i just want to clarify a comment i made about how islam being the most hateful and dangerous ideology in existence today is an empirical question.

you'll note that i made the comment in the context of an attack in new zealand, and that i typed it from canada. so, citing american statistics is disingenuous; this neither happened in the united states, nor am i an american. there was no reason to think this comment was intended in a domestic american context; it was  rather obviously intended in a global context.

this article (which links to a report) puts the situation into a global context:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/12/05/deadliest-terrorist-groups-in-the-world/#62f5c99b2b3e

compare the following two statements:

"Of the 18,814 deaths caused by terrorists around the world last year, well over half were due to the actions of just four groups: Islamic State, the Taliban, Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram."

"In Western Europe and North America, far-right extremists are a growing threat. In 2017, they carried out 59 attacks which killed 17 people. Most of the incidents were carried out by individuals motivated by extreme white nationalist or anti-Muslim beliefs."

9407+ to 17. those are numbers that make the israeli army seem amateur. it's not even a coherent comparison. while it is true that many of those 10,000 people were of non-caucasian descent, and my comments about resistance notwithstanding, the very narrow question of islam being the most violent ideology in existence today (with the exception of capitalism) and the assertion of that being an empirical question is really not controversial, and if you insist it is then you're just fucking brainwashed.

but, we can talk about domestic american attacks too, if you want. you just need to control for population sizes.

i'm not going to cite this, but these are some statements, some of which i know are true and some of which i'm assuming are true:

1) the target audience for hip-hop and rap music in the united is majority white. that is, the majority of hip-hop records and concert tickets are sold to white people.
2) the largest market share for hummus in the united states is white men of european descent.
3) more chinese food is purchased by white woman than by asian women.
4) the largest ethnic group of japanese speakers in the united states is of european descent.
5) english is more widely spoken amongst american blacks than any indigenous african language.
6) spanish is more widely spoken amongst americans of indigenous background than any indigenous native american language.
7) most practitioners of yoga in the united states are white.

i think i'm making my point clear, which is simply that muslims only make up a small amount of the american population. if the population is 70% white european and 3% muslim, you'd expect there to be more white europeans doing just about anything, including buying things and engaging in behaviours that we often associate with muslims. so, if it turns out that the largest buyers of falafels in the united states are drunk white men, there is no useful information in the statistic, other than that there's 20x more white people than muslims.

so, if the fact is that there are more shootings by white people in a majority white country, that is not surprising. there would no doubt be more outreach programs by white people, too - because white people are majorities in most scenarios.

all things aside, then, the base assumption by a non-racist person would be that the number of attacks should be roughly proportional to the size of the population. if the data is measured and it turns out that this proportionality assumption is proven false, it is at that point that you need to identify a specific population as requiring intervention.

and, what do we have?

"According to a 2017 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "of the 85 violent extremist incidents that resulted in death since September 12, 2001, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 62 (73 percent) while radical Islamist violent extremists were responsible for 23 (27 percent). The total number of fatalities is about the same for far right wing violent extremists and radical Islamist violent extremists over the approximately 15-year period (106 and 119, respectively)."
 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States)

according to the 2016 census, 73% of americans are white. i know that it's easy to look at the numbers and say "73% of terrorists are white, so it's clearly the bigger problem", but this is methodologically incorrect; rather, if the number was less than 73%, we would conclude that white people are under-represented in the terrorism statistics, and unusually pacifist. i know that this is a weird discussion, but you have to qualify the data properly if you want to throw it around. i think it's only counter-intuitive until i point it out; it should make sense once i have.

muslims, on the other hand, are nowhere near 27% of the population, and are consequently clearly over-represented in the sample. this would suggest that the muslim population is at need for some dramatic intervention.

worse, if you look at total casualties, it would suggest muslims were responsible for 53% of terrorism deaths in the united states over the last 15 years - which is not only a dramatic over-representation, but bafflingly an actual majority; the percentage of muslims in the united states is less than 2%, and a lot closer to 1%. 15 years ago, it may have been closer to 0.5%. if such a small percentage of people is responsible for a majority of terrorism-related deaths in the country, there is clearly grounds for serious intervention into that population.

i hope i've clarified my point.