Gyroscopic Investing

Um, seriously?  On Christmas Day someone thought it was a good idea to burn down a mosque?

http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/20 ... /77910456/

What a great way to promote the true meaning of Christmas!  I'm sure ISIS thanks you.

How dare anyone attack the religion of peace? They are so victimized!

http://madworldnews.com/liberals-home-muslim-refugees/

" After escaping Islamic brutality in the Central African Republic, the Muslim migrants traveled to South Africa, where they were again set upon by South African natives in black-on-black attacks. So, the good-natured yet naive white couple welcomed the refugee families to their land, which included Obama’s favored “widows and orphans.”

However, after only a few months of graciously allowing the Muslim migrants to live for free on their property, the loving couple soon found that they would actually be the refugees. The Wartnabys were threatened with slaughter by the same people they were helping escape brutality."

rickb wrote: Um, seriously?  On Christmas Day someone thought it was a good idea to burn down a mosque?

http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/20 ... /77910456/

What a great way to promote the true meaning of Christmas!  I'm sure ISIS thanks you.

Where did you see in that story that the fire was started by Christians or that any were celebrating it?

According to the article, there is no suspect. 

So I guess it's just logical to assume this is the work of a Christian?

TennPaGa wrote:

Fred wrote:

rickb wrote: Um, seriously?  On Christmas Day someone thought it was a good idea to burn down a mosque?

http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/20 ... /77910456/

What a great way to promote the true meaning of Christmas!  I'm sure ISIS thanks you.

Where did you see in that story that the fire was started by Christians or that any were celebrating it?

Yeah, based on what is in the article, the thread title is not accurate.

In any case, setting fire to a mosque is a despicable act.

Despicable, but is it terrorism?

Definitely has to be the work of religious conservative white males, because that would fit the liberal narrative so perfectly that it must be true!

You know, this reminds me of something.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i- ... -outgroup/

Research suggests Blue Tribe / Red Tribe prejudice to be much stronger than better-known types of prejudice like racism. Once the Blue Tribe was able to enlist the blacks and gays and Muslims in their ranks, they became allies of convenience who deserve to be rehabilitated with mildly condescending paeans to their virtue. “There never was a coward where the shamrock grows.”

Spending your entire life insulting the other tribe and talking about how terrible they are makes you look, well, tribalistic. It is definitely not high class. So when members of the Blue Tribe decide to dedicate their entire life to yelling about how terrible the Red Tribe is, they make sure that instead of saying “the Red Tribe”, they say “America”, or “white people”, or “straight white men”. That way it’s humble self-criticism. They are so interested in justice that they are willing to critique their own beloved side, much as it pains them to do so. We know they are not exaggerating, because one might exaggerate the flaws of an enemy, but that anyone would exaggerate their own flaws fails the criterion of embarrassment.

The Blue Tribe always has an excuse at hand to persecute and crush any Red Tribers unfortunate enough to fall into its light-matter-universe by defining them as all-powerful domineering oppressors. They appeal to the fact that this is definitely the way it works in the Red Tribe’s dark-matter-universe, and that’s in the same country so it has to be the same community for all intents and purposes. As a result, every Blue Tribe institution is permanently licensed to take whatever emergency measures are necessary against the Red Tribe, however disturbing they might otherwise seem.

And so how virtuous, how noble the Blue Tribe! Perfectly tolerant of all of the different groups that just so happen to be allied with them, never intolerant unless it happen to be against intolerance itself. Never stooping to engage in petty tribal conflict like that awful Red Tribe, but always nobly criticizing their own culture and striving to make it better!

The article did say that the fire was likely set intentionally.
Though it doesn't say it was set by Christians, it is statistically likely. Think it was set by Sikhs? Jews? Other Muslims?
The only thing I find fishy is that rickb posted in the Off-topic section of this forum. 

Pointedstick wrote: Definitely has to be the work of religious conservative white males, because that would fit the liberal narrative so perfectly that it must be true!

You know, this reminds me of something.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i- ... -outgroup/

Research suggests Blue Tribe / Red Tribe prejudice to be much stronger than better-known types of prejudice like racism. Once the Blue Tribe was able to enlist the blacks and gays and Muslims in their ranks, they became allies of convenience who deserve to be rehabilitated with mildly condescending paeans to their virtue. “There never was a coward where the shamrock grows.”

Spending your entire life insulting the other tribe and talking about how terrible they are makes you look, well, tribalistic. It is definitely not high class. So when members of the Blue Tribe decide to dedicate their entire life to yelling about how terrible the Red Tribe is, they make sure that instead of saying “the Red Tribe”, they say “America”, or “white people”, or “straight white men”. That way it’s humble self-criticism. They are so interested in justice that they are willing to critique their own beloved side, much as it pains them to do so. We know they are not exaggerating, because one might exaggerate the flaws of an enemy, but that anyone would exaggerate their own flaws fails the criterion of embarrassment.

The Blue Tribe always has an excuse at hand to persecute and crush any Red Tribers unfortunate enough to fall into its light-matter-universe by defining them as all-powerful domineering oppressors. They appeal to the fact that this is definitely the way it works in the Red Tribe’s dark-matter-universe, and that’s in the same country so it has to be the same community for all intents and purposes. As a result, every Blue Tribe institution is permanently licensed to take whatever emergency measures are necessary against the Red Tribe, however disturbing they might otherwise seem.

And so how virtuous, how noble the Blue Tribe! Perfectly tolerant of all of the different groups that just so happen to be allied with them, never intolerant unless it happen to be against intolerance itself. Never stooping to engage in petty tribal conflict like that awful Red Tribe, but always nobly criticizing their own culture and striving to make it better!

I guess everyone makes assumptions. I think we all know that the "red tribe" would assume Muslim terrorists if a bomb blew up on an airplane. Likewise, most lefties assume some conservative, white, right-winger Christian would set fire to a mosque.

Both could be wrong.

I think the more interesting aspect of tribalism is how it works it's way into what we consider "terrorism," and more importantly, how it is prosecuted by our police and national security apparatuses. 

In fact, perhaps that's a good reason, beyond tribalism, that liberals are and should be concerned with the "red tribe" over other groups. The red tribe, unlike Muslims with Sharia Law, have the political power to bring about legal structures in the US that are a threat to "Western civilization."

moda0306 wrote: The red tribe, unlike Muslims with Sharia Law, have the political power to bring about legal structures in the US that are a threat to "Western civilization."

Indeed, but so do blue tribesmen--and are equally unaware of the risks they pose as the red tribes are to their risks.

Nobody benefits when we blindly assume that our political enemies are behind unexplained reports of violence. The fact that this isn't already plastered all over the left-leaning media (I checked) means that it was probably not white Christian males who were behind it. If it was, this would be irresistibly perfect red meat for liberals.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: The red tribe, unlike Muslims with Sharia Law, have the political power to bring about legal structures in the US that are a threat to "Western civilization."

Indeed, but so do blue tribesmen--and are equally unaware of the risks they pose as the red tribes are to their risks.

Nobody benefits when we blindly assume that our political enemies are behind unexplained reports of violence. The fact that this isn't already plastered all over the left-leaning media (I checked) means that it was probably not white Christian males who were behind it. If it was, this would be irresistibly perfect red meat for liberals.

While we're on the topic of media bias, why do you think right-wing conservative terror gets covered by the media far less than Muslim terror? 

Further, why do you think the government prosecutes these forms of violence grossly differently?

These mosque attacks are getting very little media coverage.  If these same acts were committed by Muslims against whites, we'd be hearing a lot about it, and in the context of a foreign war, not a domestic crime.  Perhaps that betrays a nationalist/Western/Nativist bias... not a liberal one.

dualstow wrote: The article did say that the fire was likely set intentionally.
Though it doesn't say it was set by Christians, it is statistically likely. Think it was set by Sikhs? Jews? Other Muslims?
The only thing I find fishy is that rickb posted in the Off-topic section of this forum. 

The title of the thread is a satirical reference to Reub's "religion of peace" posts.  Since the perpetrators have not been caught there is indeed no guarantee they're Christians, but I think it's nearly certain that they're white, Christian, gun toting, Confederate flag waving, Republican males.  Some terrorists are indeed Muslims.  But generalizing from "some terrorists are Muslims" to "Muslims are terrorists" is blaming an entire religion for the acts of a vanishingly small minority.

I mostly avoid the off-topic section of the forum because much of what goes on here simply makes me ill. 

Have you seen the recent polls of Muslims that show that a rather large minority of them feel that violence against civilians is justified?

"The situation is not much different among Muslims in Western countries. In Britain and Spain, one in four Muslims believes suicide bombings are sometimes justified. One in three believes it in France. Slightly more than one in ten believes it in the United States (per a Pew poll from 2011). According to a poll conducted by a Georgetown Islamic Studies professor and a Gallup pollster, more than one in three Muslims worldwide believe that the 9/11 attacks were “somewhat,” “largely,” or “completely” justified (23.1 percent say “somewhat”; 13.5 percent say “largely” or “completely”).  According to CBS, polling shows that “almost one in four British Muslims believe that the [2005] 7/7 attacks on London were justified.” According to the Financial Times, polling shows that more than one in three British Muslims see Britain’s Jewish community as a “legitimate target as part of the struggle for justice in the Middle East.” Not Israelis but British Jews. Their Jewish neighbors. One in three. According to the BBC, more than one in four British Muslims agree with the statement: “I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris.” According to a major Turkish newspaper — the Hürriyet Daily News — one in five Turks believes Charlie Hebdo’s murdered cartoonists “got what they deserved.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... dent-obama

That's a lot of supporters for cold, filthy murderous terrorists! That would be somewhere around 200,000 of them in this country who believe that suicide bombings are justified. And that's if you believe that they're being honest about it, which is highly doubtful.

moda0306 wrote: While we're on the topic of media bias, why do you think right-wing conservative terror gets covered by the media far less than Muslim terror?

If you are right, I imagine that it has something to do with the relative number of conservatives in the U.S. media market vs the number of Muslims. But actually, is this true? Can you point to some examples that you feel have been under-reported?

moda0306 wrote: Further, why do you think the government prosecutes these forms of violence grossly differently?

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify? What differences are you referring to?

moda0306 wrote: These mosque attacks are getting very little media coverage.  If these same acts were committed by Muslims against whites, we'd be hearing a lot about it, and in the context of a foreign war, not a domestic crime.  Perhaps that betrays a nationalist/Western/Nativist bias... not a liberal one.

Which mosque attacks? Is there a pattern of "white, Christian, gun toting, Confederate flag waving, Republican males" (as rickb suggests) attacking mosques in the USA?

I just spent entirely too much time doggedly looking for examples of mosque attacks in the USA I did find quite a few things, but very few of them really seemed to fit the "profile." For example:


Authorities Name Suspect In Mosque Fire (2010)
…But the perpetrator was a non-U.S.-citizen African Muslim whose motive was to bring two split congregations together in a single mosque (LOL)

Attacks on US mosques prompt Muslim security concerns (2012)
…Vandalism by mostly unknown perpetrators.

Teen arrested in mosque vandalism (2012)
…Vandalism by a white male teenager. Doesn't seem to have been an anti-Muslim attack at all because the vandalism was simply randomly targeted, not specifically directed against the mosque because it was a mosque.

US mosque burned to ground (2012)
…But no perpetrator was found so it could have been an accident. Buildings burn down all the time, especially when they're made out of 2x4s and OSB like the pictures show.

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting (2012)
…But that was a Sikh temple, not a mosque.

The Christian Terrorist Movement No One Wants To Talk About (2014)
…But it's about Christian extremism in general and didn't even mention any mosques.

Clovis man who vandalized mosque gets court program for mental illness (2015)
…But it was just vandalism and the perpetrator was a mentally ill Muslim.

Burlington teens arrested in mosque vandalism incident (2015)
…Vandalism by white male teenagers.

Vandals Spraypaint 'Jesus Is The Way' On California Mosque (2015)
…Vandalism by unknown Christian perpetrators.

Mosques vandalized, terrorized after Paris terror attacks (2015)
…Threats and vandalism by a white male.


From everything I found, I do see perhaps quite a bit of vandalism, especially by white male teenagers, but nothing you could really characterize as "a pattern of attacks", nor could the perpetrators be near-universally classified as "white, Christian, gun toting, Confederate flag waving, Republican males." Far from it. And vandalism by teenagers is incredibly common everywhere in our society. Sure, vandalism is no good, but is vandalism something you could consider an "attack?" It's a really common crime.

If you want to talk about physical attacks against Muslims personally, not just mosques, I found a few, but many likewise didn't fit the supposed pattern very well:

Anti-Muslim violence spiralling out of control in America (2012)
…The perpetrator was a woman and the victim was not actually a Muslim (but was mistaken for one).

Queens man, 70, beaten by pair after being asked if he was Hindu or Muslim: cops (2012)
…The perpetrators were young hispanics.

Muslim man stabbed in the back and bitten on nose in grisly 'hate crime attack' outside mosque (2012)
…The perpetrator was hispanic.

Enraged woman attacks Muslims praying in California park: ‘Allah is Satan and you are all murderers’ (2015)
…The perpetrator was a woman.


Look, this stuff is bad. Nobody likes violence. Nobody decent wants this kind of stuff to happen. You're against it, I'm against it, everyone you want to be friends with is against it.

What I'm trying to challenge is the bigoted profile that many on the left--notably our very own rickb--draw in their minds about who's doing these attacks. It's not just conservative white christian men. It's women, it's hispanics, it's blacks, it's even other Muslims. It's all kinds of people.

If you want to fight hate, then do that--but don't tell yourself you're doing that, then indulge in some hate of your own by stereotyping an absolutely enormous amount of people you live alongside as the dominant group to commit racist xenophobic attacks against Muslims. When you go down that path, you're not actually fighting hate at all, you're just treading down the very same tribalist path you decry others for treading to ply their trade of hate. You become guilty of harboring the same hate in your heart that you are so quick to criticize in others. You become that which you despise.

Don't do it. You're better that that.

PS, the fresh New Mexico air has done wonders for you! Stay away from California.

Pointedstick wrote:
Which mosque attacks? Is there a pattern of "white, Christian, gun toting, Confederate flag waving, Republican males" (as rickb suggests) attacking mosques in the USA?

I just spent entirely too much time doggedly looking for examples of mosque attacks in the USA I did find quite a few things, but very few of them really seemed to fit the "profile." For example:

(snip)

Look, this stuff is bad. Nobody likes violence. Nobody decent wants this kind of stuff to happen. You're against it, I'm against it, everyone you want to be friends with is against it.

What I'm trying to challenge is the bigoted profile that many on the left--notably our very own rickb--draw in their minds about who's doing these attacks. It's not just conservative white christian men. It's women, it's hispanics, it's blacks, it's even other Muslims. It's all kinds of people.

If you want to fight hate, then do that--but don't tell yourself you're doing that then then indulge in some hate of your own by stereotyping an absolutely enormous amount of people you live alongside as the dominate group to commit racist xenophobic attacks against Muslims. When you go down that path, you're not actually fighting hate at all, you're just treading down the very same tribalist path you decry others for treading to ply their trade of hate. You become guilty of harboring the same hate in your heart that you are so quick to criticize in others. You become that which you despise.

Don't do it. You're better that that.

Googling "violence against muslims in the US" the first hit (for me - your mileage may vary) was

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/1 ... ommunities,

which helpfully links to

http://www.cair.com/press-center/press- ... geted.html

which has a list of mosque incidents.  Most are fairly low level vandalism, which might possibly be teenagers, but some are clearly not.  Like, for example, an incident in Houston earlier this year involving a fire - see http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 084122.php

To Moda's point, I don't think any of these made any kind of splash in the news - unlike, say, the vandalism of Confederate statues and gravesites when the S.C. flag issue was all over the news. 

My "profile" was largely meant to turn the bigotry around.  If one assumes Muslims are terrorists, then another is going to assume rednecks are prone to xenophobic violence.  The fact that some terrorists are Muslims does not mean all Muslims are terrorists, just like the fact that some who engage in xenophobic violence are rednecks does not mean all rednecks do.

It sounds like we agree that all of this is bad. 

Comparing Christian terrorism to Muslim terrorism is totally ridiculous. You do realize this, don't you?

rickb wrote: My "profile" was largely meant to turn the bigotry around.  If one assumes Muslims are terrorists, then

Wait hold the presses--who exactly is claiming that all Muslims are terrorists? I don't believe I've ever heard or read anyone make such a patently ridiculous claim.

Pointedstick wrote:

rickb wrote: My "profile" was largely meant to turn the bigotry around.  If one assumes Muslims are terrorists, then

Wait hold the presses--who exactly is claiming that all Muslims are terrorists? I don't believe I've ever heard or read anyone make such a patently ridiculous claim.

Oh just go ahead and raise your hand, Reub. Don't be shy! 

rickb wrote: Googling "violence against muslims in the US" the first hit (for me - your mileage may vary) was

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/1 ... ommunities,

which helpfully links to

http://www.cair.com/press-center/press- ... geted.html

Okay, so 71 incidents this year, 8 of which are simply insults, 5 involve zoning discrimination (as if zoning is anything but discriminatory by nature…) and 29 were threats or intimidation that resulted in no actual violence or property damage. So there's a grand total of 29 incidents where Mosques and their worshippers have been the victim of actual damage or injury.

So this is bad. It shouldn't happen. The perpetrators should be vigorously prosecuted. But let's put things in perspective. There are 3 million Muslims living in the United States, a nation of 320 million total inhabitants--the third most populous country in the world. The rate of these incidents is outrageously low.

Regarding media coverage, if there is anything that jumps out to me, it is the extremely hyperbolic wording of these stories. "Record number!" "Ravaging our communities!" Gimme a break. It's ludicrous. My community hasn't been "ravaged" by anti-Muslim attacks. I bet yours hasn't either. Generously, according to their own sources, this year there have been 71 incidents nationwide where Muslims had their feelings hurt, their property damaged, or were injured (very small number). Statistically, a few more than that many people died in car accidents today. There's no comparison.

I think is the nature of people with an agenda to push to view events that support their worldview as not getting enough media attention. I imagine Reub would say that Muslim-originated violence is swept under the rug, and both of you might view the other's claim as completely batty. Whether something is getting "enough" media attention is completely subjective and un-falsifiable, and depends heavily in which media you pay attention to. All the stuff about vandalism of Confederate monuments was heavily reported in the conservative media but absent in the liberal media--the exact inverse of these anti-Muslim incidents. There really is no "the media" any longer; there are a million smaller medias that all report completely different things. If you are talking about the mainstream media, I see very little attention paid to vandalism of either Confederate monuments or mosques.

You could look at the outsized, wall-to-wall mainstream media coverage of the San Bernadino shootings, which were committed by Muslims, and conclude that it was too much, but 14 people were killed in that attack. Killed. Dead. Deceased. Lives ended. How many Muslims have been killed in Islamophobic incidents so far this year? Any? Any at all? One? Zero?

The last time a white man went on a shooting rampage in a non-Christian religious center back in 2012 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin ... e_shooting) it got plenty of media attention. Maybe not as much as the San Bernadino attacks, but he only killed 6 people, which by U.S. mass shooting standards is nothing special at all. You need to kill 10 or 15 people or more to really get the media salivating over it. If anything that's the reason for any possible lack of coverage. Not enough blood. If it bleeds, it leads.

Also, the Houston mosque fire you linked to in that article? Here's some more information: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lding.html

The fire wasn't at the mosque, it was at an insulated metal storage shed on the property. And the suspect is a homeless drifter who admitted to starting the fire but insisted that burning the building down was an accident. It sounds more like the guy broke into the shed to sleep for the night and made a fire to keep warm (it was February and the fire was started in the wee hours of the morning), but guy was a dope and the fire ignited the plastic insulation in the walls and burned down the whole storage shed (this is why spray foam is a bad idea, folks).

It doesn't really look a lot like Islamophobia to me.

Reub wrote: Comparing Christian terrorism to Muslim terrorism is totally ridiculous. You do realize this, don't you?

Please, define "terrorism."

moda0306 wrote: Please, define "terrorism."

I'm not Reub, but I'll have a go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

There is neither an academic nor an accurate legal consensus regarding the definition of terrorism. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon, legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.

Let's face it, "terrorism" means "violence with a socio-political goal committed by people I don't like." American revolutionaries were terrorists from the perspective of the British.

https://theintercept.com/2015/12/12/thr ... this-week/

Here is a list of some incidents from a few weeks ago.


Overall, I know everyone is motivated by tribalism.  In a vacuum, there's not much wrong with it (that "racist uncle" is pretty funny at Thanksgiving).  But when you have an entire section of government being run to murderous ends in secret, with political support and/or apathy heavily motivated by it, it becomes something I become more motivated to call out.  It's not that a racist white Christian is worse than a racist Iraqi Muslim. It's that there's more of the former controlling my government... The most powerful military in the world.

I already stumbled upon that article in my earlier web search; weaksauce. Would you care to respond to any of the points I've made rather than introducing new third-party sources of information that in no way refute anything I wrote?