Nowhere do they explain that Juggalos on the whole are a gang. You can argue about the FBI’s grammar all day long if you like, but the entry makes it clear enough that they’re saying some Juggalo groups are gangs and some aren’t. They refer to them in the first sentence as a “hybrid gang,” a term explained elsewhere as “non-traditional gangs with multiple affiliations”- which would seem to suggest that they’re concerned with gangs made up of Juggalos who are also involved with other gangs. Does that sound like all of them to you?
'The Juggalos are a non-traditional gang with multiple affiliations" sure sounds like “The Juggalos are a gang, although a non-traditional one”, don’t you think?
Where in either of those sentences do you see anything like “Some, but not all, Juggalos are gang members”?
I have no idea how to interpret “non traditional gangs with multiple affiliations.” The phrase doesn’t make sense to me. Gangs don’t have affiliations–people have affiliations with gangs.
Do they mean “non-traditional gangs whose members are also affiliated with other gangs?” Okay, then the thing is saying that members of the gang The Juggalos also sometimes belong to other gangs. Nothing about that claim says “we’re not saying every Juggalo is a gang member.” Quite the opposite–it’d be saying "Every Juggalo is a gang member, and some of them are members of other gangs as well.
You said “nowhere do they explain that the Juggalo’s as a whole are a gang.” Okay, I’ll ask again. I actually want an answer, it’s not a rhetorical question. The question is: Do you know how appositives work?
I ask because the first sentence of the passage we’re talking about contains an appositive, and the presence of the appositive is crucial to the meaning of the sentence, and the way the appositive in that sentence functions is to ascribe the property of being a gang to an entity called “The Juggalos.” Do you not agree? If you don’t agree, then we’re going to have to discuss how appositives work in the English language.
If you do agree, then don’t you agree that the term “The Juggalos” is nowhere defined in the passage–meaning we must instead rely on the definition we have of the term from common usage?
And if you agree with that, don’t you agree that the common usage of the term “The Juggalos” is “People who identify as members of the community of fans of the ICP”?
Ah, that time-honored debate tactic of simply declaring victory. :rolleyes:
I already quoted the relevant passages multiple times. Fixating on single sentences and reading things out of context is how we got “The FBI’s unprecedented attack on civil rights.”
Why are we discussing “common usage” when the FBI specifies that not all Juggalos are involved in gangs and that they’re not even all fans?
You’ve lost me, I’ll admit. Tell me where the FBI specifies that not all Juggalos are involvedi n gangs and that they’re not even all fans?
Why is ICP listed singularly in Table 3? Other groups are listed as well. Please help me locate the asterisk in Table that allows differentiation of the mentioned ‘gangs’, or something that explains away the reason for inclusion in listing of gangs proper. Hope to see something cogent (rather than silence as shown by another poster when asked).
Is the English language usage that foreign to persons nowadays? How in the hell does listing in a Table-that-names-gangs mean they are NOT a gang (per FBI definition(s)). Address that point, please. You, too, tomndebb (unless you do not understand such a simple question - will rephrase should it be needed).
It is semi-offensive to be told that the ICP argument has failed. It means that basic factual English usage is not understood and that obfuscation is being enlisted in war of words. The ICP argument failed to register to those who do not WANT see it - hard to say otherwise. If bending of definitions is a key point for SDMB participation, ignorance is no longer being fought. I’d be embarrassed to have made such a statement that FBI does not classify ICP, as a whole, as a gang when clear and concise words say otherwise. The FBI certainly did not try and say that ICP is NOT a gang. Quite the opposite, 'eh?
Boy, seems like the ghost of Dio-past lurks in this thread -> “Yes, it is…No, it isn’t, and my post is my cite…Yes, it is…You ignore my cite so I am right!”…ad nauseum as ignorance of Board increases yet again. It is easy to see who is being Dio-ish here, so with that I am done. The history of silly warnings flying when debating/disagreeing certain things is memorable to me and gives me pause. Fighting the ignorance here, in this thread, is well beyond my concern - facts stated but the object seems to be obfuscation and declaration of victory. Silly way of debating, so I am done with this.
Good luck, Bo. You will likely need it 
Because it’s hard to make “Non-connected Juggalo subsets but not including all Juggalos” fit into a chart? I’m wondering if your next question is going to be why they don’t list every single motorcycle gang individually (just a few large ones).
This makes for painful reading right after your ironic question about the English language. Nobody said the listing means they aren’t a gang. The argument is that the FBI didn’t determine they’re all in a gang. The National Drug Intelligence Center included Juggalos in a gang advisory and talks about data showing that groups of them are getting involved in organized gang activity like drug-dealing. Apparently that includes some former military members. As far as I know, the drug intelligence center and the FBI don’t have some kind of power to “declare” that something is a gang (the report makes it clear that determination is made at a state level or maybe lower).
Oh dear.
I’ve done this several times. Why are you asking again? The big one is “open source reporting suggests that a small number of Juggalos are forming more organized subsets and engaging in more gang-like criminal activity.” The other is “Law enforcement officials in at least 21 states have identified criminal Juggalo sub-sets.” The report says that there are some criminal sub-sets of Juggalos and that a small number (small!) are forming more organized subsets and acting like criminal gangs. The exception proves the rule: if there are some criminal subsets and a small number are in gangs, the rest obviously are not. I’ve probably pushed back too hard on the wording at the beginning of the passage (“Juggalos are a hydrid gang,”) but I think the full context makes it clear they’re talking about a general trend within the group, not all of them. I cannot see any logical way to get from ‘small numbers of Juggalos are forming organized gangs’ to ‘FBI says Juggalos are a gang.’
Again, this is something I already quoted. “Juggalos are traditionally fans of the musical group the Insane Clown Posse.” There would be no point in saying “traditionally” if it were universally true. They would say “Juggalos are fans of the musical group the Insane Clown Posse.”
Since both tomndebb and Marley have failed their arguments totally, it would be appropriate to close thread. To repeat, Marley has failed to make a valid argument and tomndebb won’t go beyond doing a “nyuh uhh” then leaving it at that. Checking around the internetz, it is clear that their position is in the huge minority; I found no other professional writers agreeing with their supposed non-argument.
Bo wins this one. By knockout 
As simple as that.
ICP is classified, by name and in more than one way, as a gang. Nitpick definitions as desired in typical SDMB/Dio fashion, but ICP is clearly stated as a GANG. Live with it.
It is hilarious that the FBI report shows a picture of US soldier flashing ‘gang sign’ that Usain Bolt and the Swedish volleyball team also show (link - YouTube (link icon not working??)) in a tweeted pic from a dorm room. I was not aware that Olympians were a gang as well - but that is what I glean from reading the report. Soldier flashing exact hand gesture as Olympians? Really informative as to the type of athlete allowed to represent their country. ICP is a gang per FBI, so I am going to call FBI today about gang members being glorified. I enjoy this type of alerting of FBI since they cannot see the trees for the forest 9 times out of 10, LOL… I will also ask about Juggalos and if they are a gang. Wanna accept FBI’s answer? Or will there be a “they did not say that exactly” approach as shown in the thread above?
This isn’t an argument.
This is the kind of reading going on in this thread alright. 
I was going to ask how you gleaned that, but I’m not going to bother. You don’t have to be in a gang to flash a gang sign. I don’t know what the context of the picture is, but it’s intended to illustrate an issue.
If you’re going to call and ask to speak to Mr. FBI, you’re going to be disappointed. No, I don’t see any particular reason to take the word of the first person you get on the phone instead of the detailed report we’ve been discussing.
ah, you’re done with being embarrassed. Declare victory and pray for rain.
Totally. Just so long as you aren’t reading most of the posts in this thread.
What’s at issue isn’t whether this report legally constitutes all ICP fans as gang members, but rather, whether the report is communicating a view that ICP fans are all gang members.
I need to reiterate here that what the FBI “really thinks” is actually not the issue, at least to my mind. To my mind, the issue is what the report itself says, regardless of the question of whether it accurately reflects the FBI’s view.
That does not say or imply that only some Juggalos are gang members. There is nothing in the abovequoted which suggests that only those Juggalos who are members of the subsets are gang members. Quite the opposite–the placement of the abovequoted within the passage as a whole makes it clear that the abovequoted is intended to be offering a reason why all Juggalos are gang members. All juggalos are gang members because some Juggalos are engaging in gang-like activity. The reasoning of the previous sentence is fallacious, but that does not change the fact that it is the reasoning of the passage.
There is nothing in the passage or in any legal principle I know of which limits gang membership only to those who engage in ganglike activities. If I am initiated into a gang, and the gang agrees I am a member, but I never actually get around to engaging in any “ganglike activities”, I am still a gang member. With these “loose hybrid gangs” the report talks about, there apparently need not even be an initiation!
FBI says Juggalos are a gang in the very first sentence. “The Juggalos, a hybrid gang…” I’m sorry to keep carping on this but: Do you understand what I’m asking when I ask whether you know how appositives work? Do you understand why I’m asking it? It’s absolutely crucial to understanding the meaning of that first sentence.
I’ve said it before–it really looks like you and others are reasoning that what the text actually says can’t be what they really mean, since it would be ludicrous to believe such a thing–so the text must not actually say that. I see this alot in many contexts. It’s not at all surprising that someone would reason this way about a text. But this reasoning is nevertheless fallacious. The text says what it says, whether they actually meant it or not. And what the text says, regardless of their intention, is that every juggalo is a gang member by virtue of being a juggalo.
Fair point.
This thread is an unprecedented attack on my sensibilities. It is all an argument over whether the wording by the FBI could be misconstrued to mean that all Juggalos are gang members. What kind of people could spend this much time nitpicking this minor point?!? Oh, right, Dopers. Oh well then, , good work, carry on. This is one dead horse that will run again.
Ok, sorry for the pointless interjection into a thread so pointful. I’m sure when the story of the Great FBI - Juggalo War is written, this thread will provide the basis for the historical perspective.
Meh… I think there’s a slightly more important substantive meta-issue being dealt with here, concerning the proper interpretation of texts. How to read them literally, and how literally to read them, being the two main questions I’m thinking about.
I think at this point you’re applying a level of hairsplitting that is not intended to be applied to the report. I see general discussion of gang membership but no speculation about how many gang members are involved in actual gang activity. I only see discussion of the actual gang activity.
Other than the fact that that’s what it says. The fact that some of them are in subsets that are doing X suggests the rest aren’t in subsets doing X. At this point I think you’re almost literally reading this thing backward. Like I said, this is an exception-proves-the-rule situation. If the park is closed between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., it’s open the rest of the time. You’re arguing here that they say the park is closed between 10 pm and 6 but that it might be closed other times because they don’t say it isn’t.
As noted:
Good, because it doesn’t.
Which, in context, it plainly is not. To get to that point you have to focus myopically on one sentence and then argue that everything else in the report is intended to support that sentence by contradicting it. The more sensible interpretation is that the first sentence is not written well because it’s not supported by the actual specific descriptions of their activity.