Shootouts and explosions in Paris

[gourimoko]

I'm not convinced that stopping all Syrian refugees is a good idea. But the condescension and lack of information from the Administration really bothers me.

No kidding.

He's previously made the statement that the number of Americans killed by terrorists is relatively small compared to the people dying from global warming and gun violence, and so we shouldn't blow the threat out of proportion.

And he's right.

At the same time, he says global warming is our biggest national security threat, and that his priority for his last year in office is gun control.

Climate change is the number one issue facing the planet at large. You still don't seem to understand this.

We as a species may not survive, at least in any way we are familiar with, over the next 500 years if we don't make changes in the next 100 years. That means folks like me, folks in their 30's, are incredibly responsible for what happens to this planet over the next several centuries.

How is ISIS a comparable threat to something that challenges the survival of mankind?

Put is all together, and I really wonder if his attitude really is that it's not that big a deal if some terrorists get through, because they'll kill fewer people than global warming and guns anyway. So we should just all lighten up and not worry about it.

No.

The President is saying "we as a nation can walk and chew gum at the same time."

We can fight terrorism, bomb ISIS, and focus on climate change all at once.

The reason you don't think he's serious about it, is because you don't think climate change is a serious issue.

So when he says that the vetting process is sufficient, I honestly think he may be lying, and just telling us what he thinks we need to hear.

You think he's believes that conservative Americans want to hear climate change is more of a threat than ISIS?

C'mon...

 

[The Oi]

Hang on man, understand that a lot of people are like this because they come under attack.

Reza has a lot of people who come at him from different directions. He's got conservatives coming at him because ... Fox ...

Beyond that, he's got liberals coming at him because they are attacking all religion.

And beyond that, he's got New Atheists (Harris and Dawkins fans) coming at him because they see themselves as defending their preferred thinker.

So, Reza hasn't really come to understand that Twitter, as a platform, doesn't allow for debate or intelligent discussion. And both he and Sam Harris, and their followers, get into these ridiculous back and forth arguments over and over and this actually drives Harris' viewership (runs a media outlet) way up.

I mean, I get it but...why can't he just ignore these people? Given where he is in life, why the hell is he replying to trolls?

 

[Soda]

Good god, I wouldn't want to be in Reza's position in the Twitterverse right now... The points he was making to Fox in the video are clear and concise, really. Even with that, the anchors pretty much couldn't handle what he was saying or just plain didn't want to hear it. Those are professionals, as well. Him trying to get through to the John Does on Twitter? Sheesh. I've seen guys lose their minds trying to explain the game of football to people. Just imagine trying to get through to people about religion...

 

[Soda]

I mean, I get it but...why can't he just ignore these people? Given where he is in life, why the hell is he replying to trolls?

He's got passion. That much is evident. He can't ignore people because his passion involves helping others understand religion better than they do now.

 

[The Oi]

He's got passion. That much is evident. He can't ignore people because his passion involves helping others understand religion better than they do now.

No doubt. But in reading through his twitter, his primary goal seems to be to advance a more complex discourse on Islam.

To be engaging trolls and using the word, "fuck" and calling guys "fat and stupid," is a terrible idea.

If he was a comedian like Bill Maher or his goal was simply to drive clicks by being an asshole, then this would make perfect sense. But a guy trying to achieve what he's trying to achieve needs to be above that shit.

I understand that he gets attacked from all directions, but he's gone viral several times now for the right reasons. He's not going viral for calling guys "fucking stupid."

If he called that interviewer "fucking stupid," for example he'd have gone viral. Hell, since it didn't take place on Fox News and it bashed Bill Maher, even the Fox News crowd probably would have pimped it a little bit (albeit out of context). But would anyone have gained anything from the comment or would he have advanced the discussion of Islam?

Hopefully he figures that out. It's probably too late in life for him not to be a douche at conferences, but social media might be new enough to him that he'll figure out he just needs to block the idiots or stick to engaging people in Q&A controlled by him or interacting with other intellectuals on there.

@gourimoko still hasn't learned, so I don't know what kind of hope there is for him...

 

[gourimoko]

I mean, I get it but...why can't he just ignore these people? Given where he is in life, why the hell is he replying to trolls?

Because, like Sam, like Dawkins, he's trying to compete with his message. He just isn't as good as it as Sam is; not even close.

But in general I agree with you, he shouldn't respond to trolls, but, it's hard to know who is a troll and who isn't and he's trying to engage as many people as possible but simultaneously seems fed up with the discourse.

Try having a rational conversation with a New Atheist, let alone a racist or a bigot. Regardless of how intelligent they may come off, they will invariably present you with numerous ethical and logical contradictions.

It's double-think, and arguing against someone who is actively, voluntarily, engaging in double-think, is an exercise in futility.

 

[The Oi]

It's double-think, and arguing against someone who is actively, voluntarily, engaging in double-think, is an exercise in futility.

That's what I mean though. Just don't interact with these people and certainly don't tell them to "fuck off."

Or better yet, re-tweet their comments and expose them for who and what they are. Dan Le Batard, who is a troll himself has been doing this for years. If you say something stupid or racist to him on twitter, you know it's going to go public and someone you know is going to see it.

I guess it's all subjective and maybe I'm projecting on the guy what I'd hope to do if i was in his position. I learned around the age of 16 to adjust my expectations of people to the level that I feel they're capable of meeting in their interactions with me. That approach allows me not to be discouraged or emotional with people who aren't capable of getting to the place where I'm capable of engaging them on whatever topic we're talking about. On the other hand, I feel it's also important to defer to others or keep an open mind to those who clearly are superior to me on whatever topic we're engaged in. The amount of people capable of and WILLING to do both of those two things, is like .0000000001%. But that's ok. There's really nothing that can be done to change that on a one on one basis.

I get that he's trying to change the zeitgeist on Islam and to educate those who are willing to be educated, which is awesome.

Reza's clearly a very intelligent person within his space. I don't know what kind of social intelligence and capability for empathy he has, so it's possible this just isn't a skill he sees as being of value or MAYBE he sees a lack of tolerance for racist bullshit as a way to provide an outlet to Muslims who feel the same way.

Either way, I feel he'd be better off ignoring the idiots and accepting that there's a huge portion of the twitterverse that aren't going to "get it," and don't want to get it anyways. So fuck them. Engage the ones whose minds can be changed by sticking to intelligent discourse.

 

[Sumac13]

​

But, it wasn't from a lack of trying. A better question might be how many have been stopped?

Thank you for posing the question. I welcome the chance to respond. The answer: Of the resettled 784,000 refugees since September 11, 2001, three have be arrested for planning a terrorist attack. Of the three, two were not planning attacks in the United States. The plans of the third was barely credible.

As for the cursory background check, read the third paragraph in quoted text below. Again, its is bullshit to state that the refugees are not well screened.

From an op ed piece by Kathleen Newlan (from Migration Policy Institute):

"The reality is this: The United States has resettled 784,000 refugees since September 11, 2001. In those 14 years, exactly three resettled refugees have been arrested for planning terrorist activities—and it is worth noting two were not planning an attack in the United States and the plans of the third were barely credible.

As the more than 4 million refugees who have spilled out of Syria overwhelm neighboring countries and roil Europe, many Americans have been asking what more the United States can and should do to help cope with this crisis. Fewer than 2,000 Syrians have been resettled in this country since the Assad regime’s crackdown on peaceful protests ignited a savage civil war in 2011.

The most common arguments against resettling more Syrian refugees, made by some Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress, is that the resettlement program could be a path for infiltration into the United States by ISIS or other terrorists. But the refugee resettlement program is the least likely avenue for a terrorist to choose. Refugees who are selected for resettlement to the United States go through a painstaking, many-layered review before they are accepted. The FBI, Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and national intelligence agencies independently check refugees’ biometric data against security databases. The whole process typically takes 18-24 months, with high hurdles for security clearance."​

Source: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/us-record-shows-refugees-are-not-threat


It would seem your claims are unfounded. If anything, by marginalizing and spewing bigotry towards refugees in the US, you are more likely to invoke a violent reaction on their part. Are you not aware of this?

 

[The Oi]

So if it takes 18-24 months to resettle these Syrian refugees, where do they go during the review?

 

[Sumac13]

So if it takes 18-24 months to resettle these Syrian refugees, where do they go during the review?

They don't go anywhere. They stay in the refugee camp. Worth noting, each refugee camp is different. Those in Malawi wouldn't appear as a refugee camp, but more like a normal village. People there are free to move about, but have chosen to stay put and establish a new life there. That they are welcomed by Malawians helps. Others camps are much different. Google images of the Syrian Refugee camps or the Karin camps.

And to be clear, the total number of refugees to U.S. listed above post are not all from Syria, but rather from around the world. I wasn't clear on that.

There are roughly 16 to 19 million refugees worldwide. The average length of stay in a camp is 15 to 16 years. As with generalized averages, the numbers are a bit distorted. Nonetheless, they do give a general idea that people are not easily funneled through them. It just isn't practical way to plan a terrorist attack in the U.S.

One more point to add, the allowable quota for refugee changes year to year in the U.S., very rarely (perhaps never, not sure) does the U.S. reach the max quota. It isn't like the U.S. just opens the doors and waits until the quota is reached before closing for the year.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Thank you for posing the question. I welcome the chance to respond. The answer: Of the resettled 784,000 refugees since September 11, 2001, three have be arrested for planning a terrorist attack. Of the three, two were not planning attacks in the United States. The plans of the third was barely credible.

As for the cursory background check, read the third paragraph in quoted text below. Again, its is bullshit to state that the refugees are not well screened.

From an op ed piece by Kathleen Newlan (from Migration Policy Institute):

"The reality is this: The United States has resettled 784,000 refugees since September 11, 2001. In those 14 years, exactly three resettled refugees have been arrested for planning terrorist activities—and it is worth noting two were not planning an attack in the United States and the plans of the third were barely credible.

As the more than 4 million refugees who have spilled out of Syria overwhelm neighboring countries and roil Europe, many Americans have been asking what more the United States can and should do to help cope with this crisis. Fewer than 2,000 Syrians have been resettled in this country since the Assad regime’s crackdown on peaceful protests ignited a savage civil war in 2011.

The most common arguments against resettling more Syrian refugees, made by some Republican presidential candidates and members of Congress, is that the resettlement program could be a path for infiltration into the United States by ISIS or other terrorists. But the refugee resettlement program is the least likely avenue for a terrorist to choose. Refugees who are selected for resettlement to the United States go through a painstaking, many-layered review before they are accepted. The FBI, Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and national intelligence agencies independently check refugees’ biometric data against security databases. The whole process typically takes 18-24 months, with high hurdles for security clearance."​

Source: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/us-record-shows-refugees-are-not-threat


It would seem your claims are unfounded. If anything, by marginalizing and spewing bigotry towards refugees in the US, you are more likely to invoke a violent reaction on their part. Are you not aware of this?

Assuming we find the author trustworthy, which I don't. She is an activist for a cause who has a clear bias in favor of admitting refugees.

Moreover, I think it is ridiculous to spend those kind of investigatory resources on bringing in those refugees. Not worth it to us, in my opinion.

 

[gourimoko]

Assuming we find the author credible. I don't.

Lolwut?

You can cross-reference her claims with public data.

Not because of any specific reason other tuan that than she is an activist for a cause who has a clear bias in favor of admitting refugees.

Wait what?

This is what I meant up-thread.

You actually do not accept facts or argue in good faith. This is what @theSwayze just said a moment ago.

You literally just rejected @Sumac13 's argument out of hand because you don't like the expert who made the claim's position as, what you call, "an activist."

That's astounding.

And just to be clear, this is not an "activist" organization lobbying a position:

The MPI Data Hub provides current immigration statistics, maps, and numbers for the United States and other countries. The Data Hub showcases national and state-level demographic, social, and economic facts about immigrants to the US; as well as stocks, flows, citizenship, net migration, and historical data for countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania. It contains tools that allow users to track migration trends, patterns and populations.

The Migration Information Source is MPI's online journal. The Source provides authoritative data from numerous global organizations and governments, as well as short analytical pieces on international migration and refugee trends. It is a collaboration between a team of international correspondents who chronicle global migration movements, provide perspectives on current migration debates, and offer data analysis. Its target audience is academics, policy makers, journalists, and amateur researchers.

Experts
MPI experts are Senior Policy Analysts, Researchers, and Nonresident Fellows. A full list of staff can be found here:http://www.migrationpolicy.org/about/staff.php

Moreover, I think it is ridiculous to spend those kind of investigatory resources on bringing in those refugees. Not worth it to us, in my opinion.

It's not worth printing some money to help 10,000 refugees?

Hold up.. Where's that Jesus pic??

 

[Soda]

If anything, by marginalizing and spewing bigotry towards refugees in the US, you are more likely to invoke a violent reaction on their part. Are you not aware of this?

Just feel it is important to say that there is not an excuse or reason that a violent reaction is acceptable. I feel that people are slowly accepting violent attacks as a just reaction to getting one's feelings hurt.

 

[Maximus]

Only 1/4 of the public agree with Obama's stance on this one.

34 governors and climbing want him to pump the brakes too.

 

[Sumac13]

Just feel it is important to say that there is not an excuse or reason that a violent reaction is acceptable. I feel that people are slowly accepting violent attacks as a just reaction to getting one's feelings hurt.

Fair enough on that. My comment came across as trying to rationalized the violence, which I didn't intend as such. Rather it was meant to point out that if one wants to help reduce risk of terrorist attacks then take proactive measures to minimize levels of disenfranchisement and bigotry.