Then Lindsey Graham was able to singlehandedly stop it in the Senate.
He is demanding an additional special counsel and investigation into Hillary's emails be added to it. I kid you not. Nothing to do with Muellers report but 'whatabout Hillary's emails' is the pretext he's going with.
It's 2019 we have a President profiteering off the Presidency, lying with every word, compromising National Security by top ordering top security clearances for his kids, and meeting Russians (Putin) in secret while in office and Lindsey Graham is pretending to be butt hurt about Hillary's emails. Graham is totally corrupt.
What the actual fork??
Man... what happened to that guy?
Nothing happened to him. His "reasonable" Republican disguise was more a hand-me down because he was best friends with John McCain, whose own "reasonable" bona-fides were at least 75% a media creation that he himself cultivated. There is nothing the Beltway press loves (or is required) to do more than pretend the Republican Party hasn't been losing it's goddamn mind for the last 30 years running. Lindsey Graham is who he has always been. If there is a SINGLE thing Trump has done that is useful, it is to prove 3 things:
1.) The religious right is completely full of shit.
2.). Republicans don't and have never given a shit about the deficit.
3.) They also don't care about limited government or the rule of law.....to the point where they will advocate totally bypassing Congress to facilitate domestic military construction projects and go on a balls to the walls assault against an investigation being headed by a former REPUBLICAN Director of the FBI.
Which pretty much negates every single, solitary thing the party CLAIMED to stand for over the last 40 years. The importance of family and morals, fiscal responsibility, limited government AND law and order. They've taken their greatest hits and fed them into a wood-chipper for no other reason than to attempt to placate a megalomaniacal man-child, yet will turn around after Trump is gone and pretend none of this ever happened. And the Beltway press will let them. It's why the question "what happened to Lindsey Graham" can even exist. And the answer is......nothing. Trump just revealed who he really was.
So the right wing shooter, Brenton Tarrant, that shot up the mosque in NZ seems to be a real peach. He says he is an Ethno-nationalist Eco-fascist who wanted 'Ethnic autonomy for all peoples with a focus on the preservation of nature, and the natural order.'
'Subscribe to PewDiePie' he said apparently and wrote a ten page manifesto
From his manifesto;
>If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, its that the birthrates must change. Even if we were to deport all Non-Europeans from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still be spiraling into decay and eventual death.
Later on:
>"This is WHITE GENOCIDE."
I think this is all we need to know. It is 10+ pages of text and even the introduction is crazy.
He does mention Trump in his "Q&A"
>Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?
>As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.
His Twitter was just suspended but here's an archived page of it:
This guy's manifesto is basically the comment section of any random YouTube video. Which doesn't make it less disturbing, but more so. I could go read the exact same sentiments underneath a video about Captain Marvel or Battlefield V.
I've been warning about this nascent eliminationist movement that has been growing almost EXCLUSIVELY online for the last two years. It's an entire goddamn eco-system that, when coupled with YouTube's algorithms of recommended videos sends (let's get real here) young males into an endless black pit of this kind of rhetoric day after day after day. Shit, if you watch even ONE video just to get a sense of what the so-called Alt-right is thinking about, pretty soon you are getting videos popping up in your feed that are somehow using a DOOM sequel that isn't even out yet to make the case that there is an international conspiracy to get people to "race mix" (just the most blatantly absurd example I can come up with from the last week). This kind of content is endless, and if you think these mosque shootings are the last you are going to hear from someone openly espousing these views, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. This isn't John Hinckley shooting Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster or some kids committing suicide because they believed they heard subliminal messages on a Judas Priest album. There is a tangible, discernible reason why these views are taking hold in such a way.
I've been warning about this nascent eliminationist movement that has been growing almost EXCLUSIVELY online for the last two years. It's an entire goddamn eco-system that, when coupled with YouTube's algorithms of recommended videos sends (let's get real here) young males into an endless black pit of this kind of rhetoric day after day after day. Shit, if you watch even ONE video just to get a sense of what the so-called Alt-right is thinking about, pretty soon you are getting videos popping up in your feed that are somehow using a DOOM sequel that isn't even out yet to make the case that there is an international conspiracy to get people to "race mix" (just the most blatantly absurd example I can come up with from the last week). This kind of content is endless, and if you think these mosque shootings are the last you are going to hear from someone openly espousing these views, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. This isn't John Hinckley shooting Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster or some kids committing suicide because they believed they heard subliminal messages on a Judas Priest album. There is a tangible, discernible reason why these views are taking hold in such a way.
Or maybe some people are getting fed up with rapist migrants, suicide bombers and the like. But it's certainly easier to blame the internet than to accept those things are real. Just like they used to blame video games for school shootings a couple decades ago.
I've been warning about this nascent eliminationist movement that has been growing almost EXCLUSIVELY online for the last two years. It's an entire goddamn eco-system that, when coupled with YouTube's algorithms of recommended videos sends (let's get real here) young males into an endless black pit of this kind of rhetoric day after day after day. Shit, if you watch even ONE video just to get a sense of what the so-called Alt-right is thinking about, pretty soon you are getting videos popping up in your feed that are somehow using a DOOM sequel that isn't even out yet to make the case that there is an international conspiracy to get people to "race mix" (just the most blatantly absurd example I can come up with from the last week). This kind of content is endless, and if you think these mosque shootings are the last you are going to hear from someone openly espousing these views, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. This isn't John Hinckley shooting Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster or some kids committing suicide because they believed they heard subliminal messages on a Judas Priest album. There is a tangible, discernible reason why these views are taking hold in such a way.
Or maybe some people are getting fed up with rapist migrants, suicide bombers and the like. But it's certainly easier to blame the internet than to accept those things are real. Just like they used to blame video games for school shootings a couple decades ago.
What suicide bombers? They are incredibly rare outside the Middle East. And in my experience the people who hate migrants the worst are those that never meet them (the regions with the lowest density of migrants are the most migrantophobic in my country).
Of course, if you live in the echo chamber of the right you probably think you have 5-10 migrant terrorists living next door to you....
I've been warning about this nascent eliminationist movement that has been growing almost EXCLUSIVELY online for the last two years. It's an entire goddamn eco-system that, when coupled with YouTube's algorithms of recommended videos sends (let's get real here) young males into an endless black pit of this kind of rhetoric day after day after day. Shit, if you watch even ONE video just to get a sense of what the so-called Alt-right is thinking about, pretty soon you are getting videos popping up in your feed that are somehow using a DOOM sequel that isn't even out yet to make the case that there is an international conspiracy to get people to "race mix" (just the most blatantly absurd example I can come up with from the last week). This kind of content is endless, and if you think these mosque shootings are the last you are going to hear from someone openly espousing these views, you are sadly, sadly mistaken. This isn't John Hinckley shooting Ronald Reagan to impress Jodie Foster or some kids committing suicide because they believed they heard subliminal messages on a Judas Priest album. There is a tangible, discernible reason why these views are taking hold in such a way.
Or maybe some people are getting fed up with rapist migrants, suicide bombers and the like. But it's certainly easier to blame the internet than to accept those things are real. Just like they used to blame video games for school shootings a couple decades ago.
First off, nowhere do I blame "the internet" in my post, I am describing where this rhetoric is taking hold. But secondly, even taking the comment about "rapist migrants and suicide bombers" at face value, is the suggestion that walking into two mosques and gunning down 50 defenseless people can only be understood when taking into account this so-called "death of western culture"?? I got news for you, this shooting is just as much an act of "terrorism" as any suicide bombing that has ever taken place. Now, it won't be framed that way, because it NEVER is unless Muslims are the perpetrators, nevermind that in this case they are the victims, clearly targeted because of that fact. As I have said countless times, the word has lost ALL of it's original meaning because it only ever gets applied to one group of people.
At this point I'm half expecting people to start saying this guy is "just a troll". That he shot up the mosque ironically, for the luls as a social experiment.
I've met some in person, and they've all been really nice people Which unfortunately does little to disprove that some ethnicities are more prone to gang together and carry weapons, then harass random people three against one and use abovementioned weapons if someone comes to help (speaking for Russia here). You don't have to approve mass killings in order to see the "right echo-chambers" isn't the only source of the problem.
I've met some in person, and they've all been really nice people Which unfortunately does little to disprove that some ethnicities are more prone to gang together and carry weapons, then harass random people three against one and use abovementioned weapons if someone comes to help (speaking for Russia here). You don't have to approve mass killings in order to see the "right echo-chambers" isn't the only source of the problem.
It's the source and inspiration for THIS specific problem we are talking about. Everything about the guy (that he himself offered up in advance of the act) tells me he is the EXACT type of person who endlessly immerses himself in this rhetoric on YouTube and then discusses further on 4chan. In fact, I half suspect the reason he mentions pewdiepie at all is so he can "troll" the media into mentioning him and blaming him. Because that is how deranged this nihilistic counter-culture has become. There is a sickness taking hold in certain portions of online culture that is every bit as dangerous as ISIS recruitment.
This blog post describes what this guy was all about better than I can. Essentially, his murder was committed for the entertainment of the online circles he clearly not only was a part of, but marinated in day after day:
Again, this isn't an act that was carried out just because of bathing in this rhetoric, but one that was also carried out as the extension of taking that rhetoric and making it manifest itself in the real world. Even when he was about to murder people, his explicit intent is to maintain this veneer of the online "troll" or "shitposting" culture to it's ultimate extreme, where even in the aftermath of murdering people, the REAL enemy in the world he emanates from will still be the media, liberals and normies. A counter-culture has developed online. It's massive and it is increasingly eliminationist in it's rhetoric. And since it positively BATHES in nihilism 24/7/365, it is inevitable that a bunch of people who believe nothing means anything are going to go the extra mile.
It makes it easier for the guy to go massacre people when he believes the people he is attacking are subhuman invaders.
Right wingers are getting radicalized into believing all immigrants are rapists, murdering, foreigners who want to destroy their culture.
Who is telling him these things? Who is radicalizing people into y'all queda? Guys like Alex Jones, PewDiePie, Ben Shapiro, Sebastian Gorka and Donald Trump's.
BTW This particular guy livestreamed his attack. Gross.
You only counter when there is something worth countering.
The quoted statement is not correct. People counter things they don't like, not because they are bad.
Any sort of change always creates a counter culture, regardless of whether it is "worth" countering.
I've met some in person, and they've all been really nice people Which unfortunately does little to disprove that some ethnicities are more prone to gang together and carry weapons, then harass random people three against one and use abovementioned weapons if someone comes to help (speaking for Russia here). You don't have to approve mass killings in order to see the "right echo-chambers" isn't the only source of the problem.
This seems to assume that migrants really are more prone to crime. We did review the figures for that in the US in the politics thread some time ago and those clearly show that migrants commit fewer crimes (both trivial and serious) than citizens. The situation may well be different in Russia, but it's also possible that there's a perception that happens simply because of the way crimes are reported.
It's interesting you say that migrants you've met are nice people. It's pretty common for people in the UK to both think migrants they know personally are all hard-working, but also believe that those are the exceptions and that most migrants are coming here to take advantage of benefits (which is a common stereotype in certain sections of the media - though clearly untrue if you look at the figures) ...
I have no problem calling these people terrorists. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, lays eggs like a duck...
Moslems are definitely not the only people called terrorists though. The IRA and the Basque separatist movements have both been called terrorists in the past. Just because they're no longer active doesn't mean that they wouldn't be called the same if they started back up.
I have no problem calling these people terrorists. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, lays eggs like a duck...
Moslems are definitely not the only people called terrorists though. The IRA and the Basque separatist movements have both been called terrorists in the past. Just because they're no longer active doesn't mean that they wouldn't be called the same if they started back up.
These people? Just to be clear it was one y'all queda guy that did this not the Muslims who got massacred.
I have no problem calling these people terrorists. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, lays eggs like a duck...
Moslems are definitely not the only people called terrorists though. The IRA and the Basque separatist movements have both been called terrorists in the past. Just because they're no longer active doesn't mean that they wouldn't be called the same if they started back up.
These people? Just to be clear it was one y'all queda guy that did this not the Muslims who got massacred.
Sorry, 'these people', meaning the New Zealand attackers. Should've been more clear. Was in a hurry... I heard there were more than one person involved and two different mosques. Was it only one guy?
I have no problem calling these people terrorists. If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, lays eggs like a duck...
Moslems are definitely not the only people called terrorists though. The IRA and the Basque separatist movements have both been called terrorists in the past. Just because they're no longer active doesn't mean that they wouldn't be called the same if they started back up.
These people? Just to be clear it was one y'all queda guy that did this not the Muslims who got massacred.
I'm pretty sure he meant mass shooters with obvious political motives.
A thread about how this kind of rhetoric has historically been tied to what we now refer to as "trolling" (pay particular attention to the excerpt in part 2):
I've met some in person, and they've all been really nice people Which unfortunately does little to disprove that some ethnicities are more prone to gang together and carry weapons, then harass random people three against one and use abovementioned weapons if someone comes to help (speaking for Russia here). You don't have to approve mass killings in order to see the "right echo-chambers" isn't the only source of the problem.
This seems to assume that migrants really are more prone to crime. We did review the figures for that in the US in the politics thread some time ago and those clearly show that migrants commit fewer crimes (both trivial and serious) than citizens. The situation may well be different in Russia, but it's also possible that there's a perception that happens simply because of the way crimes are reported.
It's interesting you say that migrants you've met are nice people. It's pretty common for people in the UK to both think migrants they know personally are all hard-working, but also believe that those are the exceptions and that most migrants are coming here to take advantage of benefits (which is a common stereotype in certain sections of the media - though clearly untrue if you look at the figures) ...
Well, he did say different ethnicity, not migrants, and this is true. Crime in the U.S is not racially equal by a long shot, especially violent crime.
I've met some in person, and they've all been really nice people Which unfortunately does little to disprove that some ethnicities are more prone to gang together and carry weapons, then harass random people three against one and use abovementioned weapons if someone comes to help (speaking for Russia here). You don't have to approve mass killings in order to see the "right echo-chambers" isn't the only source of the problem.
This seems to assume that migrants really are more prone to crime. We did review the figures for that in the US in the politics thread some time ago and those clearly show that migrants commit fewer crimes (both trivial and serious) than citizens. The situation may well be different in Russia, but it's also possible that there's a perception that happens simply because of the way crimes are reported.
It's interesting you say that migrants you've met are nice people. It's pretty common for people in the UK to both think migrants they know personally are all hard-working, but also believe that those are the exceptions and that most migrants are coming here to take advantage of benefits (which is a common stereotype in certain sections of the media - though clearly untrue if you look at the figures) ...
Well, he did say different ethnicity, not migrants, and this is true. Crime in the U.S is not racially equal by a long shot, especially violent crime.
Umm yeah. White people commit way more crimes according to that chart almost triple the amount of blacks. Is that your point or were you cherry picking only certain crimes?
Anyway, if you tell people they are being attacked they are being invaded, then pro-actively shooting up others can make sense to them. It's what the Nazis did - they said Jews and gypsies were invading rats, who carried disease. It's easier to justify annihilating disease carrying sub-humans. Trump and right wing youtuber and media people tend to use the same "invasion" type language. What you get is radicalized y'all queda terrorists.
If you look at that chart and you understand per capita, that's not what you see. You see consistent normal representation to under-representation on one side, and nothing but over representation on another. Again, just the facts.
I've met some in person, and they've all been really nice people Which unfortunately does little to disprove that some ethnicities are more prone to gang together and carry weapons, then harass random people three against one and use abovementioned weapons if someone comes to help (speaking for Russia here). You don't have to approve mass killings in order to see the "right echo-chambers" isn't the only source of the problem.
This seems to assume that migrants really are more prone to crime. We did review the figures for that in the US in the politics thread some time ago and those clearly show that migrants commit fewer crimes (both trivial and serious) than citizens. The situation may well be different in Russia, but it's also possible that there's a perception that happens simply because of the way crimes are reported.
It's interesting you say that migrants you've met are nice people. It's pretty common for people in the UK to both think migrants they know personally are all hard-working, but also believe that those are the exceptions and that most migrants are coming here to take advantage of benefits (which is a common stereotype in certain sections of the media - though clearly untrue if you look at the figures) ...
Well, he did say different ethnicity, not migrants, and this is true. Crime in the U.S is not racially equal by a long shot, especially violent crime.
I agree he did say ethnicity and that would present a different picture. However, the previous posts had referred to migrants, not racial issues more generally and I couldn't see any other way to interpret the phrase "I've met some in person" other than in reference to migrants - @Ardanis can clarify though if he meant something different .
We've actually got two different stories from numbers about crime from different groups, at least for the United States, so we can't actually lump ethnic minorities in with immigrants. Immigrants commit less crime as a percentage of the population, but certain ethnic minorities commit more, if we go by conviction rates (which will be skewed at least partially by discrimination; juries do exhibit bias). In absolute terms, whites and non-immigrants commit more crime in general, simply because there are a lot more of us.
I'm guessing the reason why immigrants are less likely to commit crime is because they have more to lose (you can get deported; not just imprisoned) or because, if you plan on committing crimes, you wouldn't come to the U.S. to commit them because the police are more effective here and the punishments tend to be more severe--though I've said before that the severity of the punishment doesn't really increase the effect of the deterrent beyond a certain point. I'm guessing the reason why the larger minorities are more likely to commit crime is a factor of poverty, and poverty and crime tend to coincide.
Personally, I don't really see the point of trying to figure out which ethnicities are the "bad guys," since morally and constitutionally we can't treat ethnicities differently in the first place. It's not like you could target the "bad guys" even if you knew who they were supposed to be.
Personally, I don't really see the point of trying to figure out which ethnicities are the "bad guys," since morally and constitutionally we can't treat ethnicities differently in the first place. It's not like you could target the "bad guys" even if you knew who they were supposed to be.
That's not entirely true. A lot of policing depends on profiling of one sort or another. Some of the techniques have a bad name (and that is often due to concerns over racial prejudice), e.g. stop and search tactics in the UK. However, many are welcomed, e.g. targeting of known offenders in burglary hot spots. The problem is that whether you are drawing a line based on racial prejudice or in response to real differences is often unclear - there's still an argument about whether the police are institutionally racist 20 years on from the major enquiry into the Stephen Lawrence death.
I was reading an article the other day about the killing of a mafia boss in New York. That made the point that organized crime has made a recovery in recent years - largely as a result of so many resources being diverted from tackling that into tackling terrorism. That's another area though where issues about ethnicity can complicate things - is it really racist to tackle a mafia gang if they all happen to be of Italian origin?
Personally, I don't really see the point of trying to figure out which ethnicities are the "bad guys," since morally and constitutionally we can't treat ethnicities differently in the first place. It's not like you could target the "bad guys" even if you knew who they were supposed to be.
That's not entirely true. A lot of policing depends on profiling of one sort or another. Some of the techniques have a bad name (and that is often due to concerns over racial prejudice), e.g. stop and search tactics in the UK. However, many are welcomed, e.g. targeting of known offenders in burglary hot spots. The problem is that whether you are drawing a line based on racial prejudice or in response to real differences is often unclear - there's still an argument about whether the police are institutionally racist 20 years on from the major enquiry into the Stephen Lawrence death.
I was reading an article the other day about the killing of a mafia boss in New York. That made the point that organized crime has made a recovery in recent years - largely as a result of so many resources being diverted from tackling that into tackling terrorism. That's another area though where issues about ethnicity can complicate things - is it really racist to tackle a mafia gang if they all happen to be of Italian origin?
No, but it is a problem when you talk to any random black person and inevitably find out they have been pulled over more times in 6 months than you have in your entire life.
At this point, I think it's safe to day that Andrew Brevik has become as dangerous a terrorist figurehead as Bin Laden was. The massacre he carried out in Norway years ago has become ground-zero for these kind of attacks.
People counter things they don't like, not because they are bad.
Of course. And if some people's interests are ignored, they might take up the arms themselves. A blatant disregard for nationalists' concerns is a failure of the state/society, which is supposed to serve the needs of all its people.
Just days ago Putin revealed the plan for the next several years to increase the Russian population by several millions via Middle East migrants. I mean, I get the birthrates are different and we do need the labor force, but Jesus Christ, have he thought to maybe improve conditions for young families to have children, instead of just importing citizens from abroad.
I agree he did say ethnicity and that would present a different picture. However, the previous posts had referred to migrants, not racial issues more generally and I couldn't see any other way to interpret the phrase "I've met some in person" other than in reference to migrants - @Ardanis can clarify though if he meant something different .
Actually, that was my bad, I really did mean "culture" rather than "race". Though it's no secret those two are often correlating when matters of immigration and terror are raised.
Comments
Nothing happened to him. His "reasonable" Republican disguise was more a hand-me down because he was best friends with John McCain, whose own "reasonable" bona-fides were at least 75% a media creation that he himself cultivated. There is nothing the Beltway press loves (or is required) to do more than pretend the Republican Party hasn't been losing it's goddamn mind for the last 30 years running. Lindsey Graham is who he has always been. If there is a SINGLE thing Trump has done that is useful, it is to prove 3 things:
1.) The religious right is completely full of shit.
2.). Republicans don't and have never given a shit about the deficit.
3.) They also don't care about limited government or the rule of law.....to the point where they will advocate totally bypassing Congress to facilitate domestic military construction projects and go on a balls to the walls assault against an investigation being headed by a former REPUBLICAN Director of the FBI.
Which pretty much negates every single, solitary thing the party CLAIMED to stand for over the last 40 years. The importance of family and morals, fiscal responsibility, limited government AND law and order. They've taken their greatest hits and fed them into a wood-chipper for no other reason than to attempt to placate a megalomaniacal man-child, yet will turn around after Trump is gone and pretend none of this ever happened. And the Beltway press will let them. It's why the question "what happened to Lindsey Graham" can even exist. And the answer is......nothing. Trump just revealed who he really was.
'Subscribe to PewDiePie' he said apparently and wrote a ten page manifesto
From his manifesto;
>If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, its that the birthrates must change. Even if we were to deport all Non-Europeans from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still be spiraling into decay and eventual death.
Later on:
>"This is WHITE GENOCIDE."
I think this is all we need to know. It is 10+ pages of text and even the introduction is crazy.
He does mention Trump in his "Q&A"
>Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?
>As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no.
His Twitter was just suspended but here's an archived page of it:
Disturbed mind warning
https://web.archive.org/web/20190315013848/https://twitter.com/BrentonTarrant
Ben Shapiro still has a platform after that Canadian fan of his shot a bunch of Muslims in Quebec. I doubt anything will happen to Pewdiepie.
'remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie'
This guy is like a lot of YouTube or Facebook post comments.
What suicide bombers? They are incredibly rare outside the Middle East. And in my experience the people who hate migrants the worst are those that never meet them (the regions with the lowest density of migrants are the most migrantophobic in my country).
Of course, if you live in the echo chamber of the right you probably think you have 5-10 migrant terrorists living next door to you....
First off, nowhere do I blame "the internet" in my post, I am describing where this rhetoric is taking hold. But secondly, even taking the comment about "rapist migrants and suicide bombers" at face value, is the suggestion that walking into two mosques and gunning down 50 defenseless people can only be understood when taking into account this so-called "death of western culture"?? I got news for you, this shooting is just as much an act of "terrorism" as any suicide bombing that has ever taken place. Now, it won't be framed that way, because it NEVER is unless Muslims are the perpetrators, nevermind that in this case they are the victims, clearly targeted because of that fact. As I have said countless times, the word has lost ALL of it's original meaning because it only ever gets applied to one group of people.
At this point I'm half expecting people to start saying this guy is "just a troll". That he shot up the mosque ironically, for the luls as a social experiment.
It's the source and inspiration for THIS specific problem we are talking about. Everything about the guy (that he himself offered up in advance of the act) tells me he is the EXACT type of person who endlessly immerses himself in this rhetoric on YouTube and then discusses further on 4chan. In fact, I half suspect the reason he mentions pewdiepie at all is so he can "troll" the media into mentioning him and blaming him. Because that is how deranged this nihilistic counter-culture has become. There is a sickness taking hold in certain portions of online culture that is every bit as dangerous as ISIS recruitment.
This blog post describes what this guy was all about better than I can. Essentially, his murder was committed for the entertainment of the online circles he clearly not only was a part of, but marinated in day after day:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/rest-of-world/2019/03/15/shitposting-inspirational-terrorism-and-the-christchurch-mosque-massacre/
Again, this isn't an act that was carried out just because of bathing in this rhetoric, but one that was also carried out as the extension of taking that rhetoric and making it manifest itself in the real world. Even when he was about to murder people, his explicit intent is to maintain this veneer of the online "troll" or "shitposting" culture to it's ultimate extreme, where even in the aftermath of murdering people, the REAL enemy in the world he emanates from will still be the media, liberals and normies. A counter-culture has developed online. It's massive and it is increasingly eliminationist in it's rhetoric. And since it positively BATHES in nihilism 24/7/365, it is inevitable that a bunch of people who believe nothing means anything are going to go the extra mile.
And note that, as you've said it yourself, it is a counter-culture. You only counter when there is something worth countering.
Right wingers are getting radicalized into believing all immigrants are rapists, murdering, foreigners who want to destroy their culture.
Who is telling him these things? Who is radicalizing people into y'all queda? Guys like Alex Jones, PewDiePie, Ben Shapiro, Sebastian Gorka and Donald Trump's.
BTW This particular guy livestreamed his attack. Gross.
The quoted statement is not correct. People counter things they don't like, not because they are bad.
Any sort of change always creates a counter culture, regardless of whether it is "worth" countering.
This seems to assume that migrants really are more prone to crime. We did review the figures for that in the US in the politics thread some time ago and those clearly show that migrants commit fewer crimes (both trivial and serious) than citizens. The situation may well be different in Russia, but it's also possible that there's a perception that happens simply because of the way crimes are reported.
It's interesting you say that migrants you've met are nice people. It's pretty common for people in the UK to both think migrants they know personally are all hard-working, but also believe that those are the exceptions and that most migrants are coming here to take advantage of benefits (which is a common stereotype in certain sections of the media - though clearly untrue if you look at the figures) ...
Moslems are definitely not the only people called terrorists though. The IRA and the Basque separatist movements have both been called terrorists in the past. Just because they're no longer active doesn't mean that they wouldn't be called the same if they started back up.
These people? Just to be clear it was one y'all queda guy that did this not the Muslims who got massacred.
Sorry, 'these people', meaning the New Zealand attackers. Should've been more clear. Was in a hurry... I heard there were more than one person involved and two different mosques. Was it only one guy?
I'm pretty sure he meant mass shooters with obvious political motives.
Well, he did say different ethnicity, not migrants, and this is true. Crime in the U.S is not racially equal by a long shot, especially violent crime.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21
Umm yeah. White people commit way more crimes according to that chart almost triple the amount of blacks. Is that your point or were you cherry picking only certain crimes?
Anyway, if you tell people they are being attacked they are being invaded, then pro-actively shooting up others can make sense to them. It's what the Nazis did - they said Jews and gypsies were invading rats, who carried disease. It's easier to justify annihilating disease carrying sub-humans. Trump and right wing youtuber and media people tend to use the same "invasion" type language. What you get is radicalized y'all queda terrorists.
I agree he did say ethnicity and that would present a different picture. However, the previous posts had referred to migrants, not racial issues more generally and I couldn't see any other way to interpret the phrase "I've met some in person" other than in reference to migrants - @Ardanis can clarify though if he meant something different
I'm guessing the reason why immigrants are less likely to commit crime is because they have more to lose (you can get deported; not just imprisoned) or because, if you plan on committing crimes, you wouldn't come to the U.S. to commit them because the police are more effective here and the punishments tend to be more severe--though I've said before that the severity of the punishment doesn't really increase the effect of the deterrent beyond a certain point. I'm guessing the reason why the larger minorities are more likely to commit crime is a factor of poverty, and poverty and crime tend to coincide.
Personally, I don't really see the point of trying to figure out which ethnicities are the "bad guys," since morally and constitutionally we can't treat ethnicities differently in the first place. It's not like you could target the "bad guys" even if you knew who they were supposed to be.
That's not entirely true. A lot of policing depends on profiling of one sort or another. Some of the techniques have a bad name (and that is often due to concerns over racial prejudice), e.g. stop and search tactics in the UK. However, many are welcomed, e.g. targeting of known offenders in burglary hot spots. The problem is that whether you are drawing a line based on racial prejudice or in response to real differences is often unclear - there's still an argument about whether the police are institutionally racist 20 years on from the major enquiry into the Stephen Lawrence death.
I was reading an article the other day about the killing of a mafia boss in New York. That made the point that organized crime has made a recovery in recent years - largely as a result of so many resources being diverted from tackling that into tackling terrorism. That's another area though where issues about ethnicity can complicate things - is it really racist to tackle a mafia gang if they all happen to be of Italian origin?
No, but it is a problem when you talk to any random black person and inevitably find out they have been pulled over more times in 6 months than you have in your entire life.
Just days ago Putin revealed the plan for the next several years to increase the Russian population by several millions via Middle East migrants. I mean, I get the birthrates are different and we do need the labor force, but Jesus Christ, have he thought to maybe improve conditions for young families to have children, instead of just importing citizens from abroad.
Actually, that was my bad, I really did mean "culture" rather than "race". Though it's no secret those two are often correlating when matters of immigration and terror are raised.