The other things are, what exactly? A jacket? Sunglasses?
If he were like the guys in 2008, with a big ol' NBPP insignia, I'd agree. But he's not. He's just a guy in normal clothes.
Right, the same way a guy in a white robe and pointed white hat is just a guy in a white robe and poitned white hat.
This is odd for you... why are you being so obtuse on this issue? He is clearly identifying as a member of NBPP, He actually is a member of NBPP (we know that). Arguing that he's not doing so makes no sense.
The other things are, what exactly? A jacket? Sunglasses?
If he were like the guys in 2008, with a big ol' NBPP insignia, I'd agree. But he's not. He's just a guy in normal clothes.
Right, the same way a guy in a white robe and pointed white hat is just a guy in a white robe and poitned white hat.
This is odd for you... why are you being so obtuse on this issue? He is clearly identifying as a member of NBPP, He actually is a member of NBPP (we know that). Arguing that he's not doing so makes no sense.
No one wears a white hood except KKK members. Lots of people wear a beret, and lots of people wear black.
This is odd for you... why are you being so obtuse on this issue? He is clearly identifying as a member of NBPP, He actually is a member of NBPP (we know that). Arguing that he's not doing so makes no sense.
I think he's trying to say that identifying someone as part of a hate group based merely on clothing that could be legitimately worn is wrong. Not many people are going to dress in white robes and pointed hats because that outfit has cultural ties to the KKK. The cultural tie of black beret + black fatigues to NBPP is much less.
The other things are, what exactly? A jacket? Sunglasses?
If he were like the guys in 2008, with a big ol' NBPP insignia, I'd agree. But he's not. He's just a guy in normal clothes.
Right, the same way a guy in a white robe and pointed white hat is just a guy in a white robe and poitned white hat.
This is odd for you... why are you being so obtuse on this issue? He is clearly identifying as a member of NBPP, He actually is a member of NBPP (we know that). Arguing that he's not doing so makes no sense.
No one wears a white hood except KKK members. Lots of people wear a beret, and lots of people wear black.
Do you honestly not think this guy is intentionally representing as a member of the NBPP?
Does it change your mind at all when we know for a fact that he actually is, in fact, a member of the NBPP?
This is odd for you... why are you being so obtuse on this issue? He is clearly identifying as a member of NBPP, He actually is a member of NBPP (we know that). Arguing that he's not doing so makes no sense.
I think he's trying to say that identifying someone as part of a hate group based merely on clothing that could be legitimately worn is wrong. Not many people are going to dress in white robes and pointed hats because that outfit has cultural ties to the KKK. The cultural tie of black beret + black fatigues to NBPP is much less.
The tie is less, but the does isn't "doesn't exist". Especially in areas with NBPP activity. There is no question in any reasonable viewers mind that he is intentionally representing as a NBPP member. Not some dude who happens to be wearing an outfit that coincidentally bears a striking resemblance to a known hate groups uniform.
In the same way, throwing a bunch of nooses up on a tree is not "actual" intimidation but it works just the same. That's not the primary reason the KKK "uniform" exists but surely they love it as a side effect.
Iconography is included as a form of illegal intimidation FYI, which would include a noose or references to them.
So, if the guy in the video were wearing a tie, you'd be fine with it?
The tie wasn't the only difference. It was 1 of 3 major differences:
1. Tie
2. Not all black - jacket was dark green.
3. Jacket was a different style with the brass buttons.
So, it depends. You're asking me where the Ranger ends and the Panther begins. It's subjective.
We're really not even concerned with his status as a Panther per se, we're concerned with the recognition of his status as a Panther by various voters. Those voters will recognize or not recognize that status based on any number of factors and to differing degrees. The goal should be that the overwhelming majority of people do not view the greeter at the door to be a political militant.
The tie is less, but the does isn't "doesn't exist". Especially in areas with NBPP activity. There is no question in any reasonable viewers mind that he is intentionally representing as a NBPP member. Not some dude who happens to be wearing an outfit that coincidentally bears a striking resemblance to a known hate groups uniform.
My point, and I believe Tiax's as well, is that ljbossberir's assertion that black beret + black fatigues = NBPP is necessarily wrong because it's an outfit that could be worn legitimately unlike a white robe and pointed hood. Now in this particular case I am not disputing this man's affiliation; I think that's where we're getting hung up.
Do you honestly not think this guy is intentionally representing as a member of the NBPP?
Does it change your mind at all when we know for a fact that he actually is, in fact, a member of the NBPP?
Whether or not he is a member is immaterial. I'd be fine with a KKK member who wasn't wearing KKK insignia standing in front of a polling place. I also don't care whether he's "representing as a member". What matters is whether a voter can fairly and reasonably judge that he is one. Note that that demands a standard which is fairly accurate.
If I said that I think also middle easterners are members of al-Qaeda, and then complained that there was a middle eastern guy at my polling place, that wouldn't be justified. Even if by some distant chance, my crazy complaint turned out to be right about him.
Now obviously, that situation is more extreme. However, the same principle applies. It's not important whether he is or not. What matters is whether you can fairly and accurately judge that he is based on his appearance and actions. I contend that you cannot, as you would be simultaneously accusing many other black people of being members of a hate group when they are not.
"No one commits voter fraud! So why would we need laws to correct this problem if it doesn't exist?"
[Someone gets caught committing voter fraud]
"See, our existing laws are sufficient to catch anyone who commits voter fraud!"
[Scratches head]
I never heard the "No one commits voter fraud!" line - sounds like a straw man. I've heard "Voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID isn't prevalent" - but nothing anyone has shown in this thread provides even a slight counter-argument to that.
Do you honestly not think this guy is intentionally representing as a member of the NBPP?
Does it change your mind at all when we know for a fact that he actually is, in fact, a member of the NBPP?
Whether or not he is a member is immaterial. I'd be fine with a KKK member who wasn't wearing KKK insignia standing in front of a polling place. I also don't care whether he's "representing as a member". What matters is whether a voter can fairly and reasonably judge that he is one. Note that that demands a standard which is fairly accurate.
If I said that I think also middle easterners are members of al-Qaeda, and then complained that there was a middle eastern guy at my polling place, that wouldn't be justified. Even if by some distant chance, my crazy complaint turned out to be right about him.
Now obviously, that situation is more extreme. However, the same principle applies. It's not important whether he is or not. What matters is whether you can fairly and accurately judge that he is based on his appearance and actions. I contend that you cannot, as you would be simultaneously accusing many other black people of being members of a hate group when they are not.
I contend that you are wrong, which I guess is where we'll have to end it. There is literally no difference in my mind between associating this man with the NBPP and associating a person in a white robe and hat with the KKK. neither association takes a particularly strong leap of logic, and in both situations it is intimidating.
I never heard the "No one commits voter fraud!" line - sounds like a straw man. I've heard "Voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID isn't prevalent" - but nothing anyone has shown in this thread provides even a slight counter-argument to that.
You may want to read the threads on here a bit more closely then.
Do you honestly not think this guy is intentionally representing as a member of the NBPP?
Does it change your mind at all when we know for a fact that he actually is, in fact, a member of the NBPP?
Whether or not he is a member is immaterial. I'd be fine with a KKK member who wasn't wearing KKK insignia standing in front of a polling place. I also don't care whether he's "representing as a member". What matters is whether a voter can fairly and reasonably judge that he is one. Note that that demands a standard which is fairly accurate.
If I said that I think also middle easterners are members of al-Qaeda, and then complained that there was a middle eastern guy at my polling place, that wouldn't be justified. Even if by some distant chance, my crazy complaint turned out to be right about him.
Now obviously, that situation is more extreme. However, the same principle applies. It's not important whether he is or not. What matters is whether you can fairly and accurately judge that he is based on his appearance and actions. I contend that you cannot, as you would be simultaneously accusing many other black people of being members of a hate group when they are not.
I contend that you are wrong, which I guess is where we'll have to end it. There is literally no difference in my mind between associating this man with the NBPP and associating a person in a white robe and hat with the KKK. neither association takes a particularly strong leap of logic, and in both situations it is intimidating.
So, when you see a guy with a beret and a black jacket, you honestly believe they have an essentially 100% chance of being a member of a militant hate group, just as someone wearing a white robe and hood has?
"No one commits voter fraud! So why would we need laws to correct this problem if it doesn't exist?"
[Someone gets caught committing voter fraud]
"See, our existing laws are sufficient to catch anyone who commits voter fraud!"
[Scratches head]
I never heard the "No one commits voter fraud!" line - sounds like a straw man. I've heard "Voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID isn't prevalent" - but nothing anyone has shown in this thread provides even a slight counter-argument to that.
That was shortened to "voter fraud is practically non-existent" and various compression that happens in politics.
I wish we could post video in these threads to show this glitch in an electronic voting machine.
Do you honestly not think this guy is intentionally representing as a member of the NBPP?
Does it change your mind at all when we know for a fact that he actually is, in fact, a member of the NBPP?
Whether or not he is a member is immaterial. I'd be fine with a KKK member who wasn't wearing KKK insignia standing in front of a polling place. I also don't care whether he's "representing as a member". What matters is whether a voter can fairly and reasonably judge that he is one. Note that that demands a standard which is fairly accurate.
If I said that I think also middle easterners are members of al-Qaeda, and then complained that there was a middle eastern guy at my polling place, that wouldn't be justified. Even if by some distant chance, my crazy complaint turned out to be right about him.
Now obviously, that situation is more extreme. However, the same principle applies. It's not important whether he is or not. What matters is whether you can fairly and accurately judge that he is based on his appearance and actions. I contend that you cannot, as you would be simultaneously accusing many other black people of being members of a hate group when they are not.
I contend that you are wrong, which I guess is where we'll have to end it. There is literally no difference in my mind between associating this man with the NBPP and associating a person in a white robe and hat with the KKK. neither association takes a particularly strong leap of logic, and in both situations it is intimidating.
So, when you see a guy with a beret and a black jacket, you honestly believe they have an essentially 100% chance of being a member of a militant hate group, just as someone wearing a white robe and hood has?
No, when I see a guy wearing the outfit the guy was wearing in a location that has historically been associated with NBPP voter intimidation I believe they essentially have a 100% chance of being a member of a militant hate group.
His outfit is not just a black beret and a black jacket, and he is not just wlaking down the street.
I'm not sure I buy that every polling location in Philadelphia has"historically been associated with NBPP voter intimidation."
One polling location had one incident.
Perhaps the problem here is you don't understand how small and recent the NBPP is? This is not a nationwide organization with many decades of history like the KKK. It's a small number of nutjobs with a very limited history. It's the fringe of the fringe. If not for that one guy with a nightstick in 2008, none of us would ever have heard of them.
Considering the track record of electronic voting machines, it isn't necessarily a glitch.
If it were nefarious, why would they bother highlighting Romney? Would it be many times more effective to highlight the voter's choice, but record something different?
By contrast, a mis-calibrated touch-screen is quite plausible.
Considering the track record of electronic voting machines, it isn't necessarily a glitch.
I'd attribute it to incompetence instead of malice. I work in software development and I can tell you that the many coders are actually pretty bad. This is most likely a hardware or software glitch that the manufacturer either couldn't reproduce reliably or didn't catch in testing (if they did much testing at all (another dark secret of the development world)).
1) how is religious iconography intimidating to voters?
2) what? Seriously? what? How does that make sense?
The same way that mention of a political party with a violent history like the NBPP can intimidate someone, I see no reason that a religion with a violent history might not intimidate someone. Especially if you aren't a part of that religion. Same goes for the potential religious messages.
Not saying it's a bright red line, just saying that this sort of problem can be tough to solve.
I love when non-Philadelphia residents talk about Philadelphia...this is like the 'Flash Mob' thread all over again. A Black Panther presence in a predominately Democratic, black section of the city (it's a retirement home) isn't going to accomplish much, if intimidation was actually the goal.
I experienced a more blatant example of voter intimidation inside the polling station -- a morbidly obese white guy in a motorized scooter basically berated me in public when I asked him a question about whether or not I was in the right place (I had moved somewhat recently and had different addresses on my ID, etc etc). He noticed I was registered as a Republican (nevermind that I haven't voted Republican in years, but I did want to vote in the Primary) and made several comments along the lines of "typical Republican messing things up" and "you and your candidate are screwed." Ok, fatty :rolleyes:. Guy was leaning so far left, I'm surprised he didn't topple over...at least he'll have a coronary soon and probably won't be alive to see what happens in the next four years.
Guy who did the video said he tested it for miscalibration and it didn't seem to be that. It can certainly be simple incompetence on behalf of the programmers or the people who set up the station, because there are easier ways to mess with the results, but it isn't like incompetence and corruption never mix.
Here's a jsFiddle that illustrates what should happen in voting machines. The alert is what would be recorded. You would not see it.
Here's a jsFiddle that illustrates what a malicious voting machine would do.
Having a rigged machine that shows you that it's rigged is counterproductive.
I'm not sure I buy that every polling location in Philadelphia has"historically been associated with NBPP voter intimidation."
One polling location had one incident.
Perhaps the problem here is you don't understand how small and recent the NBPP is? This is not a nationwide organization with many decades of history like the KKK. It's a small number of nutjobs with a very limited history. It's the fringe of the fringe. If not for that one guy with a nightstick in 2008, none of us would ever have heard of them.
Huh? Well, I've known of the existence of NBPP for 10+ years. Maybe I'm just different, "Panther" was my favorite movie as a youngster (course that involved old BPP, just sayin').
Oh, just thought of it - probably because I live near NYC. Lots of NBPP activity there (lots of everything there, to be fair.)
Quote from Nis »
My point, and I believe Tiax's as well, is that ljbossberir's assertion that black beret + black fatigues = NBPP is necessarily wrong because it's an outfit that could be worn legitimately unlike a white robe and pointed hood. Now in this particular case I am not disputing this man's affiliation; I think that's where we're getting hung up.
Is it more likely that a black man would "accidentally" wear NBPP gear than a white man would "accidentally" wear KKK gear? Yes, absolutely.
But we're not talking about guarantees here. I'm not saying that someone must be NBPP just because they're wearing that, I'm saying that they are very likely NBPP *or* a similar militant group because, as I understand it, there are other groups that mimic them a bit.
Without being the fashion police, there's no way to prove or disprove this statement. All I can tell you is that I have rarely ever seen anyone wearing a beret at all. How common are berets where you live?
To add to this, 1) the man is black, 2) the man has great posture, 3) the man's beret is black, 4) the man is wearing a black jacket, 5) the man is not wearing a tie, 6) the jacket is of a certain style not featuring, for example, brass buttons (as in the Army Ranger picture)
This is about reasonable suspicion not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." We're not trying to convict the guy for membership in a group, we don't need to know for certain that he's with that group, we just need to have reasonable suspicion of it for him to intimidate us.
We make these preliminary judgements all the time. It's human nature, we have to do it. For example, it's perfectly possible for a man to have a tattoo on his face, wear an exaggerated gold chain, wear baggy clothes, walk with a little "swagger" and yet not be a gang member of any kind. But I'm still gonna move to the other side of the street late at night until someone proves otherwise.
Considering the track record of electronic voting machines, it isn't necessarily a glitch.
I'd attribute it to incompetence instead of malice. I work in software development and I can tell you that the many coders are actually pretty bad. This is most likely a hardware or software glitch that the manufacturer either couldn't reproduce reliably or didn't catch in testing (if they did much testing at all (another dark secret of the development world)).
As someone who has to work with touch screens in an industrial setting and they can be a royal pain if there are problems with calibration or they are simply cheaply made. A standard issue I had to deal with is one of a fan or vent positioned in such a way that the screen gets a gust of hot air from time to time. It makes it seem like someone is randomly pressing buttons on the screen.
From professional curiosity I would love to get my hands on that machine so I could figure out why exactly it was doing that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right, the same way a guy in a white robe and pointed white hat is just a guy in a white robe and poitned white hat.
This is odd for you... why are you being so obtuse on this issue? He is clearly identifying as a member of NBPP, He actually is a member of NBPP (we know that). Arguing that he's not doing so makes no sense.
No one wears a white hood except KKK members. Lots of people wear a beret, and lots of people wear black.
I think he's trying to say that identifying someone as part of a hate group based merely on clothing that could be legitimately worn is wrong. Not many people are going to dress in white robes and pointed hats because that outfit has cultural ties to the KKK. The cultural tie of black beret + black fatigues to NBPP is much less.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Do you honestly not think this guy is intentionally representing as a member of the NBPP?
Does it change your mind at all when we know for a fact that he actually is, in fact, a member of the NBPP?
The tie is less, but the does isn't "doesn't exist". Especially in areas with NBPP activity. There is no question in any reasonable viewers mind that he is intentionally representing as a NBPP member. Not some dude who happens to be wearing an outfit that coincidentally bears a striking resemblance to a known hate groups uniform.
Iconography is included as a form of illegal intimidation FYI, which would include a noose or references to them.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
The tie wasn't the only difference. It was 1 of 3 major differences:
1. Tie
2. Not all black - jacket was dark green.
3. Jacket was a different style with the brass buttons.
So, it depends. You're asking me where the Ranger ends and the Panther begins. It's subjective.
We're really not even concerned with his status as a Panther per se, we're concerned with the recognition of his status as a Panther by various voters. Those voters will recognize or not recognize that status based on any number of factors and to differing degrees. The goal should be that the overwhelming majority of people do not view the greeter at the door to be a political militant.
My point, and I believe Tiax's as well, is that ljbossberir's assertion that black beret + black fatigues = NBPP is necessarily wrong because it's an outfit that could be worn legitimately unlike a white robe and pointed hood. Now in this particular case I am not disputing this man's affiliation; I think that's where we're getting hung up.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Whether or not he is a member is immaterial. I'd be fine with a KKK member who wasn't wearing KKK insignia standing in front of a polling place. I also don't care whether he's "representing as a member". What matters is whether a voter can fairly and reasonably judge that he is one. Note that that demands a standard which is fairly accurate.
If I said that I think also middle easterners are members of al-Qaeda, and then complained that there was a middle eastern guy at my polling place, that wouldn't be justified. Even if by some distant chance, my crazy complaint turned out to be right about him.
Now obviously, that situation is more extreme. However, the same principle applies. It's not important whether he is or not. What matters is whether you can fairly and accurately judge that he is based on his appearance and actions. I contend that you cannot, as you would be simultaneously accusing many other black people of being members of a hate group when they are not.
I never heard the "No one commits voter fraud!" line - sounds like a straw man. I've heard "Voter fraud that would be prevented by voter ID isn't prevalent" - but nothing anyone has shown in this thread provides even a slight counter-argument to that.
I contend that you are wrong, which I guess is where we'll have to end it. There is literally no difference in my mind between associating this man with the NBPP and associating a person in a white robe and hat with the KKK. neither association takes a particularly strong leap of logic, and in both situations it is intimidating.
You may want to read the threads on here a bit more closely then.
So, when you see a guy with a beret and a black jacket, you honestly believe they have an essentially 100% chance of being a member of a militant hate group, just as someone wearing a white robe and hood has?
That was shortened to "voter fraud is practically non-existent" and various compression that happens in politics.
I wish we could post video in these threads to show this glitch in an electronic voting machine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QdpGd74DrBM
No, when I see a guy wearing the outfit the guy was wearing in a location that has historically been associated with NBPP voter intimidation I believe they essentially have a 100% chance of being a member of a militant hate group.
His outfit is not just a black beret and a black jacket, and he is not just wlaking down the street.
One polling location had one incident.
Perhaps the problem here is you don't understand how small and recent the NBPP is? This is not a nationwide organization with many decades of history like the KKK. It's a small number of nutjobs with a very limited history. It's the fringe of the fringe. If not for that one guy with a nightstick in 2008, none of us would ever have heard of them.
Yea, the one this guy is standing in front of...
Watch the video again. It's very clearly not the same place.
EDIT: No, you're right. I didn't see the very last shot. It is the same.
If it were nefarious, why would they bother highlighting Romney? Would it be many times more effective to highlight the voter's choice, but record something different?
By contrast, a mis-calibrated touch-screen is quite plausible.
I'd attribute it to incompetence instead of malice. I work in software development and I can tell you that the many coders are actually pretty bad. This is most likely a hardware or software glitch that the manufacturer either couldn't reproduce reliably or didn't catch in testing (if they did much testing at all (another dark secret of the development world)).
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Not saying it's a bright red line, just saying that this sort of problem can be tough to solve.
I experienced a more blatant example of voter intimidation inside the polling station -- a morbidly obese white guy in a motorized scooter basically berated me in public when I asked him a question about whether or not I was in the right place (I had moved somewhat recently and had different addresses on my ID, etc etc). He noticed I was registered as a Republican (nevermind that I haven't voted Republican in years, but I did want to vote in the Primary) and made several comments along the lines of "typical Republican messing things up" and "you and your candidate are screwed." Ok, fatty :rolleyes:. Guy was leaning so far left, I'm surprised he didn't topple over...at least he'll have a coronary soon and probably won't be alive to see what happens in the next four years.
[/rant]
Here's a jsFiddle that illustrates what should happen in voting machines. The alert is what would be recorded. You would not see it.
Here's a jsFiddle that illustrates what a malicious voting machine would do.
Having a rigged machine that shows you that it's rigged is counterproductive.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Huh? Well, I've known of the existence of NBPP for 10+ years. Maybe I'm just different, "Panther" was my favorite movie as a youngster (course that involved old BPP, just sayin').
Oh, just thought of it - probably because I live near NYC. Lots of NBPP activity there (lots of everything there, to be fair.)
Is it more likely that a black man would "accidentally" wear NBPP gear than a white man would "accidentally" wear KKK gear? Yes, absolutely.
But we're not talking about guarantees here. I'm not saying that someone must be NBPP just because they're wearing that, I'm saying that they are very likely NBPP *or* a similar militant group because, as I understand it, there are other groups that mimic them a bit.
Without being the fashion police, there's no way to prove or disprove this statement. All I can tell you is that I have rarely ever seen anyone wearing a beret at all. How common are berets where you live?
To add to this, 1) the man is black, 2) the man has great posture, 3) the man's beret is black, 4) the man is wearing a black jacket, 5) the man is not wearing a tie, 6) the jacket is of a certain style not featuring, for example, brass buttons (as in the Army Ranger picture)
This is about reasonable suspicion not "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." We're not trying to convict the guy for membership in a group, we don't need to know for certain that he's with that group, we just need to have reasonable suspicion of it for him to intimidate us.
We make these preliminary judgements all the time. It's human nature, we have to do it. For example, it's perfectly possible for a man to have a tattoo on his face, wear an exaggerated gold chain, wear baggy clothes, walk with a little "swagger" and yet not be a gang member of any kind. But I'm still gonna move to the other side of the street late at night until someone proves otherwise.
As someone who has to work with touch screens in an industrial setting and they can be a royal pain if there are problems with calibration or they are simply cheaply made. A standard issue I had to deal with is one of a fan or vent positioned in such a way that the screen gets a gust of hot air from time to time. It makes it seem like someone is randomly pressing buttons on the screen.
From professional curiosity I would love to get my hands on that machine so I could figure out why exactly it was doing that.