Of 8 Tech Companies, Only Twitter Says It Would Refuse To Help Build Muslim Registry For Trump (theintercept.com) 588
On the campaign trail last year, President-elect Donald Trump said he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database. While he has back-stepped on a number of campaign promises after being elected president, Trump and his transition team have recently resurfaced the idea to create a national Muslim registry. In response, The Intercept contacted nine of the "most prominent" technology companies in the United States "to ask if they would sell their services to help create a national Muslim registry." Twitter was the only company that responded with "No." The Intercept reports: Even on a purely hypothetical basis, such a project would provide American technology companies an easy line to draw in the sand -- pushing back against any effort to track individuals purely (or essentially) on the basis of their religious beliefs doesn't take much in the way of courage or conviction, even by the thin standards of corporate America. We'd also be remiss in assuming no company would ever tie itself to such a nakedly evil undertaking: IBM famously helped Nazi Germany computerize the Holocaust. (IBM has downplayed its logistical role in the Holocaust, claiming in a 2001 statement that "most [relevant] documents were destroyed or lost during the war.") With all this in mind, we contacted nine different American firms in the business of technology, broadly defined, with the following question: "Would [name of company], if solicited by the Trump administration, sell any goods, services, information, or consulting of any kind to help facilitate the creation of a national Muslim registry, a project which has been floated tentatively by the president-elect's transition team?" After two weeks of calls and emails, only three companies provided an answer, and only one said it would not participate in such a project. A complete tally is below.
Facebook: No answer. Twitter: "No," and a link to this blog post, which states as company policy a prohibition against the use, by outside developers, of "Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period." Microsoft: "We're not going to talk about hypotheticals at this point," and a link to a company blog post that states that "we're committed to promoting not just diversity among all the men and women who work here, but [...] inclusive culture" and that "it will remain important for those in government and the tech sector to continue to work together to strike a balance that protects privacy and public safety in what remains a dangerous time." Google: No answer. Apple: No answer. IBM: No answer. Booz Allen Hamilton: Declined to comment. SRA International: No answer.
Facebook: No answer. Twitter: "No," and a link to this blog post, which states as company policy a prohibition against the use, by outside developers, of "Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period." Microsoft: "We're not going to talk about hypotheticals at this point," and a link to a company blog post that states that "we're committed to promoting not just diversity among all the men and women who work here, but [...] inclusive culture" and that "it will remain important for those in government and the tech sector to continue to work together to strike a balance that protects privacy and public safety in what remains a dangerous time." Google: No answer. Apple: No answer. IBM: No answer. Booz Allen Hamilton: Declined to comment. SRA International: No answer.
Bad Headline (Score:5, Informative)
They were also the only one to give *any* answer.
Re:Bad Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
I need to agree. The news loves to take "no comment" as an admission of guilt.
Trump is very anti-journalism I can see things going two ways.
1. Expansion of fake news and more emotional profit driven journalism.
2. A renewed effort into making journalism a trusted source to get information free of trying to push a political bias.
I would love to see #2 but I get the feeling we are just going to get more crap stories trying to get an emotional response vs forcing us to look at what is really said and in context.
Re: Bad Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
He's not anti journalism. He's anti shit-journalism, which this story clearly is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the facts from the journalism puts him in a bad light then it is "shit-journalism".
If the info about him is positive no matter how incorrect it is it is good journalism.
That is scary.
Re: Bad Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't shit journalism because it puts Trump in a bad light. It's shit journalism because it asks a loaded question, and attempts to make a story out of the landslide-majority of polled companies that didn't take the bait. It fits into a broader narrative in which Trump represents the second coming of Hitler, and everyone who does not unconditionally reject him is a neo-nazi.
For decades, we were warned about the dangers of increasing media consolidation. And since the rise of online journalism, we've been warned that this new model does not support the kind of journalistic integrity we came to expect in our news. A decade ago, Fox News showed us that facts and integrity are not necessary to win viewers. Now the major outlets are controlled by a handful of entities, and they do not practice journalism as we once understood it. Those entities are in turn controlled by the ultra-wealthy. The ultra-wealthy have political agendas based on their wishes and needs. Because they live very different lives from everyone else, their agendas are unlikely to match the wishes and needs of the broader population. So the institution we relied upon to inform us in our democratic decision making is now in the business of pushing agendas that are unlikely to match the wishes and needs of the broader population.
That's scary.
Re: Bad Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice post. It seem that modern journalism, instead of informing the public, is selling our biases back to us in a mad rush to produce page clicks. The result is an echo chamber effect on a national scale that balkanizes the electorate into self-selecting political entities, blind to the overall facts and hopelessly spun in the direction of their original predilections. See also the rise of Facebook as an adjunct to the news media, where users control what news they see by blocking uncomfortable or non-congruent sources.
Not only does this create division, but the inherent bias that draws in the targeted groups serves as a mental barrier to entry for non-aligned groups. As long as there is a safe harbor for intellectually and politically similar ideas from one news source, and other sources violate the entrenched norms and standards with biased reporting designed for another group, mobility from one ideological clade to another is limited. Plainly stated, when news outlets produce content which is canted towards a politically limited audience the underlying facts are presented in a way that prevents consumption by individuals with non-aligned ideals. This produces extremely polarized individuals, not only blind to any other interpretations of the issues, but also belligerent to representatives and outlets that contradict their viewpoints.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the question from the article (https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/of-8-tech-companies-only-twitter-says-it-would-refuse-to-help-build-muslim-registry-for-trump/):
“Would [name of company], if solicited by the Trump administration, sell any goods, services, information, or consulting of any kind to help facilitate the creation of a national Muslim registry, a project which has been floated tentatively by the president-elect’s transition team?”
The question is loaded, because it is fo
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's just transparently self-serving. Try not to wet your pants every day from now until 2021. You don't know the future. Stop making up (and believing) "scary" imaginary stories that take place in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In the last election, while not the only choices, were the major choices. The DNC and media are a big part of why we had those choices. Pied piper and rigged primaries.
Re:False dichotomy (Score:4, Interesting)
In the last election, while not the only choices, were the major choices.
And that's the problem right there.
Your problem is not Trump or Clinton. It's a system that culminated in a choice between two candidates which a large portion of your countrymen believe are both unsuitable for the job.
Address the cause, not the symptoms.
Re:Bad Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
They were also the only one to give *any* answer.
This, exactly. Look, Trump's Muslim tracking plan (and most everything else about Trump) is batshit crazy and not-even-trying-to-hide-it evil.
BUT the fact that most huge companies don't wring their hands over responding to every question posed to them by random strangers is... common sense and completely unsurprising?
I could just as easily send a flurry of questionnaires to the mail room of every Forbes 50 company asking whether they support genocide and puppy punting. Get one of them to write back "No, we think that's awful" and all of a sudden "Only 1 of 50 Top Companies is Opposed to Genocide and Puppy Punting."
It's not even "gotcha" journalism--no one was gotten. MS said $formResponseToDiversityQuestion, and Twitter said "No." Everyone else didn't feel obligated to give these folks an answer.
Re:Bad Headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump's Muslim tracking plan
You can bitch all you want on this piece of garbage-journalism, they still got into your head making you believe there is such a plan. This is classic persuasion. Make people think about what should be their reaction *if* something would happen. You start thinking about your reaction and before you know it you've taken the something for granted.
Re:Bad Headline (Score:5, Informative)
GS: "Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?" Trump: "No, not at all"
That was the final word on Trump's proposal to create a database to track all Muslims, which he had tried to backtrack to just "refugees". I'm not sure if it came before or after his idea that mosques need to be placed under surveillance.
I can update that statement with some better dates. The instances I can find of Trump talking about tracking Muslims ("Ooops! What I said about Muslims wasn't about Muslims, but refugees, mainly Muslim ones, or not, except wink wink it's about Muslims!") occurred in (at least) November 2015. The instances I can find of Trump talking about surveilling mosques occurred in (at least) November 2015 and June 2016. The instances I can find of Trump saying he wanted to ban all Muslims from entering the country occurred in (at least) December 2015.
I'd put in all the extra work to meticulously link all this stuff, where Donny is saying it, on video, but I assume you haven't been living under a rock for the last 18 months, and thus already know about it and have somehow rationalized it all away. Maybe the Lamestream Media had an evil Trump stunt double who was saying all that crazy bullshit on video? Or it was secretly Hillary in orangeface and a bad wig?
Of course, we've all taken Trump too literally, which I learned just this week from the Lewmeister. Maybe trashing minorities of every stripe and giving the middle finger to women (which he bragged about doing in a grossly literal way) was just pleasant banter and he doesn't remember saying it. Or maybe he remembers saying it, but he didn't mean it because that's just how us Americans all talk around the dinner table and in the bar and in the locker room, "You know, Norm, there oughta be a way to track all those damn terr'ist moslems. Maybe like a number or something they have to wear all the time so we can know who the bad guys are."
Re: (Score:3)
a proudly racist campaign
I keep hearing this, but no real evidence to support it. A lack of diplomacy, sure, but that doesn't make him objectively wrong.
This is why it's fucking hiliarious that he won. All these people bleating on about racism, not realising that their misuse of the word has caused half the population to start ignoring it.
Trump may or may not be racist. I personally think he probably is, but that's a gut feel and not based on evidence. Unfortunately the media didn't bother to look for that evidence, they just start
Re: (Score:3)
You people watch too much TV and read too little.
The print media DID find the evidence and published expose after expose that, every time, detailed with explicit evidence scandals that make the worst concerns about Clinton look insignificant by comparison - including detailed evidence of extreme racism in his businesses, of large scale fraud, bribery, corruption and consorting and dealing with hostile powers.
Most of those stories got exactly zero airtime on TV. The Washington post did a brutal story with
Re: (Score:3)
keep hearing this, but no real evidence to support it.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
A short and very incomplete list of completely racist things Trump has said or done:
-"theres one of my blacks"
-"mexico is sending us rapists"
-"laziness is a trait in blacks"
-"the judge is a Mexican"
-"they don’t look like Indians to me... They don’t look like Indians to Indians.”
-supports stop-and-frisk, as practiced by the NYPD (ie, unconstitutional and racially discriminatory), and wants it expanded nationwide, claiming it worked, contrary to all evidence
-Obama's birth certificate
-condoned the abuse and even beatings of multiple Black Lives Matter protesters and other minorities at his campaign rallies
-regularly engages in anti-Semitism
-treats his minority supporters as literal tokens
-treats minorities and racial groups as monolithic stereotypes
-thinks all African americans live in the inner city, are poor, without work, receiving welfare, and uneducated, and that the inner city is a hell hole
-saying 88% of white murders are committed by black folks
-repeating statements from white supremacists multiple occasions
-making blatant dog whistles to the alt-right, white supremacist crowd
-not condemning or distancing from white supremacists campaigning for him, including David Duke
-encouraged mob justice against the Central Park 5, and continues to insist they are guilty years after its proven otherwise, including spending 85k$ on full page ads in the paper advocating for their execution
-being sued by the federal government on multiple occasions for not renting to minorities
Hell, even when he claims to be trying to reach out, he's doing so in white communities and actually only repeating racist myths and stereotypes that are meant to appeal to white voters and make them feel better about voting for such overt racist.
His sons kept appearing on white supremacist radio programs..."accidentally".
Once may be an accident. Twice, you need to fire your booking agent. four times and counting? its no longer accidental or someone else's fault.
Donald Trump IS racist, regardless of the efforts of the ignorant to ignore it or explain it away.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ [huffingtonpost.com]... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ [huffingtonpost.com]... [huffingtonpost.com]
http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/ [fortune.com]... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Tracking religion is not so much evil as stupid, unless they push religion into a compulsory family generational requirement. You can not be any other religion other than the one you were born into by your parents, this as a legal requirement. Without this of course, with freedom of religion, you can change your religion from moment to moment, even quite legally make up a new one for any reason. The whole messy business of once you are tagged with a religion for what ever reason, parents forcing it on you,
The real survey results (Score:3)
Here's the official tally of responses:
No - 1
Please stop wasting our time. - 2
It turns out there IS such a thing as a stupid question! - 5
Re: (Score:2)
/s/ *cortana: it appears you are trying to change your language settings to arabic, let me direct you to the web forum to do so. *opens edge to the self reporting tool for said list.*
Re: Bad Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bad Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
So a random email from a journalist landed in some PR drone's inbox. There were likely hundreds of other emails to deal with, and he or she spent 10 seconds writing a quick response while finishing a cup of stale coffee. You make it sound like this was an official statement of policy from Microsoft's Board of Directors, with BG himself consulted to help craft the appropriate response.
This is just amateur ambush journalism being use to provoke outrage from idiots.
Re: Bad Headline (Score:5, Interesting)
You make it sound like this was an official statement of policy from Microsoft's Board of Directors, with BG himself consulted to help craft the appropriate response.
It was an official response to a media inquiry. Nobody at Microsoft PR would do that without making sure it was the company's position.
Why are you so determined to give them cover for this?
Re: (Score:2)
That is still hypothetical, you still have no idea what the official requirements would be.
Sure you do. It would require Muslims to be registered and tracked.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the people inside them still have to make the choice to acquiesce to immorality.
Working for a corporation doesn't make you a robot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump never said he wants to build a 'Muslim Registry'.
Yeah, exactly. Supposedly Muslims are easily recognized, so no registry needed. Just tell those damn Sikh's to finally stop wearing turbans. And maybe Duck Commander should consider a shave before he goes to Washington.
Trump on extreme vetting (Score:4, Informative)
No, he never did. His original proposal was a blanket ban on all Muslim immigration, which is not unconstitutional. That then ultimately morphed into extreme vetting, where nobody who hates the country would be allowed in. (It's another thing that we can't throw out the Jeremiah Wrights, Louis Farrakhans, Keith Ellisons and Bill Ayres' out of the country: that would be unconstitutional, b'cos unfortunately, they are already citizens.)
And I don't see how any of these 'tech' companies can make any such lists. It's not difficult to open fake identities on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all other social media sites. I have only one Facebook account, which is not under my actual name, and has no actual personal information. Such a thing would have to be done by the DHS, but again, since religion is not one of the questions that anyone gets asked, it would have to be introduced.
I do think there is a way of achieving something close. Current immigration application forms ask people whether they are, or have ever been members of the Nazi party, blah blah blah. Change that to questions like whether they support Shariah law and spreading it to non-Muslim countries like the US, whether they support honor killings, et al. It's true that nobody who does will honestly answer it, but here's the rub: if any immigrant does say no to the above questions and then go on to do anything to the contrary, it would be grounds for instant deportation. The beauty of it is that it doesn't even ask if one is Muslim, so if someone is a foreign Noam Chomsky trying to get in, and after getting in, publishes stuff in support of Hamas or al Qaeda, that will be instant grounds for deportation. Once we have SCOTUS filled w/ originalists, instead of hacks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Re:Trump on extreme vetting (Score:5, Interesting)
And I don't see how any of these 'tech' companies can make any such lists.
Oh, you're wrong there. Google and Facebook both know every Muslim who's been online in the US (to some imperfect but high degree of precision and accuracy). They already have the "Muslim registry", not to mention, Christian, Jewish, atheist, etc registry. It's their core business.
I spent an hour once chatting with one of Google's professional racists. His job was racial discrimination*: analyze every "signal" from your browsing habits, search history, gmail, etc to determine your race. No different for religion, income, etc. They were quite good at it. Of course, Google has no intent for this more nefarious than targeted advertisement. But the database exists, and it's a US company.
*discrimination - n. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
Re: (Score:3)
Your IP address. Every other IP address you've had with that browser, Everything else you've browsed from that IP address and/or browser. Any web of connections to other people you demonstrate from social media and email accounts. You have an "identity" with full advertising demographics registered - Facebook might not know your legal name if you've been careful, and no one's tagged a photo of you, but the government knows all the rest from your IP address history.
Re: Trump on extreme vetting (Score:3)
Like in Miami, San Bernadino, Boston, Ft. Hood, etc?
Those who something, something (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Those who something, something (Score:3, Insightful)
Will, it certainly starts with "othering" some group, blaming many or most of a society's problems on them, and trying to drum the rest of society into a bunker, "us or them" mentality regarding the out-of-group.
Whether that out-group is Muslims or traditional Americans is up for debate.
Re: Those who something, something (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether that out-group is Muslims or traditional Americans is up for debate.
Would be hard to debate it without knowing what a traditional American is. For example, does being a Muslim rule you out from also being a traditional American? Does being an atheist? Does race or ethnicity come into it? Or are there just particular traditiona you have to observe? And is it every one on the list of traditions or just 7 out of 10 or so?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Based on how I understand the teachings of Islam, being muslim excludes you from being anything else. It is their job, their purpose, to spread Islam and the Sharia law to every corner of the globe. Do you want America to remain the culture it is today? Islam - and by extension (an unknown sized subset of) muslims - does not.
Re: Those who something, something (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on how I understand the teachings of Islam, being muslim excludes you from being anything else. It is their job, their purpose, to spread Islam and the Sharia law to every corner of the globe. Do you want America to remain the culture it is today? Islam - and by extension (an unknown sized subset of) muslims - does not.
In every way, your statement is equally correct with Christianity and Christian substituted for Islam and Muslim.
Re: Those who something, something (Score:5, Insightful)
" It is their job, their purpose, to spread Islam and the Sharia law to every corner of the globe"
that certainly sounds ominous. But then one should take a look at the history of the spread of Christianity.
And the actions of America through its foreign policy & military. Or the actions of the colonial nations, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Mark 16:15-16
And he said to them, âoeGo into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Matthew 28:19
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Matthew 24:10-20
And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. ...
And that was just 3 minutes of cursory research.
The point being, we're all living in the same glass house and it behoves all of us to be sparing with our rocks :).
For the record, in the 'none of the above' camp, being a follower of the flying spaghetti monster, may His noodley appendages flavor your life with aromatic spices.
Min
Re: (Score:3)
That's hardly unique to Islam. Christians in the US seem to want to force their values on everyone else too.
Like most religious people, Muslims pick which bits they will follow. Some drink. Some take out loans. Some Jews wrap themselves in plastic on aircraft. Some Christians use contraception.
I sometimes wonder how many people realise that many Muslims don't have beards or wear a head covering.
Re: Those who something, something (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on how I understand the teachings of Islam
Then you should learn about islam.
It is their job, their purpose, to spread 1) Islam and the 2)Sharia law to every corner of the globe.
No it is not.
1) it is their Puprose to spread islam to the unbelievers. Which are heathens and/or Pagans. Which excludes by definition Jews and Christians and other religions that believe in the same god as Muslims do.
2) wrong on all accounts. Traditional islam has nothing to do with late middle ages Sharia Law. Sharia law is spread/held up by idiots that are still stuck in the middle ages. Hint: Christian law was not very different to Sharia law in the middle ages.
Islam - and by extension (an unknown sized subset of) muslims - does not.
That is an idiotic claim. Muslims that emigrated from muslim countries are usually those that don't want to live under Sharia but want to live in a free society. A free society where they can celebrate and interpret Islam as they see fit and not as the Imam sees fit. As it was e.g. during the high times of Islam, when that "world view" was the most advanced of the planet, when science, medicine, art and philosophy where at their prime.
But you likely never have heard about those times.
Re: Those who something, something (Score:5, Interesting)
It is their job, their purpose, to spread Islam and the Sharia law to every corner of the globe.
Exactly, as the Quran says:
“And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'” - Mark 16:15-16
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.” - Matthew 24:14 NKJV
And what about those that are sinners?
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves - Numbers 31:17-18
And let us not forget how the Quran deals with unruly children:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
And what if someone mentions other faiths?
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again. - Deuteronomy 13
At least I swear that was the Quran, I always get my fairy tales mixed up.
dawa and conversions (Score:3)
Re: Those who something, something (Score:5, Interesting)
Does being a Muslim rule you out from also being a traditional American?
The first muslims arrived in Jamestown VA in the year 1619, aboard a Portuguese slave ship. That was a year before the Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock.
Re: (Score:2)
Who were they selling slaves to? They were slave dealers, as is their historical role, correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether that out-group is Muslims or traditional Americans is up for debate.
Would be hard to debate it without knowing what a traditional American is. For example, does being a Muslim rule you out from also being a traditional American? Does being an atheist? Does race or ethnicity come into it? Or are there just particular traditiona you have to observe? And is it every one on the list of traditions or just 7 out of 10 or so?
Yes, as per Quran 2:190:193 [gomen.org]
And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.
And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
The above section, which calls for the elimination of all worship except that of allah i.e. Islam - flies directly in the face of the first amendment clause about the protection of religion. So any Muslim who truly believes in the latter would be a MINO (Muslim in name only), which would be a good thing. But yeah, to answer your question, being Muslim does rule you out from being a traditional American.
Being an atheist doesn't, unless you happen to be an ACLU fanatic determin
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly have no problem with "othering" any group that wants to kill me. That includes neo-Nazis as much as radical Muslims. Not only do I not have a problem with "othering" those groups, neither does the US government, or the SPLC for that matter.
I don't blame "most of society's problems" on hate groups, just the occasional mass murder.
Re: (Score:3)
I think I speak for anyone who's read a history book when I say this is an absolutely awful idea. I know Twitter gets a lot of stick but well done them. If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot. There's literally no middle ground. This is how it starts.
Well, maybe Muslims should be required to sew a crescent on all of their clothing, so we can identify them in public. That method of ID has been tested and used already.
Oh...... wait.....
Re: (Score:2)
It worked rather well to radicalize the jews after WW2. Muslims are already radicalized so that is not a real danger anymore.
Most muslims are rather shy and passive in my estimation. Not so much the radicalized ones. Regardless, I prefer my criminals to actually be criminals, and I'd never want all Christians registered because some kook blew up an abortion clinic, or that there are people killing their children using the command spare the rod and spoil the child.
Re: Those who something, something (Score:5, Interesting)
Bush and Clinton tried to build one before, part of it eventually was used to become what we now know as the no-fly list. Obama had the chance to get rid of it and didn't. But I guess it's okay if the establishment does it.
Re:Those who something, something (Score:4, Interesting)
I think I speak for anyone who's read a history book when I say this is an absolutely awful idea. I know Twitter gets a lot of stick but well done them. If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot. There's literally no middle ground. This is how it starts.
This story is based on an NPR interview with Muzaffar Chishti who directs the Migration Policy Institute's office at NYU School of Law. So, we're talking about a Muslim professor at an extremely Left-wing university being interviewed by a Left-wing government-funded "news" service. Naturally there will be a balanced, fair, and unbiased tone regarding PE Trump in any reporting.
They noted that Trump has made a number of statements, many contradictory, regarding the influx of immigrants, refugees, and temporary-visa visitors from nations known for harboring and exporting radical Islamic terrorists.
Currently there are only minimal and mostly ineffective systems for vetting/screening these people and enforcing deportation of those who violate the conditions of their visas and/or overstay the temporary-visa limits. This IS a problem that needs to be addressed.
They were not discussing, as many here attempt to imply, that Trump wants to 'register' every Muslim, including US citizens who have lived here their whole lives. They are talking about recent/current immigrants and visa applicants from regions that many radical Islamic terrorists call home. I'd call it common sense to keep better tabs on visitors/new immigrants from such regions, particularly as (like with Somalia) there are often no criminal or other databases from those regions with which to vet them against, or to even verify where they were born.
If you think it's a good idea to just throw open the doors and let anyone into the US from those regions, can we place them all into your neighborhood/city? You may want to visit Londonistan and look around a bit before you answer.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
I'd call it common sense to keep better tabs on visitors/new immigrants from such regions
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
That lack of self-awareness must require Orwellian levels of doublethink.
Re:Those who something, something (Score:5, Insightful)
What does this have to do with immigration? Border controls are one thing, but you said "keep better tabs on", as in watch them once they are inside the country. That requires extensive surveillance. And not just immigrants, visitors too.
You don't even seem to understand the implication of what you are saying.
Apparently you've never traveled internationally much. Almost every other nation on the planet keeps far closer watch over people entering/visiting/immigrating to their countries and while they are there than does the US. The US has one of the most open and liberal immigration/visa systems of any nation and keeps far fewer tabs on them once here than almost any other nation.
You talk like implementing sane foreign visitation/immigration policies are equivalent to going full-'Big-Brother'. It's hyperventilating like yours that prevents rational debate. Of course, derailing rational debate may be the goal.
Strat
Re:Those who something, something (Score:4, Informative)
PS. When exactly did you realise you were a fascist?
When exactly did you realize you have no intelligent or cognizant refutation and so chose to fall back on juvenile name-calling? Way to keep it classy, AmiMoJo!
And we do keep tabs on domestic gang members in places like Chicago and L.A. where gang violence is a problem. Police keep extensive records including photographic records of gang member's tatoos. Can we not demand at least this much scrutiny of people from regions known for terrorism asking to enter the US and who have no background data to speak of with which to vet them against?
Seeing as how one of the Federal Government's main duties is to secure national borders and screen those entering and all that, it seems like asking them to do that in a competent and effective way would be the farthest thing from 'controversial'.
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot.
Unfortunately having read history books myself I'm rather unconvinced that being in favor it is the critical question. I think the critical question is this: would you go along with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Did what for London?
The muslims in London conspired to drive up property prices by educating themselves, earning good salaries, and buying homes. They also conspired to destroy all the white owned restaurants by making way better food. This guy [wikipedia.org] is their leader.
Re: (Score:2)
The muslims in London conspired to drive up property prices by educating themselves, earning good salaries, and buying homes. They also conspired to destroy all the white owned restaurants by making way better food. This guy [wikipedia.org] is their leader.
Those fiends!
Re: Those who something, something (Score:2)
To get an immigrant visa it is often helpful to have had a non-immigrant visa. Immigration is very strict and hard in the USA, you are expected to have visited and know where abouts in the USA you want to live before you immigrate.
Re: Those who something, something (Score:2)
What are you, 14 years old?
Re: (Score:2)
Of COURSE it's discrimination.
It's discrimination to pick out the red M&Ms in the bowl. It's discrimination to pick the best apples in the bin on the produce isle.
Discrimination is not an inherently bad word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
elected secular legislature and president
Remember when the Iran tried to pull that stunt? Silly Iranians trying to keep our oil from us.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think the majority of Muslims are politicians that run countries? With that level of insight, it is a wonder if you can put your pants on by yourself,
Here is a hint: "Leaders" are bad _anywhere_. Just look at whom the US recently voted into power...
Re: (Score:2)
Surprisingly there are exceptions, e.g. King Rame the 9th of Thailand. However he was not elected and was shielded by randomly selected parliaments or randomly revolting military ...
There are plenty of others.
You need a vision and problems to solve and love your country and your people and it is easy to be a good leader ...
Just loving money is obviously not very helpful.
With all the money and all the back up and the power of being POTUS Trump has the chance to make history, in a positive way. At least for t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. There isn't a single majority Muslim country on the planet that isn't a dictatorship or a theocracy. Majority Muslim countries despise minority religions in their borders. Where is this 'decent Muslim majority' hiding?
The fourth-most populous country in the world, Indonesia, is a republic and is majority Muslim [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Except of course, that Taiwan isn't merely Chinese, it is actually China. Do you even history, bro?
Which media company would refuse to stir up shit (Score:3)
based on hypotheticals? Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
So, we should wait until the actual contracting stage to express indignation? The fact the other companies didn't unanimously and immediately shit-can this idea says more bad things about America than burning a flag could ever accomplish.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
So, we should wait until the actual contracting stage to express indignation? The fact the other companies didn't unanimously and immediately shit-can this idea says more bad things about America than burning a flag could ever accomplish.
The very appeal to "keep calm" and to "let's see how this unfolds first" is pretty creepy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
based on hypotheticals? Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
Huh? NO! If there is anything really bothersome about the Pepe's taking over, it is this order to sit back and watch them at work . So after we get the Muslim registry, what will you demand next? We just just give it a try it a try and see how it works?
It's obvious to anyone with a brain cell that Il Pepe and followers are built on hate and anger. While useful in small amounts, when it is the core principle, it always kills itself.
Make no mistake, I believe that religion is responsible for most of mank
What a stupid question (Score:2)
This is just stupid. Why would anyone ask Twitter to do anything of the sort? It's like asking Ford Motor Company "Would you build electric chairs?" Of course they'll say no, just for the PR and to not alienate customers, since they know the government is not going to ask them to build electric chairs.
The fact of the matter is any of several thousand software companies could easily throw together a registry of this kind. It's straightforward stuff. Heck, outsource it to India. They'd have no problem doi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What a stupid question (Score:3)
Twitter doesn't get a choice about whether to comply with a subpoena authorized by a court (e.g. FISC), unless they want to make like Lavabit. Donald Trump would probably find it hilarious if they did that.
Bullshit article (Score:2, Informative)
Ask 8 companies a suggestive question with the intend to either dissect their answer to find anything speaking against them or pointing at the answer later trying to accuse them of not fully staying to it. Companies either have no time to put up with your bullshit or do not want to have an answer people may mistake as binding in the media and do not answer. Then post "7 our of 8 companies do to refuse to do it". Nope. 7 out of 8 companies refused to contribute to your shitty article.
Re:Bullshit article (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, the lawyers of 7 out of 8 companies advised their clients to STFU and hope the issue goes away.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, the lawyers of 7 out of 8 companies advised their clients to STFU and hope the hypothetical issue goes away.
FTFY
Hi , this is some random website called (Score:2)
"Hi , this is some random website called The Intercept (fair warning, if this is a legit site, I personally have never heard of it, ever)
Would you ever sell your services to make a registry for muslims? We need a response in 24 hours."
Every single legitimate company: "uh... this is the media department, we can pass this up the chain, but this is a legitimately open-ended and confusing question with a lot of "what-if's" that haven't been defined yet. I'll pass this up to my higher ups, but I can't say when I
Translation (Score:2)
No answer doesn't mean yes (Score:2)
Anyway I expect that if this administration-to-be were to go down this path of fuckwittery they sure as hell wouldn't get any cooperation from any tech company. I expect their efforts wouldn't get much cooperation from anybody for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I will contribute: just run this on your population database:
ALTER TABLE Person ADD COLUMN Muslim char((1)
UPDATE Person SET Muslim = "Y"
The second statement is only required if the tech companies will not delicver sufficient data. then default to muslim and let all non-muslims opt-out.
Alternative headline. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll sign up (Score:2)
Already exists (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised of Booz Allen declined to comment on the basis of they don't discuss classified projects. They do all sorts of projects for the NSA, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's already a secret list making a public registry irrelevant.
So wait a minute... (Score:2)
Reminds me ... (Score:2)
... about the Jew registries. ...
Or the Armenians
If there's a Muslim registry (Score:3)
Germany (Score:2)
And, incidentally, Germany today still has government databases containing the religious affiliation of every citizen (not just police databases of radical Muslims; it has those too).
MORE FUCKING FAKE NEWS AND LIES! (Score:3)
Race baiting, discrimination baiting, and any other form of political masturbating has no place on this site.
This never would have happened under the original ownership, and it makes me sick to see it here.
I have a huge fuck you right here for the person that submitted this article and more so for the person that approved it.
I was not happy when this site was sold off, I am saddened to see it decline to be a tool for political hacks.
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKK YYYYYYYOOOOOOUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re:No More Muslims (Score:5, Funny)
Last time you guys tried that, SJWs and leftards kicked your ass all the way back to the bunker, Adolf.
Re: No More Muslims (Score:2)
No, the SJWs were protesting the fact that we were attacking Germany when they didn't attack us.
Re: No More Muslims (Score:2)
Germany formally declared war on the US on 11 Dec 1941, even though the terms of the Tripartite Pact (Germany, Italy, Japan) did not require it to do so.
Prior to this, there was already an undeclared war in the Atlantic (see: the sinking of the Reuben James).
Learn some fucking history.
Re: (Score:2)
And a not so well known fact: german subs sank about 100 ships in front of the US coast. See e.g.: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/edit... [learnnc.org]
Re: (Score:3)
So, Franklin D. Roosevelt was not a leftist? The New Deal was not leftist? You mean you've been bullshitting about him for all these years?
Back to the Breitbart of Deplorables for you, lad.
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet, but it will help. If you start the final solution before registering, the muslims will be better prepared to evade it.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a liar makes up another question to answer.
You say "What kind of question is that?", "Where have you got that from?", "Where do you get your information?".
Making up bollocks means "I don't want to answer that particular question".
Calling out the interviewer says "What shit are you trying to pull here? Give me a real interview."
Watch some of the greats being interviewed, they don't do this modern politics bullshit where you just don't answer. They give straight answers, back them up, and you can only
Re: (Score:2)
He has been asked about it directly multiple times and refused to rule it out:
http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
Refusing to rule out systemic oppression has a lot of people worried.
Maybe if you listened to people you obviously disagree with you might understand their concerns a bit better.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, they are two different things. From your response, it's clear that you still don't understand the difference. That is your problem, not the problem of conservatives. It's the reason why progressive politicians fail to appeal to so much of the country: they misinterpret rejection of their policies as a rejection of facts, instead of a difference in values.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI almost certainly has a database of radical Muslims, which is what this debate is all about.