The bombing in NYC does not appear to be tied to international terrorism, Gov. Andrew Cuomo says

[DonViejo]

Sunday, September 18, 2016 10:57 AM EDT

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said that a powerful explosion that rocked the Chelsea neighborhood in Manhattan on Saturday night, injuring 29 people, did not appear to be linked to international terrorism, but that it was a powerful bomb designed to kill.

He said all of those injured had been treated and released from the hospital.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/19/nyregion/new-york-explosion-chelsea.html?emc=edit_na_20160918&nlid=57435284&ref=cta&_r=0

[underpants]

1. Across the street from public housing for the blind and vision impaired

Selis Manor

[CincyDem]

2. So...that leaves Domestic Terrorism ???

This sounds like he's playing Password. In the category of Places: "not outside but...", "not upstairs but....", "not international terrorism but......"

[malaise]

3. Presser coming up on Joy's program

Amy Goodman on with her mashing down the usual lies - says there is limited population here

[Ron Obvious]

4. Based on what, exactly?

Last edited Sun Sep 18, 2016, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

What are they not telling us?

ETA: Left off a word in the subject line.

[malaise]

5. Press Conference coming up in minutes

May be an anti-gentrification opportunist

[Ron Obvious]

6. NYT

Notice how:

Mr. Cuomo said that while “there is no evidence of an international terrorism connection with this incident,” it was still early in the investigation.

Gets summarised as:

Manhattan Blast That Injured 29 Does Not Appear to Be International Terrorism

I expect better from the Times.

[Igel]

7. There's a difference between

"does not appear to be"

and

"appears not to be."

We've sort of forgotten the last option exists.

Notice how hard it is to say using the verb "like" that you're neutral towards something. "I like it" = positive. "I don't like it" = "I dislike it" = negative. This is because we assume everybody either likes or dislikes something; "meh, don't care" is less common, so the words' meaning ("do like," "don't like&quot shifts to reflect this dichotomy--like or dislike, no middle ground.


In this case we assume they either think it is or isn't international terrorism. So if they say there's no evidence that it is, that they're neutral in their opinion, we assume that somehow they must have evidence that it isn't. Neutrality is the hardest position to hold because it's the easiest to doubt. "Doesn't appear" is going the way of "doesn't like"; this is sad, because even when they give explicit grounds for us to assume "doesn't appear" simply means "there is no cause for us to say it appears to be international terrorism", when they say they lack evidence, we ignore all that in favor of our easy assumptions. Even when there's an easy way to say what we assume: "appears to not be international terrorism." We must know; we must be certain; uncertainty is unacceptable.

But would require listening, however, and would require patience.

[Ron Obvious]

8. Agreed. It seems to be too subtle for a lot of people.

As an atheist, I often have to explain that I don't "believe there is no God", but rather "do not believe there is a God", and that there's a difference between the two statements. It's amazing how many people don't understand it.

It's really no different from the court system: being "Found Not Guilty" does not necessarily mean being "Found Innocent", and that one should be obvious to most people, you'd think.