Another fucking shooting

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Zontar:

renegade7:
You're claiming that the American far left has failed math and economics, but also have previously asserted that one of the strongholds of the American far left are elite universities like UC Berkeley.

Yes, how could people who are in fields that have nothing to do with mathematics or economics possibly take those fields hostage if they don't know these things that have nothing to do with their fields?

UC Berkeley ranks fourth in the world for Nobel Prize recipients, note the number of recipients in economics and physics. And they're fifth in the world for Fields Medal recipients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#University_of_California.2C_Berkeley_.284th.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fields_Medal_winners_by_university_affiliation#University_of_California.2C_Berkeley_.285th.29

In the academic world, this is what they're actually known for, along with other "Elite liberal universities" like Chicago and CalTech.

Now, you might notice what I did there. See, I made a claim, and then I showed you the information that I was using to back up that claim, so that people can evaluate the validity of that claim for themselves.

Saelune:

But hey, I guess if these people need all these jobs Mexicans are supposedly stealing, all these murders will open up some jobs eh? Vegas is probably hiring, now Texas is too.

Ayy, that's dark, yo.

I like it. :^)

OT: These news don't get much of a reaction from me anymore. Or did they ever?

Some people are probably thinking "damn it, I just bought this #prayforlasvegas t-shirt and it's already out of style"

the December King:
My thoughts are with the survivors... I want to believe that soon, more control will be implemented in gun ownership.

I don't care about current rules. Something needs to be done.

The US isn't going to enact meaningful reform any time soon.

On the plus side, though, plenty of people elsewhere in the world look at this sort of thing and are determined not to let it happen locally. Mass shootings are going to be a US thing, but perhaps in the west only really a US thing.

inu-kun:
And absolutely no care for the victims, just pushing politics.

One might note your comment also fails to offer the victims any sympathy whilst making political points.

I think we all care in a "Gee, that's awful, I feel so sorry for them. Well, better going, the shopping isn't going to do itself" kind of way.

Unless anyone's going to a candlelight vigil over this shooting, they can probably stow the "respect for the dead" argument as the paper thin nonsense it is. And anyone who is going to a candlelight vigil can explain the political reasons why ~20 dead Texans merit their grief but not the millions others who die untimely, undeserved and often unpleasant deaths each year worldwide.

I don't know why people here keep arguing with Zontar. His arguments are so predictable that they might as well come with a trademark symbol.

OT: My sincere condolences to the victims of the Texas shooting. And my condolences in advance to the victims of the next week shooting, and the next, and the next...

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Regardless, handguns makes sense because handguns actually do the majority of homicidal slayings with firearms, but the justification to allow ex-cons access to assault rifles as the state considered them "defensive weapons" fucking baffles me. The AR-15 is still the spree-killer weapon of choice... singularly responsible for the worst mass shootings in the country.

When this is less absurd than real life, you know how screwed up the situation is.

TL;DR:

Homer's background check:

- Been in a mental institution
- Frequent problems with alcohol
- Beat up former President Bush

Verdict: authorized to own 3 handguns or less only.

Satire is dead; the absurd reality killed it.

There are so many actions and changes that could've been taken and implemented to avoid this, but the country's politics are so dysfunctional, corrupt while the population ignorant enough to just sit and let it continue and fester while they pray all the bad feelings away. The bigger corporations adore this kind of inaction that keeps their fingers in the all American pie. The value of human life matters not. People are addicted to the power and perception of safety a weapon gives them, and they won't give that up, they will of course defend it through any and all means, excuse it through any and all means. Anything that can be labelled as a threat to their access of it instantly becomes a threat to them and their feeling of security/power. It's a damn drug. Idolised, romanticised, accessorised, promoted and encouraged at government and corporate level (one and the same in America). Like any drug, strict regulation and education alongside access to free therapy/counselling are necessary for safe usage. But where's the money in that now?

Kwak:

http://yournewswire.com/texas-church-shooter-antifa/
Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War...
Devin Kelley, who killed at least 27 people and injured many more, was one of two shooters in the church, according to eyewitnesses, who also report Kelley carried an Antifa flag and told the churchgoers ?this is a communist revolution? before unloading on the congregation, reloading several times.
image
...
Baxter Dmitry is a writer at Your News Wire. He covers politics, business and entertainment. Speaking truth to power since he learned to talk, Baxter has travelled in over 80 countries and won arguments in every single one. Live without fear.

No sources provided.

ETA... some analysis
http://www.newsweek.com/sutherland-springs-shooter-devin-patrick-kelley-was-antifa-according-far-right-702338

The people who fake this stuff are utter sociopaths.

Holy fuck, they know they're lying purely to fuel distrust and hatred among their readership, yet they not only continue, they put actual effort into manufacturing evidence with zero shame. They must be keenly aware they're living a lie and are fine with it.
It's terribly written as it is, reading like precisely somebody with limited imagination wrote it. But I guess if their readership lasted this long already, they may not have the liberty of critical thought towards bias confirmation in online or offline publications to look further.

erttheking:

You don't know a single one of the victim's names, and I didn't see you make a thread about either. And if it was a Muslim, you'd be in here talking about how terrible they all were and not about the victims. So I don't want to fuckng hear it from you. I've no time to pretend you've done anything to earn the moral high ground, you haven't. What have YOU done to help the victims that gives you the right to chastise me? Oh right. You've done nothing.

Muslim terror attacks are a rarity in this country compared to mass shootings buddy. My entire post was how I'm fed up with it and the racist way the media approaches it. But I doubt you give single fuck about either of those, yet you'll still have the gall to lecture me.

Oh, and the alt right are trying to frame people for this. Are you going to get on them the way you got on us? Of course you won't. You probably won't reply to this, you probably have me on an ignore list, but you decided to insult me and I'm not letting that go unchallenged

Not my country, plus I don't have the power to respond to accusations of being a Muslim hater if I did made a thread about that attack. You on the other hand didn't wait for the blood to dry up before yelling it must be a white person. Though at least you aren't saying that the victims deserve it like others in this thread, I guess that's something.

Looking at it all, it seems to me that the way to stop all the shootings in the USA is to teach people to value human lives rather than, for example, treating it as a number you shout at your opponent to prove your point.

Agema:

One might note your comment also fails to offer the victims any sympathy whilst making political points.

I think we all care in a "Gee, that's awful, I feel so sorry for them. Well, better going, the shopping isn't going to do itself" kind of way.

Unless anyone's going to a candlelight vigil over this shooting, they can probably stow the "respect for the dead" argument as the paper thin nonsense it is. And anyone who is going to a candlelight vigil can explain the political reasons why ~20 dead Texans merit their grief but not the millions others who die untimely, undeserved and often unpleasant deaths each year worldwide.

It's less respect to the dead, more like waiting for an investigation to conclude the reasoning to the attack before bringing race into it.

...so what is the timeframe on being able to politicize a mass killing or talk about gun control?

Because we politicized the NYC truck killing basically immediately, calling for all sorts of bans and restrictions, and in some cases arguing that Muslims should be deported immediately.

But here, barely a month after the largest mass shooting in the US conducted by civilians, we still "shouldn't politicize" mass shootings. Because the blood is too fresh, you see.

So what's the goddamned time limit?

inu-kun:
Snip

Oh so I'm not on your ignore list. Excellent.

So it needs to be your country in order to make a thread about it? Can't help but notice there's plenty of people around here who talk about deaths outside of their country. I don't think sensual offender lived in Cairo when he made a post about it being the most dangerous city for women. And you know ZONTAR was the one who made the thread about the Vegas shooting, and he's Canadian! So if you truly gave a damn, there was nothing stopping you. Oh, teach people to value human lives, because we've been teaching people to just go out and kill people up until this point, yeah, great idea. And I've yet to be shouting numbers, something you must have overlooked in your attempt to accuse me of being the bad guy. All I did was point out that the news didn't mention his race or suggest he was a terrorist. Because the media in this country is disgustingly fucking predictable and more than a little racist (yes yes I know "Muslims aren't a race," but people do seem to equate Arabic with Muslim, don't they?)

As for waiting for an investigation to conclude, I'm talking about the way the media handles race. I didn't claim he had political motives, I didn't claim he was of a certain religion or race (which some people are doing and yet you don't seem to have a problem with that) I just pointed out that he must be white because of the way the media responded to the situation. That's it. Half a sentence of my OP, the majority of which was overall displaying disgust to the regularity of these shootings. And there would be no call for waiting for an investigation if he was a Muslim. He'd be labeled a terrorist. And I seriously doubt you'd have a problem with it. I have NEVER seen you have a problem with people jumping to conclusions there. What, do we not have to respect the victims there? Were the NYC victims less worthy of respect? When the London attacks happened, everyone was screaming that it must've been refugees, and half the time they ended up being wrong. Where the hell were you then?

EDIT: And Jag raises a good point. When it's a Muslim we're allowed to talk about bans at once. How long do we have to wait in order to talk politics if it's a white man?

Saelune:
No, the people making this about race are cops and those who defend them. People who think all Muslims are terrorists, and people who blame BLM who ARENT shooting everyone as if they are.

They vaguely go "BLM (or antifa) are running amok and no one cares" while ignoring stuff like this and Vegas and all the other white mass shooters.

They blame the ethnicity when non-whites do it and when that faulty racist logic is thrown in their face they dont own up to it and stop, they just go "Yeah but this one doesnt count" or some BS like that.

Great use of hypothetical strawmen.

Nobody has said that it is all black people. They are blaming elements of a single organisation (or two, if you want to throw in antifa, but they are kind of separate thugs). They may also blame inner city gang culture, which again isn't all black people.

Nobody is blaming "brown people". They are blaming a deep-rooted ideology with extremist elements which are fundamentally racist. The fact that people assume terrorism when a Muslim commits an attack is pretty statistically accurate, because they are less likely to be random crazy rednecks. Neither is better nor worse to the dead, but one is terrorism and the other is a crazy guy escalating a domestic dispute beyond all reason.

And I'm not entirely sure where cops come into this discussion.

erttheking:
I'll stop petting myself on the back when it stops being a pathetically easy deduction to make. If he was Black or Hispanic that would've made headlines too, particularly in more right leaning news sources. We kind of have a president who promised to build a wall for a reason, and it wasn't because right wing America is PC.

I had half a fucking sentence dedicated to race. But I do apologize, I should've waited to see if he was Muslim before including race in the discussion. I should've followed the proper rules established for every fucking time this happens in this fucking country. Oh, and thank you for pointing out another problem. I never said Islamic terrorism. Just terrorism. Because people have a bad tendency to act like it's only terrorism if it's a Muslim. Even though the FBI has stated right wing terrorism is a bigger problem in America.

And you know, maybe both of you would have a stronger leg to stand on if the alt right wasn't already trying to frame people they don't like for this?

If it was a black church he had shot up, it would be called terrorism. Likewise, if a black man had shot up a white church, they would probably be calling it the same. But as a white man shooting up a white church, it takes a bit longer to come up with an MO. Like with Vegas.

Yes, because my entire argument is undermined because a couple of numpties on social media. Oh, and buddy? You were the one talking about a Muslim ban in the OP. You implied Islamic terrorism.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
I'll stop petting myself on the back when it stops being a pathetically easy deduction to make. If he was Black or Hispanic that would've made headlines too, particularly in more right leaning news sources. We kind of have a president who promised to build a wall for a reason, and it wasn't because right wing America is PC.

I had half a fucking sentence dedicated to race. But I do apologize, I should've waited to see if he was Muslim before including race in the discussion. I should've followed the proper rules established for every fucking time this happens in this fucking country. Oh, and thank you for pointing out another problem. I never said Islamic terrorism. Just terrorism. Because people have a bad tendency to act like it's only terrorism if it's a Muslim. Even though the FBI has stated right wing terrorism is a bigger problem in America.

And you know, maybe both of you would have a stronger leg to stand on if the alt right wasn't already trying to frame people they don't like for this?

If it was a black church he had shot up, it would be called terrorism. Likewise, if a black man had shot up a white church, they would probably be calling it the same. But as a white man shooting up a white church, it takes a bit longer to come up with an MO. Like with Vegas.

Yes, because my entire argument is undermined because a couple of numpties on social media. Oh, and buddy? You were the one talking about a Muslim ban in the OP. You implied Islamic terrorism.

You know, it's funny. I remember when someone who shot up a black church. A racist man with a lot of racist propaganda. And even when that was revealed, no one was calling him a terrorist. Even people who were calling him racist weren't calling him a terrorist, although countless people were denying him being racist. Funny how that works.

Yes, because as far as America is concerned, it's only terrorism when a Muslim does it. Because, funny thing, in order to get a lot of people in this country to care about this, it needs to be a Muslim. If it's not a Muslim, there's gonna be a lot of people who say "thoughts and prayers" and then do nothing else. They get full of piss and vinegar if he's brown, say it must be a terrorist and that we need to keep them from coming into the country, but if it's not, they're surprisingly inactive.

It's almost like there's a massive double standard in this country.

erttheking:
You know, it's funny. I remember when someone who shot up a black church. A racist man with a lot of racist propaganda. And even when that was revealed, no one was calling him a terrorist. Even people who were calling him racist weren't calling him a terrorist, although countless people were denying him being racist. Funny how that works.

Yes, because as far as America is concerned, it's only terrorism when a Muslim does it. Because, funny thing, in order to get a lot of people in this country to care about this, it needs to be a Muslim. If it's not a Muslim, there's gonna be a lot of people who say "thoughts and prayers" and then do nothing else. They get full of piss and vinegar if he's brown, say it must be a terrorist and that we need to keep them from coming into the country, but if it's not, they're surprisingly inactive.

It's almost like there's a massive double standard in this country.

Or there's a debate about what constitutes terrorism.

I'm not going to go over this in detail again because we did this to death in another thread, but simply killing people because you hate them isn't necessarily terrorism, but killing them for political gain / psychological impact would be. The whole point of the various Islamist group backed attacks is to draw support / cause division / spread unrest. They have a geopolitical aim, even if the guy doing it doesn't necessarily. A random US nutjob doesn't, and is generally pretty much a lone wolf. Possibly stirred up by various propaganda, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that they are killing for any purpose beyond hate.

You can argue it either way, but you have to at least acknowledge that both are legitimate viewpoints. And again, classification makes no difference to the victims either way.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
You know, it's funny. I remember when someone who shot up a black church. A racist man with a lot of racist propaganda. And even when that was revealed, no one was calling him a terrorist. Even people who were calling him racist weren't calling him a terrorist, although countless people were denying him being racist. Funny how that works.

Yes, because as far as America is concerned, it's only terrorism when a Muslim does it. Because, funny thing, in order to get a lot of people in this country to care about this, it needs to be a Muslim. If it's not a Muslim, there's gonna be a lot of people who say "thoughts and prayers" and then do nothing else. They get full of piss and vinegar if he's brown, say it must be a terrorist and that we need to keep them from coming into the country, but if it's not, they're surprisingly inactive.

It's almost like there's a massive double standard in this country.

Or there's a debate about what constitutes terrorism.

I'm not going to go over this in detail again because we did this to death in another thread, but simply killing people because you hate them isn't necessarily terrorism, but killing them for political gain / psychological impact would be. The whole point of the various Islamist group backed attacks is to draw support / cause division / spread unrest. They have a geopolitical aim, even if the guy doing it doesn't necessarily. A random US nutjob doesn't, and is generally pretty much a lone wolf. Possibly stirred up by various propaganda, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that they are killing for any purpose beyond hate.

You can argue it either way, but you have to at least acknowledge that both are legitimate viewpoints. And again, classification makes no difference to the victims either way.

You said that if it were a black church it would be called terrorism. He provided a counterexample to that.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
You know, it's funny. I remember when someone who shot up a black church. A racist man with a lot of racist propaganda. And even when that was revealed, no one was calling him a terrorist. Even people who were calling him racist weren't calling him a terrorist, although countless people were denying him being racist. Funny how that works.

Yes, because as far as America is concerned, it's only terrorism when a Muslim does it. Because, funny thing, in order to get a lot of people in this country to care about this, it needs to be a Muslim. If it's not a Muslim, there's gonna be a lot of people who say "thoughts and prayers" and then do nothing else. They get full of piss and vinegar if he's brown, say it must be a terrorist and that we need to keep them from coming into the country, but if it's not, they're surprisingly inactive.

It's almost like there's a massive double standard in this country.

Or there's a debate about what constitutes terrorism.

I'm not going to go over this in detail again because we did this to death in another thread, but simply killing people because you hate them isn't necessarily terrorism, but killing them for political gain / psychological impact would be. The whole point of the various Islamist group backed attacks is to draw support / cause division / spread unrest. They have a geopolitical aim, even if the guy doing it doesn't necessarily. A random US nutjob doesn't, and is generally pretty much a lone wolf. Possibly stirred up by various propaganda, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that they are killing for any purpose beyond hate.

You can argue it either way, but you have to at least acknowledge that both are legitimate viewpoints. And again, classification makes no difference to the victims either way.

'
With one side heavily leaning towards "when a Muslim does it." And not when a white man does it. Even though you SAID it would be considered terrorism. So are you admitting you were wrong?

I totally agree with that. It's a shame a lot of people don't seem to consider that when it's a Muslim. They see a Muslim, hear it's a person with brown skin, and so many of them jump to ISIS. This always, and I mean always happens. And there's no shortage of hate groups in America. Some people are actively using propaganda (IE, lying) to try and pin this on Antifa.

I wish someone would tell the news that it doesn't matter to the victims.

inu-kun:
Wow, just wow, I don't think I've seen a thread OP displaying so much of the Horseshoe theory in recent memory. And absolutely no care for the victims, just pushing politics.

Wonder why he didn't open a thread about the attack in Manhattan last week, guess who gives a fuck when it doesn't conform to a narrative.

So wheres your topic about it? What are YOU doing to help the victims of gun crime?

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
No, the people making this about race are cops and those who defend them. People who think all Muslims are terrorists, and people who blame BLM who ARENT shooting everyone as if they are.

They vaguely go "BLM (or antifa) are running amok and no one cares" while ignoring stuff like this and Vegas and all the other white mass shooters.

They blame the ethnicity when non-whites do it and when that faulty racist logic is thrown in their face they dont own up to it and stop, they just go "Yeah but this one doesnt count" or some BS like that.

Great use of hypothetical strawmen.

Nobody has said that it is all black people. They are blaming elements of a single organisation (or two, if you want to throw in antifa, but they are kind of separate thugs). They may also blame inner city gang culture, which again isn't all black people.

Nobody is blaming "brown people". They are blaming a deep-rooted ideology with extremist elements which are fundamentally racist. The fact that people assume terrorism when a Muslim commits an attack is pretty statistically accurate, because they are less likely to be random crazy rednecks. Neither is better nor worse to the dead, but one is terrorism and the other is a crazy guy escalating a domestic dispute beyond all reason.

And I'm not entirely sure where cops come into this discussion.

You dont have to defend the bad guys.

Catnip1024:

erttheking:
You know, it's funny. I remember when someone who shot up a black church. A racist man with a lot of racist propaganda. And even when that was revealed, no one was calling him a terrorist. Even people who were calling him racist weren't calling him a terrorist, although countless people were denying him being racist. Funny how that works.

Yes, because as far as America is concerned, it's only terrorism when a Muslim does it. Because, funny thing, in order to get a lot of people in this country to care about this, it needs to be a Muslim. If it's not a Muslim, there's gonna be a lot of people who say "thoughts and prayers" and then do nothing else. They get full of piss and vinegar if he's brown, say it must be a terrorist and that we need to keep them from coming into the country, but if it's not, they're surprisingly inactive.

It's almost like there's a massive double standard in this country.

Or there's a debate about what constitutes terrorism.

I'm not going to go over this in detail again because we did this to death in another thread, but simply killing people because you hate them isn't necessarily terrorism, but killing them for political gain / psychological impact would be. The whole point of the various Islamist group backed attacks is to draw support / cause division / spread unrest. They have a geopolitical aim, even if the guy doing it doesn't necessarily. A random US nutjob doesn't, and is generally pretty much a lone wolf. Possibly stirred up by various propaganda, but that still doesn't necessarily mean that they are killing for any purpose beyond hate.

You can argue it either way, but you have to at least acknowledge that both are legitimate viewpoints. And again, classification makes no difference to the victims either way.

"Depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is"

undeadsuitor:

Zontar:

undeadsuitor:
I say we ban all white men from entering the USA

The sad part is there are radical leftists who unironically believe this and are so disconnected from reality that they think it'll make things better. Because fuck crime statistics and criminology I guess.

"crime statistics" pins white men for the majority of mass shootings though. Like "more than the next three races combined" majority.

probably because there are more white people than the next three races combined? Roughly 60% of mass shootings are done by white people, white people make up roughly 60% of the population. In fact, the only race that can hold the moral high ground in regards to this are latinos who are significantly less likely to be a mass shooter than any other race (less than half as likely as whites or blacks). Blacks commit mass shootings at roughly the same rate as white people, and asians (which include muslims) commit mass shootings at a significantly higher rate than anyone else.

Your argument makes no sense. It would be like looking at Japan and going "well golly gee, almost all the murderers are ethnic japanese! something must be wrong with them." until you realize that 99% of Japan are ethnic japanese.

on topic: ert is right in that we immediately jump to terrorism when its a muslim, but we dont do that for pretty much anyone else (although Dylan Roof is a terrorist). Nor is it really neccessary, i mean if a muslim did commit terrorism....well that information will come out on its own fairly quickly into an investigation, but at least it will have facts supporting it. Muslims can commit crimes for non-religious reasons too, just like everyone else.

But then again creating sensationalist race baiting titles gets those media outlets their clicks.

erttheking:
With one side heavily leaning towards "when a Muslim does it." And not when a white man does it. Even though you SAID it would be considered terrorism. So are you admitting you were wrong?

The inclination is to expect that it is terrorism when a mass shooting / attack is committed by a Muslim. By the dictionary definition, it is racist, but against whom? To be honest, I think it's a cultural thing. I don't think people brought up in a Muslim family / community are as prone to completely random sprees as you Yanks. It is kind of a uniquely US problem. I mean, the fact that the majority of attacks by Muslims are terrorism related could be (loosely) taken as a good sign. At least it's a single problem to fix, rather than the clusterfuck that is gun culture in the US.

The Decapitated Centaur:
You said that if it were a black church it would be called terrorism. He provided a counterexample to that.

Well, quite a number of people have and do call that example terrorism, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. The example falls in the "debatable" category that I described. And it largely pertains to the interpretation of the term terrorism, and the interpretation of whether it was part of a grander scheme in the guys head or whether killing was the be all and end all of it.

CaitSeith:
I don't know why people here keep arguing with Zontar.

People are drawn to hopeless causes.

renegade7:

This is an interesting point for you to make. You're claiming that the American far left has failed math and economics, but also have previously asserted that one of the strongholds of the American far left are elite universities like UC Berkeley.

I take it you've never read 1984.

CaitSeith:
I don't know why people here keep arguing with Zontar. His arguments are so predictable that they might as well come with a trademark symbol.

To let other people know that he's full of shit and that the beliefs he espouses are irrational and either lack supporting evidence or are directly contradicted by the evidence, that he bases his worldview on reactionary stereotypes, and that generally he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that he likes to frame his ignorance as edgy rebelliousness against The Establishment.

That's sort of why I took some time to grill him about UC Berkeley. I'm not particularly invested in defending them as an institution and I have my own reasons for think they're a bunch of overfunded asshats, but I wanted to make clear the extent to which he bases his worldview on stereotypes and refuses to do even basic research to confirm his beliefs.

Tanis:
White guy kills a bunch of people = it's a violent act by a mentally unstable person.
Non-white guy kills a bunch of people = it's an act of terrorism.

That's simplistic bullshit and you know it. If a black or Asian person would kill a bunch of people terrorism wouldn't be assumed. And heck There are plenty of scenarios in which a muslim/arab could kill a bunch of people and it wouldn't be assumed to be terrorism.

There are actually plenty of reasons why certain attacks are assumed/considered terrorism or not. And it's all about the links they have to actual terrorist organizations and their actions. Currently the world is plagued by islamic terrorist organisations who stage attacks all over the world. So off course if people who share characteristics with members of said organisations make attacks that fall in line with their modus operandi and in most cases even clearly yell their motivation ("Allah Akbar") they are going to be considered to be terrorists. As far as I know there is no white terrorist organisation which targets christian churches in rural America for reason X or Y. So why assume it is an act of terrorism rather than any other potential reason which is as (un)likely?

generals3:

Tanis:
White guy kills a bunch of people = it's a violent act by a mentally unstable person.
Non-white guy kills a bunch of people = it's an act of terrorism.

That's simplistic bullshit and you know it. If a black or Asian person would kill a bunch of people terrorism wouldn't be assumed. And heck There are plenty of scenarios in which a muslim/arab could kill a bunch of people and it wouldn't be assumed to be terrorism.

There are actually plenty of reasons why certain attacks are assumed/considered terrorism or not. And it's all about the links they have to actual terrorist organizations and their actions. Currently the world is plagued by islamic terrorist organisations who stage attacks all over the world. So off course if people who share characteristics with members of said organisations make attacks that fall in line with their modus operandi and in most cases even clearly yell their motivation ("Allah Akbar") they are going to be considered to be terrorists. As far as I know there is no white terrorist organisation which targets christian churches in rural America for reason X or Y. So why assume it is an act of terrorism rather than any other potential reason which is as (un)likely?

Well, the anti-black part certainly has overtaken the anti-Catholic part, but the KKK is a thing and they historically DESPISES Catholics, which is a version of Christianity. (The KKK started as strictly Protestant)

...The fuck is wrong with people?!?! Eren Yeager was right, some people are just "rabid dogs in human skin"!

Shit like this makes it harder and harder to keep my faith in humanity.

Fuck it, I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

renegade7:

Zontar:

renegade7:
You're claiming that the American far left has failed math and economics, but also have previously asserted that one of the strongholds of the American far left are elite universities like UC Berkeley.

Yes, how could people who are in fields that have nothing to do with mathematics or economics possibly take those fields hostage if they don't know these things that have nothing to do with their fields?

UC Berkeley ranks fourth in the world for Nobel Prize recipients, note the number of recipients in economics and physics. And they're fifth in the world for Fields Medal recipients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#University_of_California.2C_Berkeley_.284th.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fields_Medal_winners_by_university_affiliation#University_of_California.2C_Berkeley_.285th.29

In the academic world, this is what they're actually known for, along with other "Elite liberal universities" like Chicago and CalTech.

Oh how the mighty have fallen. Once known as the bastion of free speech and now known as the university fighting against it the hardest, its image problem seems to be a race to the bottom.

Now, you might notice what I did there. See, I made a claim, and then I showed you the information that I was using to back up that claim, so that people can evaluate the validity of that claim for themselves.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and I'm not going to post something for the 100th time just because the religious left doesn't think the FBI isn't seen as a trusted source by them but an anonymous blog is.

renegade7:

To let other people know that he's full of shit and that the beliefs he espouses are irrational and either lack supporting evidence or are directly contradicted by the evidence, that he bases his worldview on reactionary stereotypes, and that generally he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that he likes to frame his ignorance as edgy rebelliousness against The Establishment.

That's sort of why I took some time to grill him about UC Berkeley. I'm not particularly invested in defending them as an institution and I have my own reasons for think they're a bunch of overfunded asshats, but I wanted to make clear the extent to which he bases his worldview on stereotypes and refuses to do even basic research to confirm his beliefs.

This is basically "why do we keep loosing elections and academic debates that aren't 5 far left pundits to 1 rational person?" -the post.

CaitSeith:
I don't know why people here keep arguing with Zontar. His arguments are so predictable that they might as well come with a trademark symbol.

You know that would mean more if it wasn't for the fact that changing my user name in that to about 90% of the regular posters here would basically change nothing.

Zontar:
I'm not going to post something for the 100th time just because the religious left doesn't think the FBI isn't seen as a trusted source by them but an anonymous blog is.

Just because the religious left doesn't think the FBI isn't seen as a trusted source by them...what does...so they don't think they're not, so they do think they are? But an anonymous blog is? Is what?

Zontar, help me out here.

generals3:
As far as I know there is no white terrorist organisation which targets christian churches in rural America for reason X or Y. So why assume it is an act of terrorism rather than any other potential reason which is as (un)likely?

As Saelune said, there is the KKK, which is/was an anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic group in addition to being big ol' racists. And, of course, black Christians exist, and they go to church just like regular Christians, and those churches have been attacked from time to time in ways that most people would consider to be terrorism.

Oh, there's a list? There's a list. So, that's good to have.

On this shooting specifically; there's no indication yet as to the shooter's motive, which is basically the only thing that differentiates a random act of mass murder from a terrorist attack. So it would be premature to call this a terrorist attack; there does not seem to be a political objective involved at all.

bastardofmelbourne:
[

Just because the religious left doesn't think the FBI isn't seen as a trusted source by them...what does...so they don't think they're not, so they do think they are? But an anonymous blog is? Is what?

Zontar, help me out here.

I and others have posted the violent crime statistics regarding gun violence here quite a few times, yet it's always rejected out of hand because apparently the FBI isn't a valid source. Yet places that post anything that's submitted to them are accepted by those same people.

altnameJag:
...so what is the timeframe on being able to politicize a mass killing or talk about gun control?

So here's the deal, the timer resets every time there is a mass shooting. We were almost reaching the limit after Vegas, but now we have to reset the clock again because of texas. It's like those 'It's been x days since the last workplace accident' counters. If you don't get to 30 days, you don't get the free lunch.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here