Since it was already to be assumed, it was completely uninformative.
The Nizkor report was only quoted to show that my assertion (I’ll repeat it again: there never was a single gang called Skinheads) was correct. Had your post not attempted to dodge the issue, it wouldn’t have been necessary.
The FBI has a list of groups that include criminal activity. In order to create the list, they employ names for the groups on the list. Within the list, they point out specifics–specifics that demonstrate to anyone reading the actual text that the accusation of “gangs” does not apply to all people identified by the name Juggalos.
My list is just as long as the list that LEO and the FBI have of anyone engaging in anti-civil behavior as Juggalos. Do you really think these people put on clown make-up and then committed crimes? :dubious:
As for me making a claim that this violated anyone’s civil rights, or that it constitutes an “unprecedented attack”, you clearly have no grasp of my posting history in this thread, since I never made those claims.
Could you answer my last question, please?
I am not dodging the issue. You think there is some big deal about there never having been a single gang called skinheads. I repeat: So what? There is no claim that there is a single gang of juggalos.
Since you have made no effort to distance yourself from the hyperbole of the OP, there was no reason to believe that you did not hold those views.
What, whether four Dopers committing crimes would justify referring to Dopers as a gang? No. Again, so what? That is not the claim of the FBI, either.
There have been several instances in which people who did claim to be Juggaloes committed crimes in the context of their being Juggaloes.
This would include a dozen people injured by face-painted idiots wielding a machete and clubs in Seattle, a kid in Colorado who murdered his girlfriend’s mother with the help of his girlfriend and two others, who all made a point of proclaiming that they were Juggaloes, multiple attacks by people wearing makeup and proclaiming themselves Juggaloes in Utah, where police claim that about 1 in 6 of the group are criminals, and several other similar situations in Arizona.
If you can get a few dozen or so Dopers to go on multiple crime sprees across the country while proclaiming their loyalty to Cecil or announcing that they are Dopers, then I would think that the police could refer to a gang called Dopers, even if they needed to tailor the definition to note that it did not include all Dopers.
The FBI may be guilty of overstating the case, (although you have failed to demonstrate it), but this seems more Recreational Outrage.
I see that Recreational Outrage has now been extended to polite discussion on the SDMB.
At that point, it’s more like Pastime Outrage.
I have no idea what you mean by this. I’m not exaggerating for effect–I mean I literally have no clue what your comment here means. It’s an “I know each word, but what they mean in that order…?” moment for me.
It’s the very first sentence. Do you not know how appositives work?
According to Table 3 : Gangs with members who has served in US Military, its obvious (to me and others, like four persons in household I just asked) that FBI is calling the Juggalos/ICP a gang, more particularly a ‘street gang’ at that. No doubt in my mind AT ALL. Saying otherwise, in my humblest of opinions, demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of English usage (and intention of FBI’s communication of information in written format meant to ‘educate’ the ones reading said words). No if’s, and’s, or butts on this as far as I can tell. Is it really that unclear what is being communicated, in writing, in more than one location in document, in this instance?!
If not, please explain how inclusion in Table 3 indicates NOT being a gang (by definition of FBI’s usage of word ‘gang’, of course). What other intent could possibly be meant to be listed in Table 3 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation? IS there any other intent than to state, with no innuendo whatsoever(!), gangs with members who served in US military? Not that I agree the Jugs in toto are a gang, just so its known where I myself stand on the FBI’s ridiculous claim. I cannot see any other meaning, but am open to such other intent of inclusion being pointed out to me. Fight my ignorance here…
Thanks in advance,** tomndebb**, for any clarification of how I might possibly be misinterpreting the inclusion of Juggalos/ICPs in said Table 3 
Where is my error of thought/understanding of Table 3 saying the opposite of your thoughts?
Nothing there that says anything different than what has been said before.
If you think the FBI attacking civil rights is unprecedented, you need to read some history. This isn’t even a blip on the radar.
Since the argument that the FBI has determined that all Juggalos are gang members and that all fans of ICP are in a gang has failed, the claim is now being scaled back to say the FBI is giving impression Juggalos are a gang by not specifically denying they are a gang. What you and Frylock are saying here is contradicted by the additional details later the same FBI announcement. If they were actually trying to give the impression you are concerned about, they probably wouldn’t contradict it themselves.
Again, no. The passage says that they’re only recognized as a gang in four states, but there is gang activity in other states. It’s not an argument that they’re all gang members or that all fans are a gang.
Where is the outrage about the FBI callously labeling every motorcycle enthusiast as being a murderous, meth-running thug?
Read the following and tell me whether to be a P is to be a gang member.
Can you read that and actually not come away with the clear understanding that the passage is saying that to be a member of the P’s is to be a member of a gang called The P’s?
Sorry, I meant to ask whether you can read that without understanding it to mean that to be a P is to be a member of a gang called The P’s.
I think this is a good example of focusing on irrelevant details and missing the point. You wrote that “many P-subsets exhibit ganglike activity and engage in criminal activity and violence,” which makes it very clear that not all groups of Ps are in gangs or are committing crimes. But somehow you’re drawing the conclusion that the FBI is saying or implying that all Ps are members of the P gang. Reading the full text instead of seizing on particular sentences or phrases makes the situation pretty obvious as far as I’m concerned.
No, it doesn’t make that clear at all. It makes it clear that not all groups of P’s are “engaged in ganglike behavior and criminal activity.” But being engaged in ganglike behavior and criminal activity is not a necessary condition on being a gang member.
I’m not drawing a conclusion. I’m reading. I guess I’ll ask you the question I asked Tomndeb–do you know how appositives work? The first sentence, becaues of the appositive phrase, literally asserts that to be a Juggalo is to be in a gang. That’s not an implication. It’s what the sentence literally says.
Again, I think it’s all silly, and I’m as inclined to think the problem is basically with someone in the FBI who doesn’t know how to write (or possibly think) as I am to think the FBI actually thinks every Juggalo is a gang member. But none of that changes the fact that the report actually does classify every Juggalo as a gang member.
It seems to me the bit I rephrased covers everything important to the interpretation question. What passage do you think is relevant that I’m not looking at?
Unless this is turning into some kind of existential exercise, yes, those are most certainly necessary conditions for being a gang member. If the FBI is saying many subsets do this, it ought to be transparently obvious that they’re saying not everybody is in such a subset and that the behavior can’t be attributed to the group at large. Now it sounds like “The FBI’s unprecedented attack on civil rights” has been downgraded to “The FBI’s grammar is shaky.”
Footnote to the FBI report:
Which makes it sound like being an ICP fan doesn’t even make you a Juggalo, let alone a gang member.
To my knowledge, the only thing you need to do to be a gang member is to declare yourself to be a member of that gang (together with whatever requirements the gang itself adds on to that declaration, if it adds any).
Do you have a citation that says otherwise? I’ll admit I’m just making an assumption here.
Well yeah, I’ve already said, twice, that I’m as inclined to think the people who put this report together just weren’t thinking clearly about the meaning of what they wrote, as I am to think they actually mean to say every Juggalo is a gang member. But nevertheless, whether they meant it or not, they do say that to be a Juggalo is to be a member of a gang.
It doesn’t make it sound like anything. The statement is easily compatible with either every fan being a Juggalo, or some fans not being Juggalos.
In the eyes of the law? I have to think there is more to it than that.
No, they don’t. They say four states recognize Juggalos as a gang, but that a larger number of states have “have identified criminal Juggalo sub-sets.” They say “many” such subsets “exhibit gang-like behavior and engage in criminal activity and violence.” Later the FBI says (and I’ve quoted this before) “open source reporting suggests that a small number of Juggalos are forming more organized subsets and engaging in more gang-like criminal activity.” I don’t think there is any sensible way to read this and conclude that the FBI is saying Juggalo = gang member.
I don’t see why–remember that gang membership isn’t itself a crime. So it’s not like I’m saying states could prosecute a person just for declaring allegience to a gang. A gang enhancement would require that plus several other factors.
I don’t understand why you are not reading that word “subsets” and not seeing that they are referring to subsets of the group previously mentioned in the passage–the Juggalos-- which was already identified, as a whole, in itself, as a gang. “Juggalo-subsets” are a subset of the Juggalos. Meanwhile, the Juggalos (not just "juggalo-subsets) are, as stated in the very first sentence, a gang. The activities of the juggalo-subsets are not limiting the scope of the claim to just those subsets. They are explaining what it is that constitutes the juggalos, as a whole, as a gang.