Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The Politics Thread

1319320322324325678

Comments

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,695
    edited August 2019
    Typically, this is the type of activity that you will see when a political ideology is OUT of power. This is happening on a regular basis when their figurehead is in the most powerful position in the world. The fact that this is increasing while their power is, for all intents and purposes, ascendant rather than on the fringes is even more concerning. What do people imagine is going to happen if Trump loses in 2020 and insists the election was stolen by liberals and brown people?? Because he will say that. I don't know if he will lose, but I know if he DOES lose he is not going to go quietly. He will seek to foment violence.

    ThacoBell
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited August 2019
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    You know what, screw this shit. Ban assault rifles now. Remove them from all stores, and cease all production of them for public purchase immediately.
    Censorship.
    They serve no purpose other than mowing down random human beings in acts of young, male rage.
    Misandry.
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Everything about this guy shows he could be one of millions of young males marinating in this toxicity 24/7/365.
    Misandry.
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Should Antifa be punching people in the streets?? Of course they shouldn't. Get back to me when one of them mows down two dozen people in a sporting goods store in Omaha and then we can start having a conversation about how they are the "same".
    Last time I saw "antifa" mentioned in the news, they've nearly beaten someone to death in the very those streets.
    Trump is inciting domestic terrorism, and the only question is if he just doesn't care or is doing it on purpose, the answer to which is basically immaterial to the reality of the situation.
    Trump is inciting to fight against the left-wing bigotry. The fact that left wing would rather call it terrorism instead of asking themselves if maybe they're doing something wrong just confirms the truth of it.

    Left wing can't seem to stop talking about how blacks, women, natives, LGBT etc. are offended by the slightest infraction that any normal person would forget the next minute. It also doesn't shut up about how white young men are a threat to all life on the planet.
    When lefts get in a position of power and control of a public space, they ban and censor any who has an opinion different from theirs. "We don't need any more black/muslim/queer faces that don't want to be a black/muslim/queer voice" (C) A. Pressley - exactly like that. Both bigotry AND generalization at their finest. Funny how an ideology that calls itself liberal is in fact trying its hardest to make totalitarian regimes blush, don't you think? :D I think hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe everything that's wrong with the radical left.

    If you hate the young white men for being young white men, fine. But unless you kill, or imprison, or deport them all, you'll have no choice but to deal with their interests, their feelings, their sensibilities etc. Or you'll keep getting more meltdowns. If you wanna be inclusive, be inclusive of everyone and don't shit on right wing snowflakes' feelings any more than you don't want them to shit on your snowflakes'. It really is that simple.
    Trump does not make anyone to pick a gun and shoot strangers. You do, if indirectly, by lending the silent (or not so silent, lol) approval to the radically intolerant ideology that has recently driven multiple people off their sane mind. It's not rocket science.

    Peace :)


    EDIT So, on a second thought I can see how someone might miss point of this message. Since I posted it with educational intent in mind rather than trolling, I suppose the burden of it being understood properly is on me. See here for sarcasm-free version https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/1088484#Comment_1088484

    Post edited by Ardanis on
  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,575
    edited August 2019
    Truly, my heart bleeds for the alt-right community, who are driven to mass murder and domestic terrorism not by racist, nativist and white supremacist language full disclosed in all their manifestos - but because progressives believe in same-sex marriage and equal rights to all people under the law, regardless of color of their skin or religion of choice.


    I look forward to the healthy discussion on gun laws that will result from this - where reforms that are overwhelming supported by all Americans will never make it into law after a few phone calls from the NRA.

    Grond0DinoDinThacoBellBelleSorciere
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,964
    Ardanis wrote: »
    If you hate the young white men for being young white men, fine. But unless you kill, or imprison, or deport them all, you'll have no choice but to deal with their interests, their feelings, their sensibilities etc. Or you'll keep getting more meltdowns. If you wanna be inclusive, be inclusive of everyone and don't shit on right wing snowflakes' feelings any more than you don't want them to shit on your snowflakes'. It really is that simple.

    I don't think anyone has suggested there is a problem with all young white men, but I find it's hard to argue there's a problem with some young white men - those who randomly gun down innocent strangers for instance.

    Those arguing for restricting the privileges of muslims within western society often say they have no problem with muslims per se, but are specifically aiming their actions against those who call for or use violence. There are some people who take this argument one step further and argue that their culture is under attack and they need to use violence to defend it. However, once you put the argument in those terms it's not in fact difficult to understand why some muslims resort to violence - they use exactly the same rationale. There's been far more impact on their preferred culture by actions of western countries than the other way round ...

    The irony that terrorists of all types use very similar arguments to justify their actions, despite apparently being on opposing sides, has often been pointed out. Conforming to a narrow, tribal, identity and being prepared to use violence against those who don't agree with that identity appeals to plenty of people. However, it does seem to appeal more to young men than to other demographic groups - that's why both islamic and domestic US terrorists (as well as members of most gangs) are predominantly young men.

    Balrog99ThacoBellbleusteel
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,965
    Grond0 wrote: »
    Ardanis wrote: »
    If you hate the young white men for being young white men, fine. But unless you kill, or imprison, or deport them all, you'll have no choice but to deal with their interests, their feelings, their sensibilities etc. Or you'll keep getting more meltdowns. If you wanna be inclusive, be inclusive of everyone and don't shit on right wing snowflakes' feelings any more than you don't want them to shit on your snowflakes'. It really is that simple.

    I don't think anyone has suggested there is a problem with all young white men, but I find it's hard to argue there's a problem with some young white men - those who randomly gun down innocent strangers for instance.

    Those arguing for restricting the privileges of muslims within western society often say they have no problem with muslims per se, but are specifically aiming their actions against those who call for or use violence. There are some people who take this argument one step further and argue that their culture is under attack and they need to use violence to defend it. However, once you put the argument in those terms it's not in fact difficult to understand why some muslims resort to violence - they use exactly the same rationale. There's been far more impact on their preferred culture by actions of western countries than the other way round ...

    The irony that terrorists of all types use very similar arguments to justify their actions, despite apparently being on opposing sides, has often been pointed out. Conforming to a narrow, tribal, identity and being prepared to use violence against those who don't agree with that identity appeals to plenty of people. However, it does seem to appeal more to young men than to other demographic groups - that's why both islamic and domestic US terrorists (as well as members of most gangs) are predominantly young men.

    That's also why by and large, young men are utilized to fight wars. Lots of testosterone and brains that aren't fully developed yet. Scary how men have been exploited isn't it?

    Grond0ThacoBell
  • QuickbladeQuickblade Member Posts: 959
    Most of you all might be asleep, but we now have a second mass shooting this morning in Dayton Ohio, about 1 am.

    14 hours between unrelated mass shootings. World record?

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,695
    edited August 2019
    I mean, this is exactly what I've been talking about. This is the exact kind of comment you will see by the thousands on Youtube. Excusing it, then blaming liberals for "pushing" them to do it. First it was to vote for Trump, now it's to mow down Latinos with assault rifles in a Wal-Mart. Don't say anything, guys, don't point out clear connections and similarities taking place, because you might hurt the feelings of some dipshit on 8chan who might be the next shooter. We've all dealt with teenage angst. You get over it. You don't go kill people indiscriminately because of it. And there is a clear pattern of killers just in the last year who are taking their ques from right-wing Youtube and internet message boards. It's happening. It will happen again.

    Speaking of happening again, you go to sleep after yesterday, wake up, and find some guy in body armor with ANOTHER assault rifle has walked into a bar and killed another 10 people. We now have a situation where two mass shootings are so close together they are competing for the same 24-hour news cycle. If two Muslims committed two separate acts in this short a time span, we'd be putting planes in the air to bomb some random Middle-Eastern country.

    And of course we aren't allowed to call it terrorism. We all know the meaning of that word has been so warped that it now only requires one qualifier, which is "did a Muslim do it??" If so, yes, it's terrorism. If not, we're going to call it something else. Even though the shooter's own words minutes before the shooting confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt the act was strictly political in nature. Anyone who watches 2 or 3 right-wing videos on Youtube will start getting "Great Replacment" videos in their feed immediately. His manifesto might as well have been a transcript of a Lauren Southern video.

    Anyone remember the Trump rally that had to have been less than 3 or 4 months ago where a rally-goer yelled "shoot them" in regards to immigrants and Trump just smirked and cracked a joke?? Memory, the liberal super-power. I'm done playing games on this stuff. If this is the kind of society we want to build and live in, fine. But we're gonna call it what it is.

    Post edited by jjstraka34 on
    ThacoBellBelleSorciere
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited August 2019
    but because progressives believe in same-sex marriage and equal rights to all people under the law, regardless of color of their skin or religion of choice.
    Would you point out where you've found such conclusion in my post?

    I said in no uncertain terms that if somebody wants for everyone to be equally mindful of everyone's feelings, they have no moral ground to violate this principle themselves. Yet what I constantly hear from the left sources is how young straight white men need to... actually, no need to continue, the vital part is already there.
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Not only is the left responsible for people with right wing views massacring other people indiscriminately, but we shouldn't even call massacring innocent people "terrorism".
    I do not tell other people what they should call what, I point out inconsistencies in their logic. Your failure to notice sarcasm in my first phrase just proves my point.
    And it's not the guys who are literally murdering people who radically intolerant. It's "the left".
    For the record, I have no idea what the circumstances are, but Jstraka said Trump made alt-right to do it, so I took his word for it and explained why in such a case the fault would lie with the left.

    Muslim terrorists didn't just suddenly wake up in the morning and thought "Hey, why don't we steal a plane and ram WTC? Gonna be fun!" I think we all know none of this would have happened, had the US administration chosen not to meddle in the Middle East affairs to fetch some cheap oil.

    Chechen terrorists wouldn't just wake up in the morning and thought "Hey, why don't we take a school hostage? Gonna be fun!" if they didn't have a bone to pick with Kremlin.

    Radicals and nationalists don't just suddenly wake up in the morning and think "Hey, why don't I pick a gun and go play Counterstrike irl? Gonna be fun!"
    This is terrorism apologia, guy.
    I couldn't care less if you think it's apologia. I'm seeing you don't like the situation, so I'm nudging you in the right direction where the problem's roots grow from.

    Have you heard the tale about Persian king Xerxes who had ordered a sea whipped because a storm sank his fleet? He might have had a rational reason for doing, like dealing with morale in his army, but I think we can agree whipping a sea won't stop the storms from coming. Just like calling people terrorists won't stop them from carrying out terrorist attacks. 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.

    We aren't talking about attacking another country and then dealing with its population's terror tactics. We're talking about fellow countrymen.
    Quickblade wrote: »
    Most of you all might be asleep, but we now have a second mass shooting this morning in Dayton Ohio, about 1 am.

    14 hours between unrelated mass shootings. World record?
    PS Da hell??

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,695
    edited August 2019
    Are you seriously comparing US military intervention in the Middle-East that results in the overthrow of governments and death to some American liberals being too strident in their pursuit of "social justice"?? Is this meant to be satire?? Are you aware of how large the power gap is between those two things?? It's like the distance from Earth to Saturn. Can you point to a single piece of actual legislation that has stifled right-wing free speech??

    ThacoBell
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166
    <...>believe in same-sex marriage and equal rights to all people under the law, regardless of color of their skin or religion of choice.


    I look forward to the healthy discussion on gun laws that will result from this - where reforms that are overwhelming supported by all Americans will never make it into law after a few phone calls from the NRA.

    Affirmative action programs are "equal rights"? Allow only "minorities" to have freedom of association aka blacks can create an african only club, but if whites do the same, they are racist, is equal rights? Force churches to realize same sex marriage is equal rights?

    As for gun laws, how many massacres happened before NFA(1932)??? And again. If your wife is cheating on your bed, remove the bed will not solve the adultery problem. Even on Japan, an Arson attack killed 34 people in a animation studio. And guns, even illegal ones are not easy to be obtained on Japan.

  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited August 2019
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Are you seriously comparing US military intervention in the Middle-East that results in the overthrow of governments and death to some American liberals being too strident in their pursuit of "social justice"?? Is this meant to be satire?? Are you aware of how large the power gap is between those two things?? It's like the distance from Earth to Saturn. Can you point to a single piece of actual legislation that has stifled right-wing free speech??
    Weren't the social platforms waging war on "hate speech" and demonetizing the "problematic" individuals recently?

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,695
    edited August 2019
    <...>believe in same-sex marriage and equal rights to all people under the law, regardless of color of their skin or religion of choice.


    I look forward to the healthy discussion on gun laws that will result from this - where reforms that are overwhelming supported by all Americans will never make it into law after a few phone calls from the NRA.

    Affirmative action programs are "equal rights"? Allow only "minorities" to have freedom of association aka blacks can create an african only club, but if whites do the same, they are racist, is equal rights? Force churches to realize same sex marriage is equal rights?

    As for gun laws, how many massacres happened before NFA(1932)??? And again. If your wife is cheating on your bed, remove the bed will not solve the adultery problem. Even on Japan, an Arson attack killed 34 people in a animation studio. And guns, even illegal ones are not easy to be obtained on Japan.

    No churches are forced to marry same-sex couples in the US. That is simply not true. The point before that ignores the entire racial history of this country up to 1964, where blacks had to have their own clubs and businesses because they WEREN'T ALLOWED anywhere else.
    Ardanis wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Are you seriously comparing US military intervention in the Middle-East that results in the overthrow of governments and death to some American liberals being too strident in their pursuit of "social justice"?? Is this meant to be satire?? Are you aware of how large the power gap is between those two things?? It's like the distance from Earth to Saturn. Can you point to a single piece of actual legislation that has stifled right-wing free speech??
    Weren't the social platforms waging war on "hate speech" and demonetizing the "problematic" individuals recently?

    While I take issue with some of the phrasing, yes. Draw the line for me from that to driving from Dallas to El Paso to specifically kill "Mexicans", since we now seem to be in the phase of this debate where we just flat-out justify the actions because of perceived slights.

    ThacoBellBelleSorciere
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited August 2019
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    While I take issue with some of the phrasing, yes. Draw the line for me from that to driving from Dallas to El Paso to specifically kill "Mexicans".
    The combination of human psychology and internet. I think it'd cause a lot less heat, if it didn't appear on internet pages, but we live in a reality where online discussion is an integral part of everyday life.

    Also note that having been used to freely express yourself and then suddenly be told to mind your tongue for no immediately understandable reason does not elicit positive reaction at all.
    semiticgod wrote: »
    do we blame liberals who opposed killing minorities for somehow provoking him?
    I blame liberals very specifically for triggering oversensitive snowflakes. We have rules against calling people the N-word not because we expect every single black person to feel insulted by a casual remark, but because there might or might not be someone who'll take it too close to heart and we don't want to spoil their fun, no? Why should it be different for people too sensitive about their free speech rights, especially if evidence suggests they may not just miss some fun but pick a gun and start shooting?
    I don't know the aspects of daily life of an average American, but I don't need to be one to know that being prevented from discussing your problems, or having them dismissed, does not improve your mental health. If you want to listen to the voice of minorities, why ignore people who can't take being shut up? If it's not okay to generalize muslims or women, why is it okay to generalize young men?

    A law has been recently passed in Russia, that introduced insulting the authorities as a new type of offense. So, next month someone came up with idea for a law to forbid officials to insult the populace, to even the odds. I for one think the most sensible solution to is scrap the first law, but who am I to think about state business...
    Back to the Western left activists, they are, as far as I can see, yet to consider evening the odds.

    Post edited by Zaghoul on
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    <...>believe in same-sex marriage and equal rights to all people under the law, regardless of color of their skin or religion of choice.


    I look forward to the healthy discussion on gun laws that will result from this - where reforms that are overwhelming supported by all Americans will never make it into law after a few phone calls from the NRA.

    Affirmative action programs are "equal rights"? Allow only "minorities" to have freedom of association aka blacks can create an african only club, but if whites do the same, they are racist, is equal rights? Force churches to realize same sex marriage is equal rights?

    As for gun laws, how many massacres happened before NFA(1932)??? And again. If your wife is cheating on your bed, remove the bed will not solve the adultery problem. Even on Japan, an Arson attack killed 34 people in a animation studio. And guns, even illegal ones are not easy to be obtained on Japan.

    No churches are forced to marry same-sex couples in the US. That is simply not true. The point before that ignores the entire racial history of this country up to 1964, where blacks had to have their own clubs and businesses because they WEREN'T ALLOWED anywhere else.
    Ardanis wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Are you seriously comparing US military intervention in the Middle-East that results in the overthrow of governments and death to some American liberals being too strident in their pursuit of "social justice"?? Is this meant to be satire?? Are you aware of how large the power gap is between those two things?? It's like the distance from Earth to Saturn. Can you point to a single piece of actual legislation that has stifled right-wing free speech??
    Weren't the social platforms waging war on "hate speech" and demonetizing the "problematic" individuals recently?

    While I take issue with some of the phrasing, yes. Draw the line for me from that to driving from Dallas to El Paso to specifically kill "Mexicans", since we now seem to be in the phase of this debate where we just flat-out justify the actions because of perceived slights.

    No churches got forced?

    See this Ted Cruz / Ellen Page video.



    As for segregation, my point is that in modern days, only minorities can discriminate.

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,575
    edited August 2019
    Political reactionaries are a group of people who's political position has been defined as a reaction to something (anything - although classically to the removal of monarchy, and more recently to the movement away from gender roles and other progressive concepts). One of the first tenets of reactionaries is to blame the people or ideas they're attacking as being the source of their reaction, and therefore the reason they are doing what they've done.

    This intentionally suppresses their own agency in order to justify doing the things that they want.

    It wasn't the KKK's fault that they were terrorizing and murdering recently freed blacks - it was society's fault for trying (slowly) to make them(recently freed slaves) coequal.

    If you read Mein Kampf (as i have, parts at least, for school) - Hitler used these sorts of justifications to target groups that he considered lesser. His movement was a reaction to their beliefs or effects in culture, therefore his reaction was their fault.

    jjstraka34ronaldoBelleSorciereThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited August 2019
    Trump has a schtick where he says no one will say 'radical Islamic terrorism' like it's not PC or something.

    Well, people don't have the balls to call out 'radical right wing domestic terrorism'

    Call it what it is.

    We have nutty right wingers mailing bombs. They're killing people with their cars. They're murdering people in Walmarts. They are murdering people in New Zealand. They're assaulting protestors outside Trump rallies.

    Radical right wing domestic terrorism.

    vkl2ecz2ece31.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=f00e2ac87ddef6eb7f940aa5cadea2d7da4b5c83

    BelleSorciereThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,695
    edited August 2019
    What's really amazing is following how these message boards swing into action every time this happens. The first move is to always blame it on Antifa. After that falls apart in about 90 minutes, they start talking about false-flags. 2 hours after that, it "well, liberals had it coming for how they treat us", which then morphs into either justification or outright praise. It's such an absurdly varying degree of reasoning that the only conclusion one can draw is that they are taking a position at any given time that they believe will leave them with the least culpability, until reality rears it's ugly head, and then they just retreat back to where they started in the first place.

    BelleSorciereThacoBell
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    edited August 2019
    Political reactionaries are a group of people who's political position has been defined as a reaction to something (anything - although classically to the removal of monarchy, and more recently to the movement away from gender roles and other progressive concepts). One of the first tenets of reactionaries is to blame the people or ideas they're attacking as being the source of their reaction, and therefore the reason they are doing what they've done.
    That's certainly possible. Still I remain persuaded a significant part of social conflict in the West is due specifically to hypocrisy in application of PC standards demanded of others.
    Well, people don't have the balls to call out 'radical right wing domestic terrorism'

    Call it what it is.
    Does anyone tell you to call it something else? Does calling it radical right wing domestic terrorism make your day better? Does calling it so make it stop?

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,695
    edited August 2019
    Ardanis wrote: »
    Political reactionaries are a group of people who's political position has been defined as a reaction to something (anything - although classically to the removal of monarchy, and more recently to the movement away from gender roles and other progressive concepts). One of the first tenets of reactionaries is to blame the people or ideas they're attacking as being the source of their reaction, and therefore the reason they are doing what they've done.
    That's certainly possible. Still I remain persuaded a significant part of social conflict in the West is due specifically to hypocrisy in application of own standards demanded of others.
    Well, people don't have the balls to call out 'radical right wing domestic terrorism'

    Call it what it is.
    Does anyone tell you to call it something else? Does calling it radical right wing domestic terrorism make your day better? Does calling it so make it stop?

    You call out "hypocrisy of standards" and then two sentences later dismiss the idea that Trump should be held to the standards HE set for language that should be used when these things happen.

    No, it isn't going to make anyone's day better. The point is that phrasing was what Trump and those who support him INSISTED was important when the perpetrator was Muslim.

    BelleSorcieresemiticgoddessThacoBell
  • ArdanisArdanis Member Posts: 1,736
    That's... a weird point to care about, if you ask me, but whatever.

    Just read in news there was another shooting in Chicago with seven wounded. Guys, please do stay safe over there.

  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166
    Over 97% of mass shootings occurred on gun-free zones, research shows
    https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/09/over-98-of-mass-shootings-occurred-on-gun-free-zones-research-shows

    Now imagine an continental country turning into an gun free zone...

  • DinoDinDinoDin Member Posts: 1,330
    Ardanis wrote: »
    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.

    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,695
    edited August 2019
    This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.

    The lack of responsibility is what he LEADS with. It's central to the entire act. The "invasion" language is something Trump has used countless times. The rest if it might as well be straight out of the chants in Charlottesville. And apparently the response to this so-called "invasion" is to randomly target civilians. Moreover here is the definition of the word:

    An instance of invading a country or region with armed force

    This is not taking place. Even those who are crossing illegally are not doing so because they are using weapons to force their way forward. The fundamental meaning of the word is being twisted. There are other definitions after that one that DO technically fit, but since the shooter raised it to the level of armed conflict, I can only reasonably assume he believed it was this one.

    semiticgoddessThacoBellronaldo
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Ardanis wrote: »
    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.

    What is a latino in the first place? I really hate this therm and think that no other country except US use it as an racial group. Latino was an sub european group who speaks latin based languages. From Italy to France... Now become by some unknown reason an fake ethinic group. Even Nazis din't had any problem accepting german descendants born in south america. Egon Albrecht(Luftwaffe pilot - knight of iron cross - Born in Brazil), Richard Darre(minister of food - Born in Argentina), but on US, an blonde, blue eyed model like Milagros Schomol and an 100% black Haitian belongs to the same racial group because the average "Joe" in US thinks that everything is the same, from Ushuaia to Mexico city an guy even asked to me "how are the gun laws in latin america", as if the entire continent is under the same government...

  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    [/i][/b]attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.[/i][/b]

    The lack of responsibility is what he LEADS with. It's central to the entire act. The "invasion" language is something Trump has used countless times. The rest if it might as well be straight out of the chants in Charlottesville. And apparently the response to this so-called "invasion" is to randomly target civilians. Moreover here is the definition of the word:
    An instance of invading a country or region with armed force

    Words are being twisted because Trump and Republicans thinks this can help them politically.

    They think that by preying on white agrievement and focusing their sense of entitlement that scared insecure people will vote Republican out of fear and hate for people who speak Spanish.

    We are living in Trump's alternative facts world where people who speak Spanish are invaders and he's radicalizing right wing domestic terrorists against them. These people are not just a threat to people who speak or look Hispanic. We're all in the crossfire.

    BelleSorciereThacoBellronaldo
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,793
    Well Officials are calling the shooting a domestic terrorist attack and are weighing Hate Crime charges, so it is being treated as such.

    I kinda slightly hope they stick him in a predominantly Latino correctional facility so he can shit his pants for a couple of weeks.

    Trump did hit the low bar of condemning the acts and sending his “thoughts and prayers.” How do I want that phrase stricken from our lexicon when this happens.

  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,166
    edited August 2019
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    DinoDin wrote: »
    Ardanis wrote: »
    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.

    What is a latino in the first place? I really hate this therm and think that no other country except US use it as an racial group. Latino was an sub european group who speaks latin based languages. From Italy to France... Now become by some unknown reason an fake ethinic group. Even Nazis din't had any problem accepting german descendants born in south america. Egon Albrecht(Luftwaffe pilot - knight of iron cross - Born in Brazil), Richard Darre(minister of food - Born in Argentina), but on US, an blonde, blue eyed model like Milagros Schomol and an 100% black Haitian belongs to the same racial group because the average "Joe" in US thinks that everything is the same, from Ushuaia to Mexico city an guy even asked to me "how are the gun laws in latin america", as if the entire continent is under the same government...

    This is so pedantic. The guy told law enforcement his goal was to kill as many Mexicans as possible. I personally use the phrase "Latino descent" because I feel calling a group of people who are citizens or residents of this country "Mexicans" anymore than I have to in relation to this story to be disrespectful. It's the same reason I try to use the term "African-American" instead of black whenever possible, but I know these subtle nuances of attempting to not offend people unnecessarily are completely lost to a certain segment of the population.

    Latino as in "Latin America". The shooter was targeting people he would have thought by LOOKING at them were Mexican, which would mean he was identifying targets to kill by their skin color. Based strictly on a split-second decision, an American whose ancestors came from El Salvador or Honduras would meet his bullets just the same. It's not like he was checking IDs or doing an ancestory check online before pulling the trigger.

    Getting bogged down in this minutiae on this topic is pointless. It's fudamentally clear his aim was to kill people he believed came from countries to the south of the United States. His short-hand term for that was "Mexicans", even though many of those he killed may have never been to Mexico or any other Latin American country in their life.

    Again, you ignored my question.

    Look to US, the majority is white, but there are mestizos, african americans, asian americas etc; Why with latin america people believe that there are an magical force that makes for example the Richard Darre non white and Alberto Fujimori non Asian???? The majority of Mexico is mestizo, but the majority of Haiti is of African descent and the majority of Uruguayan population is white. There are no homogeneous latino race as US portraits.

    Most common haplogroup in Uruguay

    http://atlasdna.xyvy.info/country-national-haplogroup-chart-dna/uruguay

    In Mexico

    http://atlasdna.xyvy.info/country-national-haplogroup-chart-dna/mexico

    In Haiti

    http://atlasdna.xyvy.info/country-national-haplogroup-chart-dna/haiti

    As you can see, the three countries have an extremely distinct genetic makeup

    DragonKing
Sign In or Register to comment.