Police Accidentally Tweet Screenshot Showing That They Monitor Anti-Racism and Anti-Police Brutality Groups

[Jolly_Penguin]

I didn't make any declarations about any of those things.

He didn't say that you did. He's talking about "many people", which very well may not include you. He went out of his way to refer to these "many people" rather than to say you in particular.

I am not "many people".

Exactly.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Similarly, you cannot assure anyone that the police in this case aren't simply looking to these groups as opponents to harm, despite their lack of actual shown violence.

You can assure them. They may not believe you, and you may be wrong. Perhaps the police ARE looking for opponents to harm, but that could be said about them regarding anyone anywhere.

 

[Jarhyn]

I didn't make any declarations about any of those things.

He didn't say that you did. He's talking about "many people", which very well may not include you. He went out of his way to refer to these "many people" rather than to say you in particular.

I am not "many people".

Exactly.

In context as a reply to my post, bringing up these things not germane to the post he was replying to represents an intent to reflect "many people" back at me. At best it is a red herring, and at worst is a passive aggressive attempt to generate a straw man. He might as well pull a classic Faux News "some people say".

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I think we need to switch from the term "Extremist" to something like "Volatile". When people say "Muslim Extremist" it just makes it sound to me that the more Muslim you are, the more violent you are, and I don't think that's actually the message people saying this are looking to send.

You don't? I always thought it was a rather transparent attempt to imply that the two nouns are equivalents.

Me too

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think we need to switch from the term "Extremist" to something like "Volatile". When people say "Muslim Extremist" it just makes it sound to me that the more Muslim you are, the more violent you are, and I don't think that's actually the message people saying this are looking to send.

You don't? I always thought it was a rather transparent attempt to imply that the two nouns are equivalents.

Me too

Why would people who intend to equate the two be making any distinction between them?

 

[Jarhyn]

Me too

Why would people who intend to equate the two be making any distinction between them?

They aren't really making a distinction, they are attempting to make an association from which equivalence will be passively produced in the mind of the reader.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Me too

Why would people who intend to equate the two be making any distinction between them?

They aren't really making a distinction, they are attempting to make an association from which equivalence will be passively produced in the mind of the reader.

But if they are trying to make an association, then why don't they just say "Muslims"? Why distinguish out the "Extremists" from the Muslims in general?

 

[Jarhyn]

They aren't really making a distinction, they are attempting to make an association from which equivalence will be passively produced in the mind of the reader.

But if they are trying to make an association, then why don't they just say "Muslims"? Why distinguish out the "Extremists" from the Muslims in general?

So that they can make arguments like yours when called out over it, and deny that they are being racist pieces of garbage engaging in propaganda techniques

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They aren't really making a distinction, they are attempting to make an association from which equivalence will be passively produced in the mind of the reader.

But if they are trying to make an association, then why don't they just say "Muslims"? Why distinguish out the "Extremists" from the Muslims in general?

So that they can make arguments like yours when called out over it, and deny that they are being racist pieces of garbage engaging in propaganda techniques

They are hampering their own message because they don't want to be called out for holding that position?

 

[Jarhyn]

So that they can make arguments like yours when called out over it, and deny that they are being racist pieces of garbage engaging in propaganda techniques

They are hampering their own message because they don't want to be called out for holding that position?

No, because they want to have an excuse to point to when they inevitably are called out.

It's not dissimilar from "I've heard some people say..." as a caveat to a statement. In that dishonest shielding statement, the idea is that someone posts their view (or a straw man view) as if it was not their own (or as if it was someone specifically) and then when the other person says "that's racist!" (Or "that's not what I said") the interlocutor can then say "I never said that was what I believed" (or I never said that's what you believed"), and dance away from the accusation of being a racist (or straw-manning).

Similarly, "extremist muslims" is a way of painting muslims as extremist in a way that will impact minds to think muslims are extremists, while at the same time having a position they can dance back to when people point out "not all muslims".

They then emerge from the exchange having made the equivalency without having to explain that they are drawing equivalancies.

Isn't rhetoric !!FUN!!?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They then emerge from the exchange having made the equivalency without having to explain that they are drawing equivalancies.

Interesting. But if they want to make the equivalency, why not stand by making the equivalency? To walk it back means they think the equivalency is wrong on some level, doesn't it? So they'd be hampering their own attempt to make the equivalency. Yes, rhetoric is fun.

 

[Jarhyn]

They then emerge from the exchange having made the equivalency without having to explain that they are drawing equivalancies.

Interesting. But if they want to make the equivalency, why not stand by making the equivalency? To walk it back means they think the equivalency is wrong on some level, doesn't it? So they'd be hampering their own attempt to make the equivalency. Yes, rhetoric is fun.

Whenever someone puts their hand on the burner tha is 'making a false equivalency' they get burned by people jumping on their use of false equivalency. Whenever someone makes a weasel-word false equivalency, this does not happen in many if not most cases. This people will do what does not generally lead to social castigation, jiding behind something they can dance away with.

You might as well say "why do people fight with shields when they can stand by the strength of their swordplay"

it is a result of people holding a position that they believe and wish to fight for, but which they do not understand how to make an adequate case for it. You may as well ask why anyone commits to any dishonest debate tactic. They know they will get counter-attacked, and this particular rhetorical strategy gives them somewhere to go when that happens. It doesn't mean they think it is false, they merely know their opponent thinks it is false. It is making a statement or drawing a connection in a way that is not immediately apparent as to how to counter.

Edit: and this is all quite clear because the people talking about Muslim terrorists/extremists never talk about nationalist extremists or Christian extremists or masculinist extremists in those terms, just the muslims. The lack of phrasing any other extremists as extreme is what generates the equivalance

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think we need to switch from the term "Extremist" to something like "Volatile". When people say "Muslim Extremist" it just makes it sound to me that the more Muslim you are, the more violent you are, and I don't think that's actually the message people saying this are looking to send.

You don't? I always thought it was a rather transparent attempt to imply that the two nouns are equivalents.

The average Muslim is no problem.

- - - Updated - - -

And according to many people, Black Lives Matter are a "terrorist group", Obama loved when police were killed, and again, Deray McKesson wanted to start riots.

Terrorist group? What terrorism have they committed?

They're a hate group, not a terrorist group.

 

[Axulus]

So that they can make arguments like yours when called out over it, and deny that they are being racist pieces of garbage engaging in propaganda techniques

They are hampering their own message because they don't want to be called out for holding that position?

No, because they want to have an excuse to point to when they inevitably are called out.

It's not dissimilar from "I've heard some people say..." as a caveat to a statement. In that dishonest shielding statement, the idea is that someone posts their view (or a straw man view) as if it was not their own (or as if it was someone specifically) and then when the other person says "that's racist!" (Or "that's not what I said") the interlocutor can then say "I never said that was what I believed" (or I never said that's what you believed"), and dance away from the accusation of being a racist (or straw-manning).

Similarly, "extremist muslims" is a way of painting muslims as extremist in a way that will impact minds to think muslims are extremists, while at the same time having a position they can dance back to when people point out "not all muslims".

They then emerge from the exchange having made the equivalency without having to explain that they are drawing equivalancies.

Isn't rhetoric !!FUN!!?

So what's your preferred term for Muslims who adhere to extremist idealogies?

I prefer Islamist and Islamism.

An Islamist is someone who wants to impose one version of Islam upon the rest of society. Maajid Nawaz identified three categories of Islamists: terrorists, instigators of coups (which he himself used to do), and those who wish to work within existing systems (such as voting in those who support Sharia and Islamic State principles, in democratic societies. The Muslim Brotherhood is an example of an Islamist party). Is Islamist a PC enough term for you?

 

[Mumbles]

Terrorist group? What terrorism have they committed?

They're a hate group, not a terrorist group.

Also a ridiculous claim.

Jarhyn, see above for a demonstration of what I'm referring to .

 

[Jarhyn]

No, because they want to have an excuse to point to when they inevitably are called out.

It's not dissimilar from "I've heard some people say..." as a caveat to a statement. In that dishonest shielding statement, the idea is that someone posts their view (or a straw man view) as if it was not their own (or as if it was someone specifically) and then when the other person says "that's racist!" (Or "that's not what I said") the interlocutor can then say "I never said that was what I believed" (or I never said that's what you believed"), and dance away from the accusation of being a racist (or straw-manning).

Similarly, "extremist muslims" is a way of painting muslims as extremist in a way that will impact minds to think muslims are extremists, while at the same time having a position they can dance back to when people point out "not all muslims".

They then emerge from the exchange having made the equivalency without having to explain that they are drawing equivalancies.

Isn't rhetoric !!FUN!!?

So what's your preferred term for Muslims who adhere to extremist idealogies?

I prefer Islamist and Islamism.

An Islamist is someone who wants to impose one version of Islam upon the rest of society. Maajid Nawaz identified three categories of Islamists: terrorists, instigators of coups (which he himself used to do), and those who wish to work within existing systems (such as voting in those who support Sharia and Islamic State principles, in democratic societies. The Muslim Brotherhood is an example of an Islamist party). Is Islamist a PC enough term for you?

How about just "religious extremists"? Seems appropriate to not single them out among al the other religious extremists. Or we could just start being honest about all the other kinds of extremists, like Christian extremists, and White Identity Extremists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Terrorist group? What terrorism have they committed?

They're a hate group, not a terrorist group.

Also a ridiculous claim.

Jarhyn, see above for a demonstration of what I'm referring to .

They claim to be about police shootings of harmless black men. Their behavior says otherwise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, because they want to have an excuse to point to when they inevitably are called out.

It's not dissimilar from "I've heard some people say..." as a caveat to a statement. In that dishonest shielding statement, the idea is that someone posts their view (or a straw man view) as if it was not their own (or as if it was someone specifically) and then when the other person says "that's racist!" (Or "that's not what I said") the interlocutor can then say "I never said that was what I believed" (or I never said that's what you believed"), and dance away from the accusation of being a racist (or straw-manning).

Similarly, "extremist muslims" is a way of painting muslims as extremist in a way that will impact minds to think muslims are extremists, while at the same time having a position they can dance back to when people point out "not all muslims".

They then emerge from the exchange having made the equivalency without having to explain that they are drawing equivalancies.

Isn't rhetoric !!FUN!!?

So what's your preferred term for Muslims who adhere to extremist idealogies?

I prefer Islamist and Islamism.

An Islamist is someone who wants to impose one version of Islam upon the rest of society. Maajid Nawaz identified three categories of Islamists: terrorists, instigators of coups (which he himself used to do), and those who wish to work within existing systems (such as voting in those who support Sharia and Islamic State principles, in democratic societies. The Muslim Brotherhood is an example of an Islamist party). Is Islamist a PC enough term for you?

How about just "religious extremists"? Seems appropriate to not single them out among al the other religious extremists. Or we could just start being honest about all the other kinds of extremists, like Christian extremists, and White Identity Extremists.

1) Most religious extremists don't exhibit anything like the level of violence the Muslim ones do.

2) The label "religious extremists" lumps very disparate groups--a recipe for drawing wrong conclusions.

 

[laughing dog]

They claim to be about police shootings of harmless black men. Their behavior says otherwise.

Using that reasoning, the police are a hate group.

 

[Mumbles]

They claim to be about police shootings of harmless black men. Their behavior says otherwise.

Yeah, they've also protested police shootings of harmless white men, as well as women and children of every race. And they also run community service programs and charities, including disaster relief. The horror!

(also, they started after a black teenager was murdered by a racist lunatic who has gone on to a number of other violent encounters, so there's that too...)