning and intent to do harm.

Now, discounting the hard work of the Tsarnaev brothers, there were still 12 Islamic events with 27 wounded and 25 killed.

I don't know how these four years are generalizable to the rest of the post-9/11 period, but it does give me pause before accepting any sort of "white/Christian/right-wing terrorists kill more people than Islamic terrorists do" type of claim. I admittedly haven't read the article OmegaScarlet linked to (and would prefer she just present the information herself, since some of us are on mobile at work during these discussions), nor am I the type that would use this information to suggest that there is a "problem" in Islam--I don't really care, and the debate around it says more about those arguing than it does about the truth. I think such an argument serves the interests of atheists and secularists in any case.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I made an error there, but still, white terrorists don't kill as much because they're targeting vulnerable groups, whereas muslim terrorists kill more in one because they target those that aren't minorities too(and they know how to do this s**t). Also the fatality count of muslim terrorists is barely higher.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Vox is as good as a source as Fox. Try harder.

lol. I don't see vox frothing about rabid conspiracy theory's.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I made an error there, but still, white terrorists don't kill as much because they're targeting vulnerable groups, whereas muslim terrorists kill more in one because they target those that aren't minorities too(and they know how to do this s**t). Also the fatality count of muslim terrorists is barely higher.

So killing vulnerable minorities is worse than killing large swathes of people in general? Ok.

Vox is as good as a source as Fox. Try harder.

lol. I don't see vox frothing about rabid conspiracy theory's.

OMFG

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I made an error there, but still, white terrorists don't kill as much because they're targeting vulnerable groups, whereas muslim terrorists kill more in one because they target those that aren't minorities too(and they know how to do this s**t). Also the fatality count of muslim terrorists is barely higher.

So killing vulnerable minorities is worse than killing large swathes of people in general? Ok.

Vox is as good as a source as Fox. Try harder.

lol. I don't see vox frothing about rabid conspiracy theory's.

OMFG

White terrorists don't kill as much because they're incapable, not because they are better somehow.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I made an error there, but still, white terrorists don't kill as much because they're targeting vulnerable groups, whereas muslim terrorists kill more in one because they target those that aren't minorities too(and they know how to do this s**t). Also the fatality count of muslim terrorists is barely higher.

So killing vulnerable minorities is worse than killing large swathes of people in general? Ok.

Vox is as good as a source as Fox. Try harder.

lol. I don't see vox frothing about rabid conspiracy theory's.

OMFG

White terrorists don't kill as much because they're incapable, not because they are better somehow.

Yes. Which is exactly why white terrorism is not the bigger threat.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I made an error there, but still, white terrorists don't kill as much because they're targeting vulnerable groups, whereas muslim terrorists kill more in one because they target those that aren't minorities too(and they know how to do this s**t). Also the fatality count of muslim terrorists is barely higher.

So killing vulnerable minorities is worse than killing large swathes of people in general? Ok.

Vox is as good as a source as Fox. Try harder.

lol. I don't see vox frothing about rabid conspiracy theory's.

OMFG

White terrorists don't kill as much because they're incapable, not because they are better somehow.

Which nevertheless is important from criminological and public safety, if not moral, perspectives.  

[AtorBoltox]

I speak from the perspective of someone who is partly descended from Sicilians, Spaniards, Irish, and English immigrants to the United States.

I think immigration is something that adds more to society than it takes away. It brings forth new perspectives, new ideas, enriches society, contributes to culture. The history of some big city enclaves (like Polish-Americans in Chicago, etc) is rich and adds to the fabric of our history. And economic migration, a major component of immigration to the US both historically and presently,  doesn't come out of thin air - it comes because people live in squalor, poverty, misery. They want to come to the land of opportunity. They want to help their families. They want themselves and/or their children to live a better existence and staying put where they are can make that impossible.

And immigrants are hard-working people who work day and night to support themselves and their loved ones. They mow our lawns, support our economy, staff many low-income jobs. And they work very hard. They are not foreigners stealing our jobs. They are as American as apple pie. They value hard work and they have a strong work ethic. They help build our country. They are hated by too many people, many of whom have a profoundly negative, wrong-headed way of thinking on this issue.

We should be letting in millions of immigrants a year. Because that would not harm our nation, it would enrich it. We need to be lenient on economic migrants and give them a route to citizenship, to reward them for their hard work. We need to allow people who live in violence-ridden countries more leeway to stay in here legally, so that they can escape their unsafe home countries and enjoy the prosperity of this nation. We need to be forgiving and kind to those who reach our shores.

Not everyone who wants to enter the US necessarily should be allowed to (case in point: Mexican drug lords). But too many who want to enter and do have perfectly sensible reasons for doing so are forbidden from doing so because of our broken immigration policy. We need reforms. We need more immigrants of all colors, black, brown, red, and yes, white. And this needs to be paired with a regimen that ensures that a reasonably high amount of people allowed in can be certified as having legitimate reason. Not doing that would actually qualify as open borders, and it would be a terrible open borders policy.

I speak from the perspective of someone who is partly descended from Irish and Russian Jewish immigrants to the United States.

We shouldn't have any more immigration for a very long time.

US citizenship is a great thing, so we shouldn't devalue it further.

I look at US citizenship the way I look at a great romantic/sexual relationship.

If I'm in love with a woman and I have sex with her and I really enjoy it, my first impulse isn't "wow, that was really good...I think every person in the world who wants it should be able to have sex with this woman. I mean, I liked doing it, so it would be unfair to not to allow everyone else on the planet to do it"

No. My impulse is "I would like this woman to stop having sex with additional people from now on. She may have had sex with other people in the past, and that's fine, there's nothing that can be done about that now regardless, but I definitely would prefer her not to have sex with any additional people in the future".

My experience with my partner is not going to be improved by her getting gangbanged by a million poor people.

Nor is the experience of any US citizen going to be improved by allowing additional millions of poor people to immigrate here.

[wesmoorenerd]

I speak from the perspective of someone who is partly descended from Sicilians, Spaniards, Irish, and English immigrants to the United States.

I think immigration is something that adds more to society than it takes away. It brings forth new perspectives, new ideas, enriches society, contributes to culture. The history of some big city enclaves (like Polish-Americans in Chicago, etc) is rich and adds to the fabric of our history. And economic migration, a major component of immigration to the US both historically and presently,  doesn't come out of thin air - it comes because people live in squalor, poverty, misery. They want to come to the land of opportunity. They want to help their families. They want themselves and/or their children to live a better existence and staying put where they are can make that impossible.

And immigrants are hard-working people who work day and night to support themselves and their loved ones. They mow our lawns, support our economy, staff many low-income jobs. And they work very hard. They are not foreigners stealing our jobs. They are as American as apple pie. They value hard work and they have a strong work ethic. They help build our country. They are hated by too many people, many of whom have a profoundly negative, wrong-headed way of thinking on this issue.

We should be letting in millions of immigrants a year. Because that would not harm our nation, it would enrich it. We need to be lenient on economic migrants and give them a route to citizenship, to reward them for their hard work. We need to allow people who live in violence-ridden countries more leeway to stay in here legally, so that they can escape their unsafe home countries and enjoy the prosperity of this nation. We need to be forgiving and kind to those who reach our shores.

Not everyone who wants to enter the US necessarily should be allowed to (case in point: Mexican drug lords). But too many who want to enter and do have perfectly sensible reasons for doing so are forbidden from doing so because of our broken immigration policy. We need reforms. We need more immigrants of all colors, black, brown, red, and yes, white. And this needs to be paired with a regimen that ensures that a reasonably high amount of people allowed in can be certified as having legitimate reason. Not doing that would actually qualify as open borders, and it would be a terrible open borders policy.

I speak from the perspective of someone who is partly descended from Irish and Russian Jewish immigrants to the United States.

We shouldn't have any more immigration for a very long time.

US citizenship is a great thing, so we shouldn't devalue it further.

I look at US citizenship the way I look at a great romantic/sexual relationship.

If I'm in love with a woman and I have sex with her and I really enjoy it, my first impulse isn't "wow, that was really good...I think every person in the world who wants it should be able to have sex with this woman. I mean, I liked doing it, so it would be unfair to not to allow everyone else on the planet to do it"

No. My impulse is "I would like this woman to stop having sex with additional people from now on. She may have had sex with other people in the past, and that's fine, there's nothing that can be done about that now regardless, but I definitely would prefer her not to have sex with any additional people in the future".

My experience with my partner is not going to be improved by her getting gangbanged by a million poor people.

Nor is the experience of any US citizen going to be improved by allowing additional millions of poor people to immigrate here.

It's been a long time since I've seen such a dramatic drop off in writing quality from one piece to another. Comparing allowing immigrants into our country to getting "gangbanged by a million poor people" is my favorite part.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I speak from the perspective of someone who is partly descended from Sicilians, Spaniards, Irish, and English immigrants to the United States.

I think immigration is something that adds more to society than it takes away. It brings forth new perspectives, new ideas, enriches society, contributes to culture. The history of some big city enclaves (like Polish-Americans in Chicago, etc) is rich and adds to the fabric of our history. And economic migration, a major component of immigration to the US both historically and presently,  doesn't come out of thin air - it comes because people live in squalor, poverty, misery. They want to come to the land of opportunity. They want to help their families. They want themselves and/or their children to live a better existence and staying put where they are can make that impossible.

And immigrants are hard-working people who work day and night to support themselves and their loved ones. They mow our lawns, support our economy, staff many low-income jobs. And they work very hard. They are not foreigners stealing our jobs. They are as American as apple pie. They value hard work and they have a strong work ethic. They help build our country. They are hated by too many people, many of whom have a profoundly negative, wrong-headed way of thinking on this issue.

We should be letting in millions of immigrants a year. Because that would not harm our nation, it would enrich it. We need to be lenient on economic migrants and give them a route to citizenship, to reward them for their hard work. We need to allow people who live in violence-ridden countries more leeway to stay in here legally, so that they can escape their unsafe home countries and enjoy the prosperity of this nation. We need to be forgiving and kind to those who reach our shores.

Not everyone who wants to enter the US necessarily should be allowed to (case in point: Mexican drug lords). But too many who want to enter and do have perfectly sensible reasons for doing so are forbidden from doing so because of our broken immigration policy. We need reforms. We need more immigrants of all colors, black, brown, red, and yes, white. And this needs to be paired with a regimen that ensures that a reasonably high amount of people allowed in can be certified as having legitimate reason. Not doing that would actually qualify as open borders, and it would be a terrible open borders policy.

I speak from the perspective of someone who is partly descended from Irish and Russian Jewish immigrants to the United States.

We shouldn't have any more immigration for a very long time.

US citizenship is a great thing, so we shouldn't devalue it further.

I look at US citizenship the way I look at a great romantic/sexual relationship.

If I'm in love with a woman and I have sex with her and I really enjoy it, my first impulse isn't "wow, that was really good...I think every person in the world who wants it should be able to have sex with this woman. I mean, I liked doing it, so it would be unfair to not to allow everyone else on the planet to do it"

No. My impulse is "I would like this woman to stop having sex with additional people from now on. She may have had sex with other people in the past, and that's fine, there's nothing that can be done about that now regardless, but I definitely would prefer her not to have sex with any additional people in the future".

My experience with my partner is not going to be improved by her getting gangbanged by a million poor people.

Nor is the experience of any US citizen going to be improved by allowing additional millions of poor people to immigrate here.

It's been a long time since I've seen such a dramatic drop off in writing quality from one piece to another. Comparing allowing immigrants into our country to getting "gangbanged by a million poor people" is my favorite part.

Maybe that's because I spent maybe 20 minutes or so writing all that. If my post there wasn't an effortpost, what is?

[wesmoorenerd]

I speak from the perspective of someone who is partly descended from Sicilians, Spaniards, Irish, and English immigrants to the United States.

I think immigration is something that adds more to society than it takes away. It brings forth new perspectives, new ideas, enriches society, contributes to culture. The history of some big city enclaves (like Polish-Americans in Chicago, etc) is rich and adds to the fabric of our history. And economic migration, a major component of immigration to the US both historically and presently,  doesn't come out of thin air - it comes because people live in squalor, poverty, misery. They want to come to the land of opportunity. They want to help their families. They want themselves and/or their children to live a better existence and staying put where they are can make that impossible.

And immigrants are hard-working people who work day and night to support themselves and their loved ones. They mow our lawns, support our economy, staff many low-income jobs. And they work very hard. They are not foreigners stealing our jobs. They are as American as apple pie. They value hard work and they have a strong work ethic. They help build our country. They are hated by too many people, many of whom have a profoundly negative, wrong-headed way of thinking on this issue.

We should be letting in millions of immigrants a year. Because that would not harm our nation, it would enrich it. We need to be lenient on economic migrants and give them a route to citizenship, to reward them for their hard work. We need to allow people who live in violence-ridden countries more leeway to stay in here legally, so that they can escape their unsafe home countries and enjoy the prosperity of this nation. We need to be forgiving and kind to those who reach our shores.

Not everyone who wants to enter the US necessarily should be allowed to (case in point: Mexican drug lords). But too many who want to enter and do have perfectly sensible reasons for doing so are forbidden from doing so because of our broken immigration policy. We need reforms. We need more immigrants of all colors, black, brown, red, and yes, white. And this needs to be paired with a regimen that ensures that a reasonably high amount of people allowed in can be certified as having legitimate reason. Not doing that would actually qualify as open borders, and it would be a terrible open borders policy.

I speak from the perspective of someone who is partly descended from Irish and Russian Jewish immigrants to the United States.

We shouldn't have any more immigration for a very long time.

US citizenship is a great thing, so we shouldn't devalue it further.

I look at US citizenship the way I look at a great romantic/sexual relationship.

If I'm in love with a woman and I have sex with her and I really enjoy it, my first impulse isn't "wow, that was really good...I think every person in the world who wants it should be able to have sex with this woman. I mean, I liked doing it, so it would be unfair to not to allow everyone else on the planet to do it"

No. My impulse is "I would like this woman to stop having sex with additional people from now on. She may have had sex with other people in the past, and that's fine, there's nothing that can be done about that now regardless, but I definitely would prefer her not to have sex with any additional people in the future".

My experience with my partner is not going to be improved by her getting gangbanged by a million poor people.

Nor is the experience of any US citizen going to be improved by allowing additional millions of poor people to immigrate here.

It's been a long time since I've seen such a dramatic drop off in writing quality from one piece to another. Comparing allowing immigrants into our country to getting "gangbanged by a million poor people" is my favorite part.

Maybe that's because I spent maybe 20 minutes or so writing all that. If my post there wasn't an effortpost, what is?

Well, good writers actually try, so props to you

[Sirius_]

Any party that opposes universal health care is conservative

[BBD]

Suffolk County, NY
St. Lucie County, FL
Kanawha County, WV

I bet Trump gets 90% of the vote in WV, or something ridiculous like that.  Over 80% is far from out of the question in WV.

[Mr. Smith]

Any party that opposes universal health care is conservative

Thanks for the direct posting, since he's kinda right.

[Santander]

The Forum Community thread has the next one guessing the previous poster's favorite international leader since 1965, so what is yours?

I can't pick one, so I'll just go with my favorite from select countries.

United States: Lyndon B. Johnson
Canada: Pierre Trudeau
Mexico: Andrés Manuel López Obrador
Brazil: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Argentina: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
Peru: Juan Velasco Alvarado

UK: Harold Wilson
France: François Mitterrand
Sweden: Olof Palme

Australia: Gough Whitlam
New Zealand: Norman Kirk

South Africa: Nelson Mandela
Burkina Faso: Thomas Sankara
Botswana: Seretse Khama

[Dr. MB]

The Forum Community thread has the next one guessing the previous poster's favorite international leader since 1965, so what is yours?

I can't pick one, so I'll just go with my favorite from select countries.

United States: Lyndon B. Johnson
Canada: Pierre Trudeau
Mexico: Andrés Manuel López Obrador
Brazil: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Argentina: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
Peru: Juan Velasco Alvarado

UK: Harold Wilson
France: François Mitterrand
Sweden: Olof Palme

Australia: Gough Whitlam
New Zealand: Norman Kirk

South Africa: Nelson Mandela
Burkina Faso: Thomas Sankara
Botswana: Seretse Khama

Not a fan, I can see.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Context:

Literally the worst Supreme Court Justice. He's a slimy, rights hating bastard whose main contribution to jurisprudence is that rights arent rights if he personally does not like them.

Edit: another one

Police unions are the only unions I support right-to-work for.

Edit: The hits just keep coming:

Btw, why isn't the media jumping on Ohio State like they did Penn State? Where are the sanctions from the NAACP? Are they going to freeze OSU's scholarship program?

B/c OSU started seriously investigating on its own initiative as soon as it learned there were credible allegations. 

That's definitely not what happened. The media just likes OSU.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

SJWs on Tumblr aren't really a thing anymore, that's like so 2014. Most of the Tumblr SJWs grew up, went to an Ivy League institution, and now work in media. But yes, mainstream media SJWs will push most whites into the Republican Party. The left is no place for a white person. The left hates white people and says so explicitly. They may sometimes protest that they hate "whiteness" not white people but this is esoteric mumbo jumbo to justify their hate. They would never say "we have blackness, not Black people". I'm sure a bunch of people on this very forum, after reading that last sentence, are getting ready to type angry comments about how there's no equivalency between saying "I hate white people" and "I hate black people" but that just proves my point. The left holds white people to a different standard. It's discrimination, it's prejudice, it's harmful to the material and spiritual interests of white people. They can't say it's not, they can only say that it's justified. Why would white people agree to that?