@Balrog99: Well, that killer's motives are completely unknown right now, so what exactly is there to cover right now, beyond the event itself? I think we're hearing crickets because the background information just flat-out doesn't exist yet.
In the case of the El Paso killer, the guy wrote a manifesto explaining the violence and his philosophy. The reason people are covering that story is because it actually exists.
I found a lot of info just googling his name though. Major networks are being scooped like crazy. It really sounds like this dude was a nut-job. His former classmates are all over the news talking up a storm about what a piece of crap he was in high school. The Heavy.com article is equally revealing about what a dickhead he still was as an adult. You should read it. CNN - nothing. Fox News is crickets too. You'd think they'd be having a field-day with this. I wonder, would a background check even find this stuff if it happened mostly when he was a minor?
One of the people Betts killed was his own sister. Something tells me politics didn't have alot to do with it. If it DID, we'll certainly find out, since people have been trying desperately to do so for the last 24 hours as a life-boat because they don't want to deal with the reality of the reason for what happened in El Paso. We have video footage of Trump smirking while his crowd LAUGHS when someone suggests immigrants should be shot. Someone went and shot who he perceived to be immigrants. So the guy supported Elizabeth Warren. What did Warren SAY that would have set this guy off or pushed him over the edge?? Elizabeth Warren is, if anything, anti-corporate power. So if Connor Betts had gone and shot up a brokerage firm or bank, I think you'd have a point. He went out and shot a bunch of people standing in line to get into a bar at midnight. How does any of that correlate to his political views?? It's not the left's fault this guy in El Paso outlined SPECIFICALLY why he was killing people. It's the reality of the situation. Moreover, his "band" seems like the exact type of thing that would drive those the right often call "SJWs" into fits. There is already a band that writes "songs" nearly exclusively focused on menstrual blood, rape and necrophilia. One Cannibal Corpse is enough.
You do have a good point of asking "why so many mass murderers are happening." It's not a simple answer because it's a complex problem. Every person is different, so no shooter is going to be the same. They might have the same TRIGGERS, but what caused them to start down their path will be different.
Every person is different, but when mass shooters become much more common than 100 years ago, should be a lot of resason.
So prevention is hard. "Arm anyone and everyone" is not a solution. First, because the convenient availability of a gun means that it will become more quickly the "go-to". Part of 'Le Mort D'Arthur' is that a knight steps on a snake at a peace conference. Thinking nothing of it, he draws his sword. Everyone sees that, so everyone draws, and then a peace conference turns into an even worse return to hostilities..
The bad guys with monopoly of guns isn't better either.
As for the peace conference, imagine if only the bad guy is armed and he starts to kill everyone...
The demographics poll confirmed that a clear majority of responding forumites were liberal, and this thread's most common contributors are mostly liberal. Still, I've been to plenty of places that are further left or further right than this one. That doesn't make the forum centrist; we're just not far-left.
Yes, never saw the pool but my guess is only 5% of here is right wing
Anyway, about Bolsonaro, despite the media "he is a white nationalist who won in a white minority country married to a castiza with an indigenous vice president" saying that he will put the country into an dictatorship, what he accomplished?
Trade deals that will give US$500,000 according to some estimates
Reduction on 25% of murder rate, in the most violent country of the world, it is significant. Unfortunately the senate revoked his gun decree, so i expect that criminality will raise up again as policeman has no grantee and the population is disarmed and restricted to anemic cartridges.
The pension deficit is corrected.
NATO ally status for the country
Revocation of tons of useless regulations
No, i don't expect that Brazil will become an first world country. But with Workers Party, we would become Venezuela. Is not an problem for me since isn't hard for me to leave but...
One of the people Betts killed was his own sister. Something tells me politics didn't have alot to do with it. If it DID, we'll certainly find out, since people have been trying desperately to do so for the last 24 hours as a life-boat because they don't want to deal with the reality of the reason for what happened in El Paso. We have video footage of Trump smirking while his crowd LAUGHS when someone suggests immigrants should be shot. Someone went and shot who he perceived to be immigrants. So the guy supported Elizabeth Warren. What did Warren SAY that would have set this guy off or pushed him over the edge?? Elizabeth Warren is, if anything, anti-corporate power. So if Connor Betts had gone and shot up a brokerage firm or bank, I think you'd have a point. He went out and shot a bunch of people standing in line to get into a bar at midnight. How does any of that correlate to his political views?? It's not the left's fault this guy in El Paso outlined SPECIFICALLY why he was killing people. It's the reality of the situation. Moreover, his "band" seems like the exact type of thing that would drive those the right often call "SJWs" into fits. There is already a band that writes "songs" nearly exclusively focused on menstrual blood, rape and necrophilia. One Cannibal Corpse is enough.
Nasty people will find any excuse to be nasty. That's all I'm saying. If you're going to tell me that Patrick Crusius would've been some kind of upstanding citizen if it wasn't for Trump, I'm going to call bullshit.
Edit: Any chance they're going to muzzle this asshole? Or are we going to have to listen to his Nazi drivel for a year or more?
I've been hearing about Connor Betts all day, dude.
On what? CNN hasn't released crap. Only hit I got on web with real info was Heavy.com which I've never heard of. Oh, found link to Snopes.com to verify what CNN never even mentioned...
Social media, about what a piece of trash he is, from my fellow leftists.
The demographics poll confirmed that a clear majority of responding forumites were liberal, and this thread's most common contributors are mostly liberal. Still, I've been to plenty of places that are further left or further right than this one. That doesn't make the forum centrist; we're just not far-left.
Yes, never saw the pool but my guess is only 5% of here is right wing
It's 18% conservative, compared to 35% liberal. The rest falls into other categories. The original poll is here.
Betts kept a kill list and a rape list. Dude didn't seem to be politically motivated or radicalized like the El Paso killer, just bad guy. Apparently able to buy guns despite people in positions of authority knowing about these kill and rape lists.
Betts kept a kill list and a rape list. Dude didn't seem to be politically motivated or radicalized like the El Paso killer, just bad guy. Apparently able to buy guns despite people in positions of authority knowing about these kill and rape lists.
I guess I don't see any difference between the two myself. Crusius wasn't a bad guy? He was just a normal dude until evil Trump somehow motivated him? I'm sure he was volunteering at the local food-bank until a lightbulb went off in his head and he thought, "Trump said all my problems are due to immigrants. I guess I should go out and buy an assault rifle and shoot up a Wal-Mart in El Paso."
Betts kept a kill list and a rape list. Dude didn't seem to be politically motivated or radicalized like the El Paso killer, just bad guy. Apparently able to buy guns despite people in positions of authority knowing about these kill and rape lists.
I guess I don't see any difference between the two myself. Crusius wasn't a bad guy? He was just a normal dude until evil Trump somehow motivated him? I'm sure he was volunteering at the local food-bank until a lightbulb went off in his head and he thought, "Trump said all my problems are due to immigrants. I guess I should go out and buy an assault rifle and shoot up a Wal-Mart in El Paso."
Hate crimes have spiked under Trump, and especially crimes by people who parrot Trump's rhetoric. No one's saying that anyone doing a mass shooting was a good person until a switch flipped, but when people feel emboldened and empowered to do these things after the president essentially calls for it to happen, it's not really accurate to pretend Trump (or many other far right actors, such as via, YouTube radicalization via algorithm) have no influence over their decisions.
Stripping them of the reason to take radical actions, however, can. Even as little as just not antagonizing them further might.
The question is what your ultimate goal is - to win in an argument/confrontation, or to solve a problem that led into said argument.
This is insanity.
Did you read the guy's manifesto? He was literally killing Latino people because they were Latino. Apparently you think that's a reasonable stance, one that's worthy of debate.
I have better things to do than read walls of text by some nationalist lunatic.
Semiticgod had earlier commented on my stance by comparing your shooter to Mao Zedong, but I think a better comparison is with a beta kid bullied by his classmates until he decides that's enough and goes on a killing spree - we had exactly such a case last year in Russia. Personally, I wouldn't care less about his feelings, and however much he was trolled, I think it was full well deserved - weak's purpose is to be food for the strong, as Darwin teaches us.
But the Westerm left seems to disagree with such position, and flips over itself when it so much as suspects someone's might possibly be offended by a most innocent comment. Yet it has no qualms about shitting non-stop on anyone "normal" for not sharing its ideas. Which is just fine by me, mind you, but please don't be surprised when it backfires.
If you consider yourself left, filter your language to not accidentally offend a black or Musilm, try to shield poor immigrants from bad white males, and don't watch your tongue when talking about those males (like Jistraka did) - you get no pass to blame anyone but yourself. I do get to call a dude terrorist, because I'm not bound by giving a damn about anyone's feelings. But if you meet those conditions, then you do not. This is the point I was trying to get across.
Betts kept a kill list and a rape list. Dude didn't seem to be politically motivated or radicalized like the El Paso killer, just bad guy. Apparently able to buy guns despite people in positions of authority knowing about these kill and rape lists.
I guess I don't see any difference between the two myself. Crusius wasn't a bad guy? He was just a normal dude until evil Trump somehow motivated him? I'm sure he was volunteering at the local food-bank until a lightbulb went off in his head and he thought, "Trump said all my problems are due to immigrants. I guess I should go out and buy an assault rifle and shoot up a Wal-Mart in El Paso."
Hate crimes have spiked under Trump, and especially crimes by people who parrot Trump's rhetoric. No one's saying that anyone doing a mass shooting was a good person until a switch flipped, but when people feel emboldened and empowered to do these things after the president essentially calls for it to happen, it's not really accurate to pretend Trump (or many other far right actors, such as via, YouTube radicalization via algorithm) have no influence over their decisions.
This rhetoric paints people into corners. The true believers that follow him without realizing he's just lying to get their votes are shocked that the worldview they've accepted, where immigrants are evil, is not changing to their brave new world without immigrants so they lash out and take things into their own hands. So yeah violence is being sown by Trump. The more people lash out the less people trust each other - it's a self fulfilling hate cycle that he feeds on.
Not just him either. He's the ringleader and Republicans are taking his cues such as team Moscow Mitch.
His team, presumably these same hitler youth bozos, tweeted a graveyard with markers for his political rivals mere hours after the El Paso shooter left dozens dead and wounded.
It wasn't like a coincidence where one grave happened to say McGrath or something. There were tombstones for socialism, the Green New Deal, Merrick Garland, Alison Lundergan Grimes and his opponent in the 2020 election.
If you consider yourself left, filter your language to not accidentally offend a black or Musilm, try to shield poor immigrants from bad white males, and don't watch your tongue when talking about those males (like Jistraka did) - you get no pass to blame anyone but yourself. I do get to call a dude terrorist, because I'm not bound by giving a damn about anyone's feelings. But if you meet those conditions, then you do not. This is the point I was trying to get across.
This is just a tremendously bad take. I am quite certain that JJ does not need to blame himself for right-wing terrorism.
OK. Stop the presses. All of this debate about blaming liberals or conservatives needs to come to a crashing halt. Our Republican lawmakers have found the true culprits....
It's us, the gamers.
Trump hating the games is nothing new, unfortunately. In this, I'm allies with lefts
Games?? No, that one is as old as Columbine and even D&D before that. But the gamer CULTURE that has sprung up since Gamergate?? Absolutely. That was, in many ways, the gateway drug for all of this. I still am pissed at myself for ignoring/not seeing it for what it was for so long. The games themselves are immaterial. But I'll be damned if I don't see a direct line between the early rants against Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkesian and the Alt-right. And it's all due to Youtube's algorithms.
I'm willing to give Anita the credit of doubt in her true intentions, but the left-run outlets then conspired to shit-bomb on the "casual young male gamer" image, and got a well deserved response.
The Beamdog forums being left-leaning is a curious anomaly. I've speculated before that it's because of the Mizhena thing. The character alienated right-leaning folks much more often than lefties, and so the furthest-right forumites were a lot less likely to stick around. As the controversy developed, the people who felt most comfortable on the forum were the same people who didn't mind Mizhena.
More like Dee's approach to moderation, who was far left himself.
If you consider yourself left, filter your language to not accidentally offend a black or Musilm, try to shield poor immigrants from bad white males, and don't watch your tongue when talking about those males (like Jistraka did) - you get no pass to blame anyone but yourself. I do get to call a dude terrorist, because I'm not bound by giving a damn about anyone's feelings. But if you meet those conditions, then you do not. This is the point I was trying to get across.
This is reminiscent of the age old argument that if progressives preach tolerance, then should they not also tolerate the views of those who are intolerant of others (Such as racists, white supremacists and bigots).
The answer is, and has always been, no.
and I cannot help but notice that the left's intolerance of the intolerant doesnt result in mass murder of those same intolerants - a lesson I dearly wish the alt right would learn.
weak's purpose is to be food for the strong, as Darwin teaches us.
Where does he say that? His theory of evolution was based around the survival of the fittest, but that's not the same as saying the purpose of the weak is to feed the strong. Darwin's theories encompassed moral as well as scientific teaching, to make this distinction. In "The Descent of Man" for instance he said: "The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"
weak's purpose is to be food for the strong, as Darwin teaches us.
Where does he say that? His theory of evolution was based around the survival of the fittest, but that's not the same as saying the purpose of the weak is to feed the strong. Darwin's theories encompassed moral as well as scientific teaching, to make this distinction. In "The Descent of Man" for instance he said: "The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"
Not to mention the fact that today the 'weak' can grab a gun and massacre dozens of the 'strong'. Kind of makes bullying look less 'Darwinian' and more suicidal if you ask me.
If you consider yourself left, filter your language to not accidentally offend a black or Musilm, try to shield poor immigrants from bad white males, and don't watch your tongue when talking about those males (like Jistraka did) - you get no pass to blame anyone but yourself. I do get to call a dude terrorist, because I'm not bound by giving a damn about anyone's feelings. But if you meet those conditions, then you do not. This is the point I was trying to get across.
This is just a tremendously bad take. I am quite certain that JJ does not need to blame himself for right-wing terrorism.
Oh, they can blame me for whatever they want. That is par for the course in this "reverse racism" nonsense. First off, I'm quite sure (because I just re-read them) that I never used the term "white" once in this discussion. Any terms I did use are decidedly racially and ethnically neutral. If I had called these guys "crackers" or "honkies", then we'd have a point there. Moreover, nearly EVERY mass shooter is male. I believe there has been ONE female (the YouTube shooter). But yeah, a hit dog will holler.
If you consider yourself left, filter your language to not accidentally offend a black or Musilm, try to shield poor immigrants from bad white males, and don't watch your tongue when talking about those males (like Jistraka did) - you get no pass to blame anyone but yourself. I do get to call a dude terrorist, because I'm not bound by giving a damn about anyone's feelings. But if you meet those conditions, then you do not. This is the point I was trying to get across.
I'm not going to say anyone did or did not do anything, since I didn't read it all, but I get what you're saying and I partially agree. It wasn't radical right wingers that made me stop and question what it meant to be "white", it was people on the left, who I sincerely agreed with at the time, isolating and calling them out, in particularly nasty ways, that are reserved solely for them and unacceptable anywhere else. I sincerely thought everyone was like me, post-racial in their thought process, until I was told I had to sit at the back of the bus (metaphorically) because I was "white". I've complained about this and shared countless examples of it in this thread because it was something that really bothered me for a long time.
In that way, I do genuinely think these new progressives bear a measure of responsibility for white nationalist sentiment. The way they've treated whites as a group has been downright abusive for a long time, it's almost understandable how that can push someone radically far in the opposite direction, especially younger and more impressionable people. People generally don't do what they don't think is in their interests. One must eventually question what makes people think extremism is in their interests. Do they feel threatened? It many ways they should feel that way given what is said about them.
Of course, they will never accept this let alone even entertain the thought.
Some may argue that the left doesn't encourage anti white sentiment, but I don't care to listen. Sarah Jeong still has a job at one of the most prestigious media outlets. That is the end of the discussion for any serious person keeping score of how things work.
In other news #CancelNYT is trending right now, because people are mad that they wrote a headline- just a headline- that wasn't explicitly anti-Trump. The absolute state of our discourse.
Some may argue that the left doesn't encourage anti white sentiment, but I don't care to listen. Sarah Jeong still has a job at one of the most prestigious media outlets. That is the end of the discussion for any serious person keeping score of how things work.
In other news #CancelNYT is trending right now, because people are mad that they wrote a headline- just a headline- that wasn't explicitly anti-Trump. The absolute state of our discourse.
The radical left is not just anti-white but also anti-Jew. The Jews get it from both extremes. Lucky them...
You know, there was a time in this country when our parents were alive and grandparents were full adults (to give you a concept of HOW recent it was) that when a black woman refused to move to the back of the bus for a white man, she was arrested for doing so, because it was a CRIME for her not to do so. So, if you can gently set down the cross you are bearing on your shoulders like Jesus marching to his crucifixion, explain to me, metaphorically, what equivalent white men are facing in modern society from an actual LAW, and not just something someone said to you somewhere.
You know, there was a time in this country when our parents were alive and grandparents were full adults (to give you a concept of HOW recent it was) that when a black woman refused to move to the back of the bus for a white man, she was arrested for doing so, because it was CRIME for her not to do so. So, if you can gently set down the cross you are bearing on your shoulders like Jesus marching to his crucifixion, explain to me, metaphorically, what equivalent white men are facing in modern society from an actual LAW, and not just something someone said to you somewhere.
Nobody follows me around in the store watching me like a hawk, so I feel unloved.
When pointing out the anti white tendencies of the left, someone will inevitably come in and deflect with some variation of the "your ancestors were bad" line.
As they continue to put overt anti white racists into positions of influence and power, the Sarah Jeongs of the world, and as they continue to gain more political power through demographic shifts, it's only a matter of time before overt anti white laws come into play, besides the simple ones we already have, making white kids have to work harder than everyone else because of their race through affirmative action laws, and making it so all black and all other minority schools can exist, but not all white (unless this is not the case, and such a place exists, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't and can't). The laws are already there, racial discrimination has legal precedent, and they are just going to get worse.
As of now, the anti white place in society is mostly cultural, and wields enormous influence, having devoted support from universities (they teach it), the media (they uplift it's devotees), and the D's (they preach it) alike. They have carved out a space of privilege and influence for themselves in society, able to dictate the acceptable limits of discussion, which always allows for horrible things to be said about whites and everybody else gets the highest respect. It doesn't take much thought to see where this leads, and it astonishes me that all the white liberals that go along with this don't realize that they will simply be eaten last. It's already happening.
But of course, some want to make this whole issue a fictional "anti white ideology vs. slavery and segregation", as though this is the choice we are actually faced with.
I mean, come on, guys. By all objective standards, if FOX News or the Trump White House hired, and then defended, and kept on, someone who called any other race dogs and genetically inferior, you would flip. You flip at Trump's far more tame, far more benign comments. There should be no lack of outrage when someone does so to people like me. We don't deserve it, despite what some may believe.
This isn't even going into the content of these publications, which can be just as bad as the personal thoughts of the writers.
You know, there was a time in this country when our parents were alive and grandparents were full adults (to give you a concept of HOW recent it was) that when a black woman refused to move to the back of the bus for a white man, she was arrested for doing so, because it was a CRIME for her not to do so. So, if you can gently set down the cross you are bearing on your shoulders like Jesus marching to his crucifixion, explain to me, metaphorically, what equivalent white men are facing in modern society from an actual LAW, and not just something someone said to you somewhere.
I didn't do anything to them. Neither did my father or grandfather. Minnesota Yankees all...
I mean, come on, guys. By all objective standards, if FOX News or the Trump White House hired, and then defended, and kept on, someone who called any other race dogs and genetically inferior, you would flip. You flip at Trump's far more tame, far more benign comments. There should be no lack of outrage when someone does so to people like me. We don't deserve it, despite what some may believe.
This isn't even going into the content of these publications, which can be just as bad as the personal thoughts of the writers.
I swear on my mother's grave the only time I have ever heard of Sarah Jeong is the half-dozen or so times you have mentioned her, and I'm not exactly oblivious to those who write left-wing punditry. Amanda Marcotte, Michelle Goldberg, then I'd know who you were talking about, and I'm sure you can find endless sources of aggrievement from their articles as well. But, even though it goes against every instinct and inclination I have, and I'm almost certain I will regret doing so, I'll take your word for it and assume she's as bad as you say she is.
As for liberals and the New York Times, if you think we like them, oh man alive do I have stories to tell you about Judith Miller and the Iraq War and more recently Maggie Haberman's stenography in the Trump-era. Liberals aren't cancelling subscriptions today just because of their ridiculous headline, but because of two decades of being shitty for the exact opposite reasons you think they're shitty.
You know, there was a time in this country when our parents were alive and grandparents were full adults (to give you a concept of HOW recent it was) that when a black woman refused to move to the back of the bus for a white man, she was arrested for doing so, because it was a CRIME for her not to do so. So, if you can gently set down the cross you are bearing on your shoulders like Jesus marching to his crucifixion, explain to me, metaphorically, what equivalent white men are facing in modern society from an actual LAW, and not just something someone said to you somewhere.
I didn't do anything to them. Neither did my father or grandfather. Minnesota Yankees all...
That isn't the point. The point is that MANY people think the nearly bottomless ripple effects of 300 years of systematic oppression was erased with the stroke of the pen one afternoon in 1964. If we assume on the conservative end it would take at least as long to fix the problems this caused as it did to create them (which is being generous to a fault again on my part), then we aren't even 1/6th of the way to doing so.
As they continue to put overt anti white racists into positions of influence and power, the Sarah Jeongs of the world, and as they continue to gain more political power through demographic shifts, it's only a matter of time before overt anti white laws come into play, besides the simple ones we already have, making white kids have to work harder than everyone else because of their race through affirmative action laws, and making it so all black and all other minority schools can exist, but not all white (unless this is not the case, and such a place exists, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't and can't). The laws are already there, racial discrimination has legal precedent, and they are just going to get worse.
As of now, the anti white place in society is mostly cultural, and wields enormous influence, having devoted support from universities (they teach it), the media (they uplift it's devotees), and the D's (they preach it) alike. They have carved out a space of privilege and influence for themselves in society, able to dictate the acceptable limits of discussion, which always allows for horrible things to be said about whites and everybody else gets the highest respect. It doesn't take much thought to see where this leads, and it astonishes me that all the white liberals that go along with this don't realize that they will simply be eaten last. It's already happening.
This is a paranoid fantasy. I promise that no one is going to eat you.
Comments
I found a lot of info just googling his name though. Major networks are being scooped like crazy. It really sounds like this dude was a nut-job. His former classmates are all over the news talking up a storm about what a piece of crap he was in high school. The Heavy.com article is equally revealing about what a dickhead he still was as an adult. You should read it. CNN - nothing. Fox News is crickets too. You'd think they'd be having a field-day with this. I wonder, would a background check even find this stuff if it happened mostly when he was a minor?
Every person is different, but when mass shooters become much more common than 100 years ago, should be a lot of resason.
The bad guys with monopoly of guns isn't better either.
As for the peace conference, imagine if only the bad guy is armed and he starts to kill everyone...
Yes, never saw the pool but my guess is only 5% of here is right wing
Anyway, about Bolsonaro, despite the media "he is a white nationalist who won in a white minority country married to a castiza with an indigenous vice president" saying that he will put the country into an dictatorship, what he accomplished?
No, i don't expect that Brazil will become an first world country. But with Workers Party, we would become Venezuela. Is not an problem for me since isn't hard for me to leave but...
Nasty people will find any excuse to be nasty. That's all I'm saying. If you're going to tell me that Patrick Crusius would've been some kind of upstanding citizen if it wasn't for Trump, I'm going to call bullshit.
Edit: Any chance they're going to muzzle this asshole? Or are we going to have to listen to his Nazi drivel for a year or more?
Social media, about what a piece of trash he is, from my fellow leftists.
You have a point about the news media, though.
I guess I don't see any difference between the two myself. Crusius wasn't a bad guy? He was just a normal dude until evil Trump somehow motivated him? I'm sure he was volunteering at the local food-bank until a lightbulb went off in his head and he thought, "Trump said all my problems are due to immigrants. I guess I should go out and buy an assault rifle and shoot up a Wal-Mart in El Paso."
Hate crimes have spiked under Trump, and especially crimes by people who parrot Trump's rhetoric. No one's saying that anyone doing a mass shooting was a good person until a switch flipped, but when people feel emboldened and empowered to do these things after the president essentially calls for it to happen, it's not really accurate to pretend Trump (or many other far right actors, such as via, YouTube radicalization via algorithm) have no influence over their decisions.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3102652
Semiticgod had earlier commented on my stance by comparing your shooter to Mao Zedong, but I think a better comparison is with a beta kid bullied by his classmates until he decides that's enough and goes on a killing spree - we had exactly such a case last year in Russia. Personally, I wouldn't care less about his feelings, and however much he was trolled, I think it was full well deserved - weak's purpose is to be food for the strong, as Darwin teaches us.
But the Westerm left seems to disagree with such position, and flips over itself when it so much as suspects someone's might possibly be offended by a most innocent comment. Yet it has no qualms about shitting non-stop on anyone "normal" for not sharing its ideas. Which is just fine by me, mind you, but please don't be surprised when it backfires.
If you consider yourself left, filter your language to not accidentally offend a black or Musilm, try to shield poor immigrants from bad white males, and don't watch your tongue when talking about those males (like Jistraka did) - you get no pass to blame anyone but yourself. I do get to call a dude terrorist, because I'm not bound by giving a damn about anyone's feelings. But if you meet those conditions, then you do not. This is the point I was trying to get across.
This rhetoric paints people into corners. The true believers that follow him without realizing he's just lying to get their votes are shocked that the worldview they've accepted, where immigrants are evil, is not changing to their brave new world without immigrants so they lash out and take things into their own hands. So yeah violence is being sown by Trump. The more people lash out the less people trust each other - it's a self fulfilling hate cycle that he feeds on.
Not just him either. He's the ringleader and Republicans are taking his cues such as team Moscow Mitch.
His team, presumably these same hitler youth bozos, tweeted a graveyard with markers for his political rivals mere hours after the El Paso shooter left dozens dead and wounded.
It wasn't like a coincidence where one grave happened to say McGrath or something. There were tombstones for socialism, the Green New Deal, Merrick Garland, Alison Lundergan Grimes and his opponent in the 2020 election.
This is just a tremendously bad take. I am quite certain that JJ does not need to blame himself for right-wing terrorism.
I'm willing to give Anita the credit of doubt in her true intentions, but the left-run outlets then conspired to shit-bomb on the "casual young male gamer" image, and got a well deserved response.
More like Dee's approach to moderation, who was far left himself.
Not saying he *should* blame himself, only that he doesn't have moral ground to blame the Gamergate.
This is reminiscent of the age old argument that if progressives preach tolerance, then should they not also tolerate the views of those who are intolerant of others (Such as racists, white supremacists and bigots).
The answer is, and has always been, no.
and I cannot help but notice that the left's intolerance of the intolerant doesnt result in mass murder of those same intolerants - a lesson I dearly wish the alt right would learn.
Where does he say that? His theory of evolution was based around the survival of the fittest, but that's not the same as saying the purpose of the weak is to feed the strong. Darwin's theories encompassed moral as well as scientific teaching, to make this distinction. In "The Descent of Man" for instance he said: "The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"
Not to mention the fact that today the 'weak' can grab a gun and massacre dozens of the 'strong'. Kind of makes bullying look less 'Darwinian' and more suicidal if you ask me.
Oh, they can blame me for whatever they want. That is par for the course in this "reverse racism" nonsense. First off, I'm quite sure (because I just re-read them) that I never used the term "white" once in this discussion. Any terms I did use are decidedly racially and ethnically neutral. If I had called these guys "crackers" or "honkies", then we'd have a point there. Moreover, nearly EVERY mass shooter is male. I believe there has been ONE female (the YouTube shooter). But yeah, a hit dog will holler.
I'm not going to say anyone did or did not do anything, since I didn't read it all, but I get what you're saying and I partially agree. It wasn't radical right wingers that made me stop and question what it meant to be "white", it was people on the left, who I sincerely agreed with at the time, isolating and calling them out, in particularly nasty ways, that are reserved solely for them and unacceptable anywhere else. I sincerely thought everyone was like me, post-racial in their thought process, until I was told I had to sit at the back of the bus (metaphorically) because I was "white". I've complained about this and shared countless examples of it in this thread because it was something that really bothered me for a long time.
In that way, I do genuinely think these new progressives bear a measure of responsibility for white nationalist sentiment. The way they've treated whites as a group has been downright abusive for a long time, it's almost understandable how that can push someone radically far in the opposite direction, especially younger and more impressionable people. People generally don't do what they don't think is in their interests. One must eventually question what makes people think extremism is in their interests. Do they feel threatened? It many ways they should feel that way given what is said about them.
Of course, they will never accept this let alone even entertain the thought.
In other news #CancelNYT is trending right now, because people are mad that they wrote a headline- just a headline- that wasn't explicitly anti-Trump. The absolute state of our discourse.
The radical left is not just anti-white but also anti-Jew. The Jews get it from both extremes. Lucky them...
Nobody follows me around in the store watching me like a hawk, so I feel unloved.
As they continue to put overt anti white racists into positions of influence and power, the Sarah Jeongs of the world, and as they continue to gain more political power through demographic shifts, it's only a matter of time before overt anti white laws come into play, besides the simple ones we already have, making white kids have to work harder than everyone else because of their race through affirmative action laws, and making it so all black and all other minority schools can exist, but not all white (unless this is not the case, and such a place exists, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't and can't). The laws are already there, racial discrimination has legal precedent, and they are just going to get worse.
As of now, the anti white place in society is mostly cultural, and wields enormous influence, having devoted support from universities (they teach it), the media (they uplift it's devotees), and the D's (they preach it) alike. They have carved out a space of privilege and influence for themselves in society, able to dictate the acceptable limits of discussion, which always allows for horrible things to be said about whites and everybody else gets the highest respect. It doesn't take much thought to see where this leads, and it astonishes me that all the white liberals that go along with this don't realize that they will simply be eaten last. It's already happening.
But of course, some want to make this whole issue a fictional "anti white ideology vs. slavery and segregation", as though this is the choice we are actually faced with.
This isn't even going into the content of these publications, which can be just as bad as the personal thoughts of the writers.
I didn't do anything to them. Neither did my father or grandfather. Minnesota Yankees all...
I swear on my mother's grave the only time I have ever heard of Sarah Jeong is the half-dozen or so times you have mentioned her, and I'm not exactly oblivious to those who write left-wing punditry. Amanda Marcotte, Michelle Goldberg, then I'd know who you were talking about, and I'm sure you can find endless sources of aggrievement from their articles as well. But, even though it goes against every instinct and inclination I have, and I'm almost certain I will regret doing so, I'll take your word for it and assume she's as bad as you say she is.
As for liberals and the New York Times, if you think we like them, oh man alive do I have stories to tell you about Judith Miller and the Iraq War and more recently Maggie Haberman's stenography in the Trump-era. Liberals aren't cancelling subscriptions today just because of their ridiculous headline, but because of two decades of being shitty for the exact opposite reasons you think they're shitty.
That isn't the point. The point is that MANY people think the nearly bottomless ripple effects of 300 years of systematic oppression was erased with the stroke of the pen one afternoon in 1964. If we assume on the conservative end it would take at least as long to fix the problems this caused as it did to create them (which is being generous to a fault again on my part), then we aren't even 1/6th of the way to doing so.
No one needs any kind of moral ground to express facts, dude.