« 16 »
  • Reply
Beer4TheBeerGod
Aug 23, 2004


evilweasel posted:

I read that more as "these 5 didn't get ruled out and we are treating as bombs" rather than "these 5 are definitely bombs".

The article rather specifically calls them explosive devices, and "render safe" is a fairly specific term.

EDIT: Actually, I take that back. "Render safe" could mean they blew the hell out of something they weren't sure about, so without additional confirmation I would take this with a grain of salt.

Beer4TheBeerGod fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 17:11

A GIANT PARSNIP
Apr 12, 2010


Oh god Mr. False Flag keeps yelling shit.

evilweasel
Aug 23, 2002


Paul MaudDib posted:

So you think that people are genetically predisposed to overreact to Muslim terrorism, or genetically predisposed to electing leaders with an axe to grind, or that our suddenly shifted on 9/11 without our bodies rejecting all of our internal organs, or what?

Because all of those things are cultural factors. Thank you for making my point.

I believe that you've made no reasonable argument that Norway is culturally better at reacting to terrorism than America is. That is because the sole argument you offered was a comparison of the reaction to two specific terrorist attacks but upon examination of the examples the difference is what happened in the terrorist attacks rather than cultural differences. When controlled for those differences, your argument lacks any support. The things you're claiming in this post about what I am saying are just sort of nonsense.

cymbalrush
Jul 12, 2008


A GIANT PARSNIP posted:

Oh god Mr. False Flag keeps yelling shit.

How do these people get the credentials to be in a major press conference, let alone ask the first question? I'm genuinely confused

Anukis
Jan 22, 2006


Anything reported within 24-48 hours is obviously subject to revision, but if there were actually other devices I'm really glad they didn't go off. Today's been a horrible enough day for the city, I think.

dusty posted:

Thanks for your insightful contribution you chucklefuck.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=keep+calm+and+carry+on


edit/ fixed link

You're operating on such an ill-informed, goony level that I'm genuinely astounded by it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=jean+charles+de+menezes

Mister Adequate
Oct 29, 2011


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Literally first question at the press conference is about it being a false flag attack to take away are civil liberties. Thanks, Alex Jones.

"Yep, it was a false flag carried out by the CIA in conjunction with the Boston PD and Massachusetts State Police. We're going to get your guns, then we're going to get your bibles, and then you're going to marry some Muslims."

A GIANT PARSNIP
Apr 12, 2010


cymbalrush posted:

How do these people get the credentials to be in a major press conference, let alone ask the first question? I'm genuinely confused

I'm not sure what their procedures are but I'm sure those procedures will be changed.

LGD
Sep 24, 2004


Mister Adequate posted:

"Yep, it was a false flag carried out by the CIA in conjunction with the Boston PD and Massachusetts State Police. We're going to get your guns, then we're going to get your bibles, and then you're going to marry some Muslims."

"Sorry- I misspoke. You're going to gay marry some Muslims."

cymbalrush
Jul 12, 2008


A GIANT PARSNIP posted:

I'm not sure what their procedures are but I'm sure those procedures will be changed.

Profiling people with goatees.

VikingofRock
Aug 23, 2008


Anyone got a link to a stream of the press conference? Sorry if I've missed it in the past few pages, they've been kind of hectic.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 6, 2012


I think it's over, should be thrown on the youtubes soon.

e: Remember when I said "thanks, Alex Jones?" Turns out, Yelly McConspiracypants actually was with Infowars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQWH2epffQY

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 17:09

Paul MaudDib
May 2, 2006


evilweasel posted:

I believe that you've made no reasonable argument that Norway is culturally better at reacting to terrorism than America is.

So you're retreating from the claim that cultural factors have no impact whatsoever on reactions to events?

evilweasel posted:

The general reasons it works so well (availability heuristic; extremely bad weighting of probabilities; fear of things 'outside your control' over things 'inside your control') are universal human cognitive failings and I'm not aware of any valid evidence to suggest there are cultural factors involved. It's just generally people thinking that they are smart while other people are dumb and rationalizing that (and they're wrong: everyone falls victim to these, even people very well versed in them).

evilweasel posted:

Because we have a full explanation without a "cultural consideration", and the "cultural consideration" is obvious garbage (americans are dumb and violent). We do not need cultural explanations to understand why it works and cultural explanations are frequently simply the authors biases cloaked in pseudoscientific terms.

It would seem that you have retreated from that absolute position (cultural factors are obvious garbage and there is no valid evidence that cultural factors affect human responses) to a more specific one (cultural factors are the primary difference between OKC and Ft Hood but not between Norway and the US).

I wasn't trying to make a specific claim that Norway was particularly good so much as modern American responses to terrorism are particularly bad post-9/11.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Apr 15, 2013 around 17:15

Munin
Nov 14, 2004


Also to add that the UK reaction to the July 5th bombing was, like the US, enacting drastic new terror laws which are still on the books. These have since then been used to do everything from hassling various undesirables, supressing protests etc, to being abused by local councils (waste bins and catchment areas are serious business...).

The reaction to the UK riots was utter hysteria followed by drastic sentences (well outside guidelines) being handed down to all and sundry.

Whilst like in the US you can point to heroic first responders and so forth we still get the reactionary backlash over here as well. We're not a superpower though so most people don't need to care about our domestic laws headlines and politics so I can fully understand how people might have missed this.

djw175
Apr 23, 2012




Can you people make your own thread? This derail keeps making me think there's new details.

menino
Jul 26, 2006


FBI is still "no commenting" the devices, and BPD Commissioner Davis explicitly says "no devices" for the time being.

Zeitgueist
Aug 8, 2003


evilweasel posted:

His description of my point is inaccurate and I responded to his point. You haven't offered anything new besides complaining so there's not really any point in responding to you repeating it. However for a general description of the factors at issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic (In short, you tend to gauge the likelihood of things by the examples you can think of, systematically overweighing rare events)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusion_of_control (In short, you think you have more control than you do over chance events. This causes people to think that the odds for things they can control are better than they actually are)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias (similar effect to the above)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribute_substitution (in short: people will pay more for insurance to protect against terrorism than to protect against all death, even though all death covers terrorism)

Some of his papers you may be able to access: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/1...ourcetype=HWCIT

The basic argument is that people are wretched at assessing relative risks of things. Utterly wretched: he goes into great detail about how people are just not naturally good with stats or probability and so our intuitive judgments about them are generally terrible. Many factors of terrorism (its newsworthiness, it being out of our control and random, and it being so vivid in our imagination) means we are going to systematically overweight the risk of dying to terrorism and fear it well out of proportion to how scared we "should" be. All of these have been demonstrated in studies and together provide a coherent and complete explanation for why people go so bonkers over terrorism but not, say, driving a car.

You've presented this as being entirely set and uncontroversial with no room for disagreement, however I believe what Ambrose and others are attempting to disagree with you is based on Cultural Dimensions Theory.

The basic overview:

quote:

Geert Hofstede's theory of cultural dimensions describes the effects of a society's culture on the values of its members, and how these values relate to behavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis. The theory has been widely used in several fields as a paradigm for research, particularly in cross-cultural psychology, international management, and cross-cultural communication. Hofstede developed his original model as a result of using factor analysis to examine the results of a world-wide survey of employee values by IBM in the 1960s and 1970s. The theory was one of the first that could be quantified, and could be used to explain observed differences between cultures.

The original theory proposed four dimensions along which cultural values could be analyzed: individualism-collectivism; uncertainty avoidance; power distance (strength of social hierarchy) and masculinity-femininity (task orientation versus person-orientation). Independent research in Hong Kong led Hofstede to add a fifth dimension, long-term orientation, to cover aspects of values not discussed in the original paradigm. In the 2010 edition of Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind [1] Hofstede added a sixth dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint, as a result of co-author Michael Minkov's analysis of data from the World Values Survey. Further research has refined some of the original dimensions, and introduced the difference between country-level and individual-level data in analysis.

Hofstede's work established a major research tradition in cross-cultural psychology and has also been drawn upon by researchers and consultants in many fields relating to international business and communication. It continues to be a major resource in cross-cultural fields. It has inspired a number of other major cross-cultural studies of values, as well as research on other aspects of culture, such as social beliefs.

You're presenting your view as the only one in existence beyond question, but those of us disagreeing with you do have a basis for our assertions.

truavatar
Mar 2, 2004


Paul MaudDib posted:

So you're retreating from the claim that cultural factors have no impact whatsoever on reactions to events?


Because I wasn't trying to make a specific claim that Norway was particularly good so much as modern American responses to terrorism are particularly bad.

Again, he was making no such claim. He was responding to a very specific claim made by another poster:

zoux posted:

Unfortunately, terrorism is so effective against Americans because we are easy to scare, cannot comprehend risk in any meaningful way, and go completely bonkers after every terrorist event. If this was done by an Islamic terrorist (which I have no evidence or inkling of) you can bet the US will go mad with bloodlust and demand we invade some country, and the right and left-hawks will whip these people into a frenzy.

You responded with this:

Paul MaudDib posted:

Broadly speaking, you're correct. Look at the difference between how Norwegians deal with someone like Brevik and how Americans flipped out about 9/11 or Benghazi. When Americans get attacked, we fly off the handle and invade countries (sometimes totally unrelated ones), start threatening genocide against minorities (happened with 9/11 too), pass shit like the Patriot Act, and enact a bunch of useless security theater. Norwegians locked the dude up and got on with life.

EW is (correctly) stating that this is a poor comparison and that a comparison with OK city, where nobody flew off the handle, is far more apt.

Omi-Polari
Oct 4, 2012


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

I think it's over, should be thrown on the youtubes soon.

e: Remember when I said "thanks, Alex Jones?" Turns out, Yelly McConspiracypants actually was with Infowars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQWH2epffQY
The rise of conspiracy media in recent years should be a thread in itself. The Infowars crew has taken to distributing magazines in a lot of restaurants and coffee shops here in Austin now. So the local free papers you can get in most places are the alt-weekly (the Austin Chronicle) and the Infowars magazine.

I don't understand why the business owners don't throw them in the dumpster.

This is your future, rest of America.

Ardennes
May 12, 2002


Well I heard some rumors from the hill that the attack was probably not from a major organized group, pretty much leaves domestic terrorism annnnd... today is tax day. The explosions seems pretty small for a foreign operation, however if it is domestic, the date might be a coincidence or something interesting.

Beer4TheBeerGod
Aug 23, 2004


In the GBS thread I've been trying to post a regular account of what it is that we actually know. Can you guys think of anything beyond the following that's concrete?

1) Two explosive devices went off within 20 seconds of each other at the finish line of the marathon. A better YouTube link can be found here.

2) An individual was seen on video placing backpacks inside the trash cans that exploded at the finish line.

3) No other devices have been confirmed. Boston Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) teams may be using controlled explosions to eliminate suspected explosive devices, as they are investigating every backpack and suspicious device, but no other devices have actually been found.

4) 3 people are dead, over 100 injured.

5) The fire at the JFK Library is not believed to be related at this time.

Dusseldorf
Mar 29, 2005


Ardennes posted:

Well I heard some rumors from the hill that the attack was probably not from a major organized group, pretty much leaves domestic terrorism annnnd... today is tax day. The explosions seems pretty small for a foreign operation, however if it is domestic, the date might be a coincidence or something interesting.

Are they ruling out major groups because they usually fess up to their bombings?

ReindeerF
Apr 20, 2002


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

e: Remember when I said "thanks, Alex Jones?" Turns out, Yelly McConspiracypants actually was with Infowars:
So that's what Horace did after leaving the Dharma Initiative. Makes sense.

SedanChair
May 31, 2003


Omi-Polari posted:

The rise of conspiracy media in recent years should be a thread in itself. The Infowars crew has taken to distributing magazines in a lot of restaurants and coffee shops here in Austin now. So the local free papers you can get in most places are the alt-weekly (the Austin Chronicle) and the Infowars magazine.

I don't understand why the business owners don't throw them in the dumpster.

This is your future, rest of America.

Conspiracy media is less offensive, less harmful and way less influential than cable media. It's just another path to being totally misinformed about world events, which is the same outcome you get from watching CNN, Fox News or MSNBC.

zoux
Apr 28, 2006


truavatar posted:

Again, he was making no such claim. He was responding to a very specific claim made by another poster:


You responded with this:


EW is (correctly) stating that this is a poor comparison and that a comparison with OK city, where nobody flew off the handle, is far more apt.

There are sadly many examples of countries that have experienced non-domestic terror. I don't think it's fair to compare reactions to domestic and non-domestic terrorism, because there are many more issues, such as othering and nationalsm, that come into play with foreign or religious terrorism. What were the reponses of Spain, Britain and India with respect to foreign policy and domestic security in response to their own high-profile foreign or religious terror attacks?

Ardennes
May 12, 2002


Dusseldorf posted:

Are they ruling out major groups because they usually fess up to their bombings?

I think it is between the size and nature of the devices, and the lack of any claim, but I have no idea what authorities actually know at this point.

That said, if I had to make some bets, yeah it at least seems domestic but it is still unclear the "politics" of any message. It could very well be just another guy that desperately needed some basic mental health care.

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 6, 2012


SedanChair posted:

Conspiracy media is less offensive, less harmful and way less influential than cable media. It's just another path to being totally misinformed about world events, which is the same outcome you get from watching CNN, Fox News or MSNBC.
Are you really about to claim that conspiracy media is less offensive than cable media and results in an equal amount of misinformation? I know that hyperbole can be tempting in D&D, but come on dude.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006


SedanChair posted:

Conspiracy media is less offensive, less harmful and way less influential than cable media. It's just another path to being totally misinformed about world events, which is the same outcome you get from watching CNN, Fox News or MSNBC.

Its InfoWars. The guys who practically threatened a nice old Grandfather to one of the kids in the Newtown shootings.

They are scum of the earth.

dusty
Nov 30, 2004


djw175 posted:

Can you people make your own thread? This derail keeps making me think there's new details.

Seriosly, if you don't want people debating or discussing how about you fuck off? Get an RSS feed or read the Guardian or something.

Anukis
Jan 22, 2006


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Are you really about to claim that conspiracy media is less offensive than cable media and results in an equal amount of misinformation? I know that hyperbole can be tempting in D&D, but come on dude.

Conspiracy media results in a different kind of misinformed audience, but it's arguably less dangerous/offensive because it doesn't have the sheen of legitimacy that cable news has.

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006


Anukis posted:

Conspiracy media results in a different kind of misinformed audience, but it's arguably less dangerous/offensive because it doesn't have the sheen of legitimacy that cable news has.

Well, to normal people it has no sheen of legitimacy. To quacks, its the god honest truth, and the quacks are the ones who I'm more worried about, not some guy watching Fox news and pouring his outrage at Obama out in the weekly editorial to his local paper.

Grundulum
Feb 28, 2006


Ardennes posted:

It could very well be just another guy that desperately needed some basic mental health care.

Without going all no true Scotsman on you, what kind of person would plant and detonate two bombs like this and NOT need mental health care?

SedanChair
May 31, 2003


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

Are you really about to claim that conspiracy media is less offensive than cable media and results in an equal amount of misinformation? I know that hyperbole can be tempting in D&D, but come on dude.

How many wars has Infowars started? How many people believed Cheney's Plan B intel was legit because it was parroted breathlessly by pundits?

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD
Jul 6, 2012


Anukis posted:

Conspiracy media results in a different kind of misinformed audience, but it's arguably less dangerous/offensive because it doesn't have the sheen of legitimacy that cable news has.
That's completely different that asserting the information is of comparable quality, which is absurd. And I really don't think that mass-media sensationalism and narration is less offensive than right-wing conspiracy loon horseshit like Infowars' knee-jerk reaction to today's events. It may be more dangerous because of its broad reach and supposed legitimacy, but that's a completely different issue.

Mrit
Sep 25, 2007


SedanChair posted:


Conspiracy media is less offensive, less harmful and way less influential than cable media. It's just another path to being totally misinformed about world events, which is the same outcome you get from watching CNN, Fox News or MSNBC.

And the award for "Post that would be right at home on Free Republic" goes to...!
(its you)

Anukis
Jan 22, 2006


CommieGIR posted:

Well, to normal people it has no sheen of legitimacy. To quacks, its the god honest truth, and the quacks are the ones who I'm more worried about, not some guy watching Fox news and pouring his outrage at Obama out in the weekly editorial to his local paper.

Sure, but I just meant that the level of harm done by the repetition of commonly accepted yet easily disproven lies in cable media (the incessant focus on fake crises that conveniently lead to drastic policy changes that hurt ordinary people, for instance) is probably worse than the harm brought on by people who make their purchasing decisions based on who's advertising on George Noory/Alex Jones this week.

Chokes McGee
Aug 6, 2008


SedanChair posted:

How many wars has Infowars started?

Well, at least one if you believe the name!

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006


Anukis posted:

Sure, but I just meant that the level of harm done by the repetition of commonly accepted yet easily disproven lies in cable media (the incessant focus on fake crises that conveniently lead to drastic policy changes that hurt ordinary people, for instance) is probably worse than the harm brought on by people who make their purchasing decisions based on who's advertising on George Noory/Alex Jones this week.

You can argue that sure, and while the fanbase of people like Alex Jones and Info Wars isn't nearly as big as, say, Fox News, its still a minority that generally takes a more...heavy handed approach to what they hear on their propaganda shows.

Think Doomsday Preppers.

SedanChair
May 31, 2003


KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

That's completely different that asserting the information is of comparable quality, which is absurd. And I really don't think that mass-media sensationalism and narration is less offensive than right-wing conspiracy loon horseshit like Infowars' knee-jerk reaction to today's events. It may be more dangerous because of its broad reach and supposed legitimacy, but that's a completely different issue.

No, that's obviously untrue. For example during the election none of the major outlets pointed out that polling was accurate, instead giving equal time to crank Republican theories. The need to curry favor and gain access has resulted in the dissemination of active disinformation as neutral reporting. For all the problems conspiracy-based media has, it doesn't have that one.

For me it is less offensive because nobody important takes it seriously (see Thomas Friedman on anything other than mustache grooming tips).

Mrit posted:

And the award for "Post that would be right at home on Free Republic" goes to...!
(its you)

It's actually you, because you're an antsy joiner who feels the need to try and categorize me.

Ardennes
May 12, 2002


Grundulum posted:

Without going all no true Scotsman on you, what kind of person would plant and detonate two bombs like this and NOT need mental health care?

I can oppose the views of someone and their actions, without thinking they are nuts. Terrorism is an extreme act, but it doesn't necessarily have to be irrational. It is pretty unlikely in this case this was an especially rational act because of the circumstances.

You could probably come up with a story though.

MadScientistWorking
Jun 22, 2010


Omi-Polari posted:

The rise of conspiracy media in recent years should be a thread in itself. The Infowars crew has taken to distributing magazines in a lot of restaurants and coffee shops here in Austin now. So the local free papers you can get in most places are the alt-weekly (the Austin Chronicle) and the Infowars magazine.

I don't understand why the business owners don't throw them in the dumpster.

This is your future, rest of America.
There is no rise. I remember one of the few things from Boston early on when attending college about five to six years ago was incredibly common was how common the conspiracy media was.

  • Reply
« 16 »