Trump Said "White Nationalism is NOT a Rising Threat" Is That True?

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (145 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image91
    My Esotericposted 6 months ago

    Trump said this soon after a white nationalist murdered 49 (so far) Muslims in Christchurch New Zealand today, 3/15/19.

    In Oct 2018, a White Nationalist murdered 11 people in a Synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA

    In Nov 2017, a White Nationalist murdered 26 people in a black church in Sutherland Springs, TX

    And these are just a few.  Worldwide, between 2010 and 2017, the percentage of Right-wing terrorism is 35%, Left-wing terrorism was 13%, and Islamic terrorism was 14%. The remaining 48% was undetermined.  Further, right-wing terrorist events are much more likely to end up with fatalities.

    Finally, deaths in America from Domestic terrorism has been on the rise since 2015 and all but one was related to White Nationalists.

    Why is this threat being ignored in America and around the world?

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Esoteric, I have brought this up before and it was discredited by the rightwingers on this forum as ' the left is engaged in this as well". They may be, but not to the magnitude of the level of violence and threats of violence that is if we are talking about anything after the 1960's.

      Conservatives and their media mouthpieces play down the significance of the violence and how they are inter connected as part of the Trumpian Universe, ugly examples of the Right's excesses are appearing all over the globe and this is just the beginning.

      I did not know about that story of the massacre of black church goers in Texas, I will to check this out. How did it manage to stay below the radar? Further investigation revealed that this incident as horrific as it was was not a racially motivated assault.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Clarence, see my correction.

    2. profile image76
      Hxprofposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      I don't know what Trump is talking about.  White nationalism IS a problem.  Even so, it needs to be addressed like all other terrorism - arrest and prosecute those who commit acts of violence.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image90
        Ken Burgessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        I believe what is quoted up above is "rising threat".

        Back when the country was 85 - 90% white, that might have been something to be concerned about.

        Within a decade the white population will be in the minority, and fractured beyond that by religious and ideological beliefs.

        Prosecute those who commit violence... regardless of religion or race, and there will be no problems.

    3. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      CORRECTION - The Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX was NOT a black church.  I confused it with the Charleston, SC black church shooting in June 2015 by Dylaan Roof where he killed 9 people.

      Devin Patrick Kelley, the Sutherland killer, was not a known white nationalist, or if he was, that was not the motivation for his killing spree.  He was mentally disturbed with a history of violence, however,  and did not qualify to own guns.  The Air Force, who convicted him of child abuse (fracturing a baby's skull) FORGOT to notify the FBI and he was not in the background database.

      On the other hand, Roof was clearly a white nationalist.

    4. mrpopo profile image73
      mrpopoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      The figures you cite are referring to domestic terrorism in the United States, not terrorism worldwide: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national … d9f42f7950

      It should concern you that despite being only 1.1% of the US population, that demographic is committing 14% of terrorist attacks.

      If you want to actually talk about worldwide attacks, it's not even close. Pick any month from any year in the last decade, chances are Islamic terrorism will be the runaway "winner": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t … ts_in_2019

      You say that all but one death in the US due to domestic terrorism since 2015 has been because of white nationalists. What about San Bernadino, Orlando Nightclub, the truck attack in New York? Do those deaths not count?

      If you want to understand why attacks like the ones in New Zealand or Norway happen, you'll need to acknowledge the threats you're ignoring.

      1. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Professor, no one is letting Islamic terrorism off of the hook and it is not associated with either Left or Right but has its own category.

        So, are you ignoring the 35 percent of domestic terrorism attributed to the political Right. What about that?

        There is no excuse for the violence in New Zealand, you make it sound like some sort of justified retribution, can't people go to their places of worship without being massacred? Especially in a place like New Zealand, why do you make excuses for this horrendous assault?

        1. Live to Learn profile image83
          Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Who made excuses for the assault? That, to me, appeared to be lamenting the fact that the entire landscape is ignored, in order to push a political (and blinded) agenda.

          The new Zealand thing, after reading the manifesto, definitely wasn't right wing. And, honestly, whatever the guy's reasoning it was mainly just a sick and demented attempt at influencing global dialogue.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

            L to L , i don't know what the right wing rags are putting out to downplay the tremendous savagery of this crime.

            But this is link account is pretty accurate and I am seeing similar information elsewhere, where is it that you read otherwise?

            Just like with the Roof killings 3 years ago, the Right always excuses these savage racist killers as an anomaly, mentally ill. But, I have never heard that explanation used by them in regard to Islamic terrorism, would I want to hazard a guess as to why?

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat … 172550002/

            This is my source and its good enough for me, what do you have to challenge it?

        2. mrpopo profile image73
          mrpopoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          I don't know about letting off the hook, but the OP did misinterpret the data. I found it ironic to ignore the biggest source of terrorism while wondering about ignored threats. Don't you?

          As for ignoring right-wing terrorism, I clearly referenced the source that talks about that 35%. My point was to show that this was not a worldwide figure, as the OP had claimed. I also invite the reader to understand why attacks like the ones in New Zealand and Norway occur by investigating their causes.

          I don't know why you think calling for the OP to represent the facts accurately is tantamount to making excuses. If you can't represent the facts accurately, you are ill-equipped to deal with this problem. The lunatic that committed his attack in New Zealand did not do so randomly.

          I should not have to spell it out for you that attacks like these are reprehensible and unjustifiable, and I unequivocally condemn them. That does not mean that they are not predictable. The question I am prompting is: what caused the attack? That can be your homework.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

            There is no assignment, I acknowledge that from a global standpoint Islamic terrorism is greater that that of the fascist right, for the moment.

            But here in the US, there is no question that Right wing motivated terrorism is the most responsible for violent political/ideological confrontation. And since I live here, that is going to be the most pressing of my concerns.

            What always causes the attacks, right wing intolerance and bigotry, what else?

            1. mrpopo profile image73
              mrpopoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              In terms of number of attacks, yes, right-wing terrorism is the most concerning in the US. In terms of fatalities it's actually Islamic terrorism (take a look at the WaPo article for the fatality charts). That should factor into which of these is the most pressing concern for you. Regardless, the discussion is about global terrorism threats, not just US threats.

              Intolerance and bigotry towards whom? And why? I'm going to extend the deadline for this assignment so you can actually try to flesh it out instead of giving me soundbites.

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                Let's not be cryptic, Professor, what are you getting at?

                I will humor you with an answer. This man is a confessed White supremacist. This case is specific, a white supremacist took his idled ideas from his idled mind to justify killing others that he found as a threat merely because they exist and live. He was not a nut be a biased jerk with a clear agenda and objective. No better in reasoning than the Nazis and their " Final Solution".

                1. promisem profile image98
                  promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Does that mean his supporters are white supremacists too?

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Promisem, that is only conclusion I can come to, what other justification can there be?

                2. mrpopo profile image73
                  mrpopoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  This case is not specific or idle. Anders Breivik had the same motivations as Brenton Tarrant: to stem Islamic immigration into European countries. Because these concerns are not being adequately addressed, there will almost surely be more attacks like this.

                  Why Islamic immigration specifically? There are a few reasons in his manifesto. His main concern is demographic replacement. That could be a discussion in itself: is demographic replacement of ethnic groups a problem? He also talks about more clear-cut issues like the prevalence of Islamic terrorist attacks and the rise in sexual abuse scandals. Obviously these things should be condemned, but in many cases these events were buried or minimized for political reasons (see the Rotherham scandal, which is cited in the manifesto).

                  The above concerns do have some merit to them. Concerns with Islamic immigration are shared by a majority of citizens in various European countries: https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/com … mmigration

                  It's worth noting that this opinion crosses political boundaries, at least to some degree.

                  These views are not held simply because Muslims "exist and live." There are serious issues within Muslim communities that are affecting the rest of Western society. This is why attacks like these are predictable - they are a symptom, not a cause: https://twitter.com/HSajwanization/stat … 6202675200

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry to have been truant, Professor, I have been a bit busy.

                    So, to stem Islamic immigration, it is ok to resort to mass murder?

                    Bigotry abounds, all Muslims are not radical or on the jihad, the activity of both of these men are and the justification they and you provide are pretty flimsy to me.

                    Demographic displacement? sounds like the motives behind white supremacists and xenophobes right here in America.

                    I am aware of the threat that certain sects of Islam presents to European societies. They are free to restrict immigration just as we are attempting to do here. If they anyone is in violation of the law, lock them up or show them the door  But, these societies operate under the rule of law, concern about rising violence from the radicalized groups  and mass murder as a remedy does not compute, Professor.

                    Racists in America will say same the same thing about black folks "rampant inner city crime" etc, does that justify genocide or disproportionate remedies in the law?

                    This broad brush attitude is just ever more elaborate excuses for religious and ethnic bigotry.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "is demographic replacement of ethnic groups a problem? " - It certainly can be - just ask native American Indians.  Should they start trying to take back their land from us immigrants and children of immigrants.

                    The white Christian (mainly Protestant) Europeans committed virtual genocide to expand in America.  So, assuming you are one of them, what moral right have you to talk about Islamist that way as if you aren't any different, Popo?

                    To the same point, European Christian Spanish committed similar atrocities as they invaded and took over the rest of the Americas.

                    Did you know Muslims are responsible for preserving and carrying on scientific advancement while you Christians sought to stamp it out in the Dark Ages?

            2. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Credence,

              I wouldn't be too quick to assume, for Europe and other Western oriented countries outside the U.S. that terrorist actions are mainly Islamic terrorists.  This recent article seems to argue differently.

              https://cco.ndu.edu/PRISM/PRISM-Volume- … issues-fo/

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                I want to thank you for providing this information, Esoteric.

                Professor, are you listening? I wasn't privy to information when commenting to you earlier. How does this affect the position you seem to be taking in this matter?

                1. mrpopo profile image73
                  mrpopoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Funny enough, the article My Esoteric provided actually corroborates what I've been trying to tell you:



                  Again, try to distinguish between causality and justification.

                  Anyway, the claim is about terrorism globally, and My Esoteric's article is about terrorism in Western countries. So no, it doesn't change my position - Islamic terrorism is still, by far, the greatest terrorism threat worldwide. Look at the latest data from the Global Terrorism Index (http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads … 2018-1.pdf):



                  That's just four Islamic supremacist terrorist groups. Now let's compare them to all of far-right terrorism:



                  66 deaths vs 10,632. And that's just one metric.

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Ok, you have made your point, I would not necessarily count the areas that are not Western Europe or the US, which these groups otherwisecall home along with their surrounding regions. The violence of the groups you mentioned are confined to the regions where the preponderance of their activities take place. I can probably be confident that activities in say Yemen or Syria, for example, can explain a great deal of the body count in those societies in a general war. So, the 66 to 10,632 could be like comparing apples to hand granades, completely unrelated.

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Actually, Popo, the figures I site are exactly what I said they were - Worldwide.

        Further, I said SINCE 2015 (actually the article I read said it).  San Bernardino was in 2015.

        You will have to quote the figures in the WAPO article, I refuse to pay their $1 fee.

        1. mrpopo profile image73
          mrpopoposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          The figures in the WaPo article are your figures, except they clearly refer to domestic terrorism. If you have a different source talking about worldwide terrorism that has the exact values as the WaPo article, please, link it here.

          That's an odd use of the word "since" (me being up since 8am does not exclude 8am as a waking hour) but fine, ignore San Bernadino. Now how about the other two attacks I mentioned?

    5. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Interesting the killer called Trump "a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".

      https://thehill.com/policy/internationa … -symbol-of

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Yes Trump Did, didn't he.

    6. peterstreep profile image76
      peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Of course he is saying that. Trump himself is a far right white nationalist. He never condems white male terrorists as strongly as he does with muslim gunners

      1. Live to Learn profile image83
        Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        Oh gosh. I wonder when we'll reach the point where slander and libel is no longer in style.

        1. peterstreep profile image76
          peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Sorry, next time I will be more political correct.

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Slander and liable only apply when the statement isn't true.

          1. Live to Learn profile image83
            Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            LOL. It's funny how blinders inhibit full use of most of one's senses.

    7. RJ Schwartz profile image91
      RJ Schwartzposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      What's wrong with supporting your own nation before a globalist agenda?  Don't you think American citizens of all colors and origins should be putting America first?  Is is illegal for white people to express their feelings of putting America first?  I'm white and I love America - so what?  Am I now the "enemy"?  Are you going to come to my house with pitchforks and torches?  Maybe doxx me and call the cops because I want the best life possible??  I want America to succeed over every nation on earth because it's where I live, my children live, and where freedom is still holding on.

      There is nothing wrong with wanting the best.

      I am suspicious of people who don't put America first - they usually are out for their own personal gain at the expense of the taxpayers.

      Nationalism - identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

      Let the hate-storm begin !!!!

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image78
        Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        And actually, I want all nations to be their own best. I want the best for America because I live here. Trump wants the best for America because he lives here. He loves the prosperity he and his family lavishes in. Why not?
        And he knows that with hard work, less regulation and less taxation any individual can thrive.

        He also wants the best for other countries. How do I know that? I heard him say so!

        True Nationalists are people who hate. They are arrogant, self deceived and full of satanic delusion/ego/Maya. They are like little Hitlers.

        If hate, delusion and anger are on the rise in any country, its is a bad sign: the result of maladjusted individuals.

        Positive family, educational and religious (or spiritual) experiences must be had in any society in order for love, happiness and the seemingly impossible dream of "world peace" to manifest.

        Its a simple, yet not so simple matter of Social Science.

        1. gmwilliams profile image83
          gmwilliamsposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          There is positive nationalism in which one is proud of one's country & want the best for that country.  This nationalism doesn't impeded on the rights of other countries & view other countries as equal.   Then there is negative nationalism or jingoism in which one sees one's nation as superior to other nations & feel that other nations are inferior.  Hitler was the epitome of negative nationalism.

          1. promisem profile image98
            promisemposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            Well said. The most "negative" nationalists do more than claim their nation is superior and others are inferior.

            They also inflame anger and hatred toward other nations, religions, races and political parties. They use anger and hatred as a tool to advance their agendas.

            We are heading in that direction in the U.S. Some people are loving it.

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          "Trump wants the best for America because he lives here." - SORRY Kathryn, I have to disagree here. 

          Trump has shown America and the world that all Trump cares about is Trump.  He does not care who or what he hurts to get what he wants - and that includes hurting America.  It is going to take decades to repair the self-centered damage he has caused to America and the world when he is finally gone.

      2. peterstreep profile image76
        peterstreepposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        In a world that’s more and more connected, nationalism is not the way forward. All the financial markets are international, the internet is international, climate change is a world wide threat.
        In times like these you have to look over the borders and cooporate with other countries to survive.
        Nationalism is distructive. Imagine the USA only selling products made in the USA, with an internet that won’t reach further then its borders. Its obvious that it wont work. With a financial market not connected with the rest of the world....that would be catastrophic for the country.
        There is nothing wrong with loving your country. But so does an orthodox jew or an orthodox muslim and they surely see the country they live in differently.
        I love the country I live in too although its not the country where I grew up. But its not better or worse then any other country.
        America first is politically  an empty slogan. As in politics you have to work together. And world problems like climate change won’t disapear by putting one country before the other. It’s old fashioned thinking. Trump has isolated himself as no other USA president has ever done before. This shows his lack of political skill. This isiolationism is the last thing we need in the world today to solve global problems.

    8. Miebakagh57 profile image47
      Miebakagh57posted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Hi, I hate the idea of white killing blacks, or blacks killing white. Killing a domestic animal or bird at times counts as cruelty without legal backing. Enough of any killing in the world.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Agreed!

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image78
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 months ago

    I believe Trump.

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      That is sad, Kathryn.

    2. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      So you believe every one of his 10,000+ PROVEN FALSE statements and LIES he has issued since being sworn in??  Or the thousands during the campaign??

    3. Miebakagh57 profile image47
      Miebakagh57posted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Sometimes, it is not easy to take things as there are. Are we acting like small boys and girls in believing these?

  3. Live to Learn profile image83
    Live to Learnposted 6 months ago

    White nationalism is an ongoing problem. And, if rising, I wouldn't be surprised. Because violence, in general, is on the rise. There are extremists and the media at both ends stirring the pot and stoking the flames. Unintelligent people who lack empathy and decency are becoming more prone to lashing out at others, with no knowledge of who the people they attack truly are. And it breeds increasing violence.

    I'm honestly scared for our future.  When I heard Omar comment that one person was human, the other not, I was reminded of hearing a clip on the ethnic problems in Albania. The person said they witnessed an execution on the street, standing at their apartment window they heard someone say ' Bruno, you know me' just before being shot.

    We need to find a way to come together. Political ideology is less important than embracing your neighbor and celebrating our freedoms. The devolution of civility in civil discourse will eventually be our downfall.

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Absotutely.

  4. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 6 months ago

    Not sure if whate nationalism is actually increasing or just being featured in the news more but either way, it is but one small part, just one more symptom, of a much larger and far more serious threat.  There are large forces at work fragmenting our culture into a thousand pieces.  And no, it isn't from Donald Trump.

    Whether it be women vs men, whites against blacks (or all colors against whites), Christian vs Muslim vs atheist, rich against poor against middle, liberal vs conservative, Republican vs Democrat...whatever the division is it has become so pervasive and so destructive to the concept of a single nation of people that if we don't get a handle on it we will destroy ourselves from within.

    White Nationalism is but one small piece of the picture however much it is hated and however many people die as a result of White Nationalism vs any other group.  It is the almost total fragmentation of our culture and society that is the real threat.

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

      White nationalism and body counts relating specifically to right wing motivated persons has been on the increase.

      It is a big part because we are always going to disagree. This idea of a "unified" country has gone the way of TV rabbit ears. Unified based on what? Your vision of a harmonious and peaceful society or mine? The difference between our points of view are quite stark, we both know that.

      The danger lies with groups who express their views of dissatisfaction using violence, and that is primarily amongst the Right. So, I have to look at the one side of the great division that chooses to use violence to communicate as the worse among many.

      And what is our culture? Your vision of our culture verses mine are two different things.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        "Unified based on what?"

        On being an American citizen.  Not on being female, or black, or poor, or a white supremacist, or Hispanic or anything else.  That was kind of the point - we are fragmenting ourselves to the point that being an American just doesn't matter any more.

        "Your vision of a harmonious and peaceful society or mine?"

        It being as your version does not have any form of real compromise in it and instead has a built in demand that we travel down the same road to ruin further every year, it won't be yours - that again comes back to fragmentation as the bone of contention is always more freebies and concessions to the specific group you identify with.

        "The danger lies with groups who express their views of dissatisfaction using violence"

        This I disagree with, feeling that the real danger lies in fragmenting our society into separate groups.  This is the cause behind the violence and thus the root of the problem. 

        I did mention that we have lost most of our American culture already.  We gave it to immigrants wanting to make their old culture primary, we gave it to illegal aliens bringing their culture with them, we gave it to every group in the country that has put whoever they identify with ahead of that of the USofA.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

          So, what, Wilderness, I am American citizen, is that all the common ground we share?

          Unless you want to go back to "Leave it to Beaver" or Ozzie and Harriet visions of a society at harmony with itself. You have to remember that neither me nor mine would call America in the 1950's nirvana.

          "It being as your version does not have any form of real compromise in it and instead has a built in demand that we travel down the same road to ruin further every year,"

          (What makes you think that YOUR grand vision does?) so, I disagree and so do millions of others. What makes you so smart and the rest of America misled? Your opinionated attitude is part of the problem or don't you see that?

          As I said before, the danger lies with those groups among many groups and voices that quickly resort to violence when they have run out of ideas and for the Right that is a standard orbit.

          Besides citizen ship, acknowledgement of Democratic process and the rule of law what do any of our diverse citizenry really have in common?

          As for immigrants not assimilating, I heard arguments like this from the 19th century, surely you have moved beyond that sort of thinking? The American culture is not monolithic but is a constant flux of change and that is the reality of the situation. No more than I can expect the nature and demographics of this society to be the same 50 years from now, who knows what forces are involved and in what direction our society will be driven.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            "So, what, Wilderness, I am American citizen, is that all the common ground we share?"

            I wouldn't know.  If you identify more with sub groups than with being an American we don't even share that.  Certainly we don't both identify strongly with any shared groups, for I have none.  I am me, an American, and that is about it.

            "What makes you so smart and the rest of America misled?"

            Perhaps that I don't demand others give me special consideration or wealth.  If have worked and built what I have, and done it without taking from others for what I wanted.

            "Besides citizen ship, acknowledgement of Democratic process and the rule of law what do any our diverse citizenry really have in common?"

            Not much any more - that's what I find sad.  Now it's far more important to be female or black or some other group than simply being an American, sharing a desire for the entire nation to grow.  Now we only worry about women's rights, or Black Lives Matter or that illegal aliens be protected from the laws they are violating and given what Americans have earned

            Cred, it is not that immigrants bring customs and even holidays with them; it is that they put those customs ahead of American ones.  It is that being American takes second place to being something else; something that they left to come to a better place. 

            I expect our great nation to be driven down the road of almost complete socialism within 50 years; to the point that most production ceases and we join the third world in poverty for everyone but the privileged few.  When excellence and effort producing nothing for the worker, and everything we want or need is free for the taking, it is inevitable.  And that is where you and your "progressives" are progressing to: a world where effort means little and being the best even less...unless it involves entertainment, whereupon those are raised to the status of gods.

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              It seems to me, Credence, that Wilderness does not understand, or accept, American's immigrant history because it doesn't fit his version of how America should work.  Everything about our history belies his version of it, don't you think?

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                "Everything about our history belies his version of it, don't you think?"

                Uh... yeah

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Sorry, Credence, but I lived here 50 years ago.  When people shared a basic culture and didn't all belong to this gang or that.  I had great concerns about the loss of our national patriotism...until 911 when it was reaffirmed as we came together as Americans.  Not as an African American, not as a Mexican American, not as an Irish American or anything else.  Just as Americans furious at what had been done to America.

                  But we've lost it again, and this time it is so severe that I'm not sure we'll ever get it back.  We put far more emphasis on which gang we belong to than we do to which nation is ours - is it because we no longer have a nation, just a collection of unrelated gangs all at each others throats?

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "Sorry, Credence, but I lived here 50 years ago. "

                    Well, Wilderness, so did I.

                    Believe me, we NEVER had a basic culture that we all got into line with. Most of us were agitating for a fair more just America. But, obviously that aspect of dissatisfaction with American life you did not see.

                    We came together on 9-11, most of us that did not see the attack as a ruse by the government to bolster more militarism in the Middle East. We did attack Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, whose nationals were primarily involved. But, a response like that after Pearl Harbor, hardly.

                    We are always going to disagree and it is only in moments of common and sudden danger that will we put aside our separate grievances and come together for the whole as a matter of survival, but don't expect that to be a day to day attitude.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    And I lived here 71 years ago and remember the rampant discrimination against blacks.  The mythical culture you believe in is the white, male, Protestant culture.

                    Not too long before I was born, the conservatives finally lost the battle to keep women from voting. 

                    While I was alive lynchings were not all that uncommon. 

                    While I was alive certain state (may I say conservative) laws disallowed women from being categorized as chattel - long after blacks had (officially anyway)

                    While I was alive I watched the blacks finally claw back the rights guaranteed them under the 14th and 15th which the conservative, white imperialist South had taken away from them with the help of conservative Supreme Courts; now only to see the same type of Court start stripping them away again.

                    Face it, Wilderness, the culture you want to preserve harkens back to when the American culture was to oppress everybody save white, rich, male, Protestants.

            2. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 6 months agoin reply to this

              "I wouldn't know.  If you identify more with sub groups than with being an American we don't even share that.  Certainly we don't both identify strongly with any shared groups, for I have none.  I am me, an American, and that is about it."

              What else defines you as besides being an American citizen, an aspect we both share? You are right winged, conservative oriented, I am quite the opposite. You identify with your conservative, right wing tribe. You are rural and I come from an urban background. You are white and I am black. Well, we both are in the same age bracket, we may share that. But the things that we and others don't share have something to do with our points of contention and why we see the world, this country and its direction from totally different lenses. Does that mean that you are just American, and everyone else who don't see the world your way is not?

              We have different opinions on how this nation will grow, conservative thinking is so monolithic, my way or the highway?

              Your  concepts of social economics is YOUR opinion solely and it is not shared. We, that are not in the mainstream have to always worry about Rights as they have been denied for long a period of American history, as well as continuing to be vigilant to make sure that they are not abused again. Another point of contention?

              For heavens sakes, Wilderness, people have the right to eat their tacos,gyros, speak Greek or Spanish without you being concerned that they won't assimilate. Who knows, in 50 years, the national language may well be Esperanzo? Being American is a given, you have citizenship and pay taxes.

              You are a pessimist, Capitalism is still the more viable economic system, but for it to continue its excesses and abuses must be controlled. No plutocracy or oligarchy allowed, period. This idea of America becoming this handout free for all is just a figment of your imagination.

    2. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      You may not be sure Wilderness, but those who track it are - as my small sample indicates where the Right is twice as violent as the Left or ISIS, respectively.

      Trump is without a doubt a large part of the problem.  It is NOT coincidence that the violence and division began to increase as soon as he entered the race.  It had increased as well when America elected a black man as president.

      Trump's rhetoric is off the charts divisive.  He, at many of his "rallies" calls for violence in no uncertain terms.  His believe that their are "some good Nazis" is unbelievable.  The man does absolutely nothing to calm things down and everything he can to heat it up.

      You speak of our culture.  America doesn't have 'A' culture, it has many.  America does have shared values, however, like "fair play", "empathy", "hard work", "justice for all", "helping others".  Trump shares zero of those values. His only motto is "me for me and you for me".

      I would hate a man like this if he weren't so dangerously mentally ill.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        "Trump is without a doubt a large part of the problem."

        Not interested in bashing Trump some more for things he never did.  You might, however, consider how much hatred the left has spread and what the results of that hatred will be.  Easy enough to lay the blame on others, but when the country is awash in hatred and vitriol one can, I think, expect violence as a result.  Doesn't excuse it of course, but it DOES seem rather inevitable.

        LOL  If you think "fair play" is an American value as we forever ding a few to pay for the wants of others you need to re-think it.  If you think "hard work" is an American value when there is shame attached, not to taking charity, but not getting your share of the endless wallet you need to re-think it.  Once more, I not interested in simply bashing Trump for all the evils of the world, so won't respond.

        "I would hate a man like this if he weren't so dangerously mentally ill."

        For the third time I'm not interested in bashing Trump, and particularly not interested in making silly claims that have never been verified simply as a method of vilifying the man.

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Of course you are not interested in bashing Trump for to see him as he really is destroys your whole world-view.

          And then you have the audacity to say "Not interested in bashing Trump some more for things he never did." 

          - So he doesn't call people derogatory names like a little child?  He does and you know it.
          - So he doesn't lie, distort, defame thousands of times a year?  He does and you know it.
          - So he doesn't love dictators? He does and you know it.
          - So he doesn't equate Nazi's and White Supremacists with Jews and others who oppose them?  He does and you know it.
          - So he doesn't, on national television, egg on supporters like you to do violent acts?  He does, it is recorded, and you know it.

          It is clear you are being purposefully blind to all these and many other things Trump DOES DO.  Why?

  5. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
    JAKE Earthshineposted 6 months ago

    WHY on Earth would a "White Nationalist" like Donald Trump confess to the fact that "White Nationalism" is a threat?

    1. Live to Learn profile image83
      Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

      Someday, maybe, you'll add something of value to the conversation. Probably when unicorns roam all continents. But, it is possible.

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
        JAKE Earthshineposted 6 months agoin reply to this

        All I did was point out a painfully obvious nugget of truth and I don't really appreciate the personal attacks Live to Learn but I guess it's all ya got when you have no legitimate defense of your "Mr MAGA":

        1. Live to Learn profile image83
          Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

          Jake. I know this will fall on deaf ears but hate filled rants, such as those you (and many in the left) regal is with, are more a part of the problem than is one guy, in office for four years.

          If he wasn't there, hate would find something and someone else to rant about.

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
            JAKE Earthshineposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            It's nearly impossible to evict anger and hate when posting facts about Bozo Trump because that's his entire being and it's reflected in his lack of desire to condemn his white nationalist zombies and his abominable budget which if Progressive Democrats did not win the house, would have passed a republican house and senate and would have ultimately crippled our senior citizens who worked hard their entire lives:

            Donald is no good period and he'll be indicted soon here on Earth and will face the consequences when GOD subpoenas him and his grifter family:

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Correct.  When the Right hated Obama, it was based on raw animus and emotion.  When we lambaste TrairtorTrump, it is based on fact and disgust for a very bad man.

              These are FACTS (as in Hitler was a mass murderer kind of fact) about the Right's hero:

              - He probably loves his son, Barron
              - He might even love is current wife Malania, but there it ends.
              - He two-timed his first wife with his second wife
              - He two-timed his second wife
              - He two, three, four, etc - times his third wife and probably still is
              - He is a 1st class misogynist
              - He is a 1st class practicing bully
              - He is a 1st class crook at all aspects of his life
              - He is a 1st class bigot
              - He is a 1st class
              - He is a 1st class homophobe
              - He is a 1st class cheat
              - He is dangerously mentally ill
              - He is a 1st class xenophobe
              - He loves dictators (he said so)
              - He continually ridicules allies and democratic leaders.

              Time for dinner

              Had Oreo pancakes with bacon (4 strips), scrambled eggs, and hash brown at IHops.  WONDERFUL.

              Where was I?

              - He outright lies more than any politician I have heard of in 61 years I have been watching politics
              - He makes so many more false statements, on any topic, that it makes others look like they don't do the same at all
              - He is a 1st class purveyor of distortions of fact.
              - He is a narcissist that has few peers

              I am tired, so I will leave it there.

              1. Live to Learn profile image83
                Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                You guys slay me. For all of the verified facts about the Clintons, I'm certain you both would defend them. With all of the witnesses who know Trump personally, who refute many of those facts, you refuse to set your hatred aside.

                As I've often said, the only thing the left appears to love is hate. I think you guys would suffocate, if deprived of your chances to expel your hatred verbally.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  Such endless hate filled rhetoric cannot be taken seriously; it can only be understood as spreading hatred and vitriol for political reasons.  It is divisive and intended to be so.  It is just another way that our country is fragmenting into segments that refuse to make any effort to get along.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image83
                    Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    What fascinates me is the self righteous sound of that vitriol. How they can't see they are a big part of the problem is a mystery.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    And I repeat.  Truth is not Hate, except to you.  Facts are not Hate, except to you.

                    It is a simple mathematical equations: Truth + Facts <> Hate.  Its corollary is UnTruths Or Alternative Facts <= Hate.  (Where <= means less that OR equal to)

                    Face it guys and gals, your love of Trump is, by definition, <= Hate of America.

                2. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  May I ask what VERIFIED facts you are referring to about Clinton?  I certainly would be interested in knowing.

                  1. Live to Learn profile image83
                    Live to Learnposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Let's start with one, then we'll see how that goes. Bill Clinton is a proven sexual predator. There is enough evidence that the women who accused him are credible. Hillary Clinton attempted to minimize the damage by scoffing, making derogatory remarks about the women, pretending it was 'a right wing conspiracy'. Bill Clinton used his position to take advantage of a young intern. Hillary said 'she was an adult'.

                    I've heard bs about it being so,so horrible that Trump paid a sex worker for services, but no one on the left will explain why the behavior of the Clintons, where Bill's problem as a sexual predator, a rapist, isn't worse.

                    Can you explain that?

                3. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  The TRUTH is not Hate.  Which things I said about Trump were untruthful? Can you offer just one?  What is clear is that, regarding Trump, you live in an alternate reality where facts and truth don't matter.

            2. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              I say screw the poor, let's give Trumps white billionaire many more chances of trickling it all down again.

          2. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

            Like eight years of it against Obama from your side.  At least he was a man, unlike the current occupant of the White House.

            1. profile image76
              Hxprofposted 6 months agoin reply to this

              Obama pursued bad policies, so what you can expect is for those opposed to those policies to object.  There will always be some that take objection to far, even to the point of hatred - oh well.

              What I strongly disagree with is your likening disagreement with Obama's policies to hatred for the man, even racial hatred.  For most, that is so FAR from the truth.

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                That is YOUR minority opinion.  In fact, Obama, for the most part, followed very good policies that moved America forward, not backwards like the current resident in the oval office.

                If you read what I read every day from those on your side of the aisle (apparently you didn't), there would be no mistaking the hatred on the Right for Obama.

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                  It was inevitable My Esoteric: The lame, comical "Clinton / Obama Defense" which has absolutely nothing to do with the most hate filled nationalist sympathizer to ever infiltrate our oval office named Donald:

                  In REALITY, the last remaining Trump followers have no valid defense of an angry, hate filled elderly, ivy league certified mentally ill 72 year old who actually believes in his tiny little mind that there is NO threat from a white nationalist who just murdered 49 innocent human beings, but there is an emergency threat from a harmless immigrant who crosses the border, makes it to a McDonald's kitchen and deep frys our mcnuggets: That's sick and warped beyond recognition:

                  1. profile image76
                    Hxprofposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    "72 year old who actually believes in his tiny little mind that there is NO threat from a white nationalist who just murdered 49 innocent human beings, but there is an emergency threat from a harmless immigrant who crosses the border, makes it to a McDonald's kitchen and deep frys our mcnuggets: That's sick and warped beyond recognition:"

                    One is not the other.  White nationalists will be with us until they're not.  Illegal immigration, on the other hand, can be mostly prevented.  IF America ever secures its borders, the slave labor you love to use will no longer be available, and you'll have to pay more for your mcnuggets.

                    What can be done about the "national emergency" that is white nationalism?  We can arrest and prosecute any of them that commit crimes.  NZ has arrested those involved, and will prosecute them; that'll be a wrap.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 6 months agoin reply to this

                    Yep

  6. Don W profile image84
    Don Wposted 5 months ago

    "I am raising complaints in a legitimate means of discussion, and you should have no problem with that."

    I thought I made it clear my criticism is of the content of your comments, not the means of discussion. I posted examples of that content, as I think it only fair to show you what I am criticizing.

    "Yes, I happen to agree with some of the points a terrorist made. I also agree with many of the points of some eco-terrorists, despite disagreeing with their actions and methods."

    Red-herring. You are doing more than just agreeing with something. Clearly the terrorist's concept of "child safety" is a grotesquely deformed one that allows for the murder of children.

    By saying you "agree" with their concerns about child safety, you are either saying you hold the same distorted view of "child safety" as the terrorists, or you are equating the terrorist's malignant concept of child safety with actual child safety.

    If it's the latter, then it's not so much "intellectual honesty" as it is intellectual delinquency, as you are effectively legitimizing a depraved concept. If it's the former, then you have abandoned reason altogether, and nothing I or anyone else says will matter anyway.

    "The way the terrorists want to "adequately" address the issue is to attack and terrorize innocent people. . . Please provide a quote where I suggested we do that."

    Straw man. I have not accused you of advocating terrorism. I said you are pandering to terrorism. They are not the same thing.

    Also, terror is typically the means terrorists use to achieve some end, not the end itself.

    Obviously for white nationalist terrorists, addressing their "concerns" adequately means meeting their stated goals. You have read the NZ and Norwegian attackers' "manifestos", so (I assume) know what those goals are. You implied we should meet those goals to prevent "more attacks". I say that is pandering to terrorism.

    "It's not irrelevant to your original claim. . You were stating that the complaints of the killer should not be exposed because the killer did so through illegitimate means. "

    It is irrelevant, and I said no such thing. I said the complaints of a fanatic should not be given "more exposure" than they otherwise would have through legitimate means. In other words, this person's twisted concept of "child safety" (i.e. it's ok to kill Muslim children) bears no relationship to actual child safety. I don't need to "analyse" anything to understand that. No reasonable person would.

    You are trying to associate the issue of real child safety to this terrorist attack, because you apparently think it will help promote whatever agenda you share with the attacker. You are free to do that. Just as I am free to point out that's what you're doing, and criticize it.

    "What I am focusing on are the motivations of this terrorist, which, according to his manifesto, includes child abuse scandals like Rotherham. . . Is that concern valid?"

    The NZ attacker clearly has no legitimate concern about child safety. Again, by implying otherwise you are suggesting that either you share the attackers warped view of what "child safety" means, or you are trying to equate the attacker's twisted concept of child safety, with actual child safety.

    Issues of child safety should be addressed because they are issues of child safety, not because some fanatic may form their own distorted concept of child safety and use it to justify killing children. Again, by aligning child safety with the attacker's views, you are legitimizing fanatical behavior, which is only an invitation to more fanatical behavior.

    "And interesting that you mention Hitler while ignoring the point about Hitler advocating for animal rights. Do you sympathize with animal rights? Do you sympathize with Hitler?"

    This comparison is bizarre. Do you think "animal rights" is something I think carefully about because you perceive me as liberal? If so, that's quite funny. Either way, unless Hitler deliberately harmed animals then cited "animal rights" as the reason, your comparison is not only bizarre, it's also invalid.

    So let's not draw strained comparisons. You raised the issue of child safety, so make the same comparison. For Hitler, "child safety" meant protecting Aryan children and killing Jewish children. On that basis, would any reasonable person say Hitler was concerned about child safety? Or do his actions demonstrate that his views were so warped  there is no valid comparison?

    Likewise, even if you were aware of several cases where Jewish men had abused children, would that prompt you to say you "agree" with some of Hitler's points about "child safety"? Hopefully not. Hopefully you would simply acknowledge that while child safety is a legitimate concern for lots of people, Hitler's concept of "child safety" is depraved and bears no resemblance to actual child safety.

    "[whether child-welfare is a legitimate concern] is a key question".

    Not in relation to this terrorist attack it isn't, because again child welfare is clearly not a legitimate concern for the NZ attacker. By definition, no one who advocates killing children has a legitimate concern about child welfare.

    So in the wake of far-right attacks, what's crucial is disrupting radicalization. People do not need a "legitimate" cause to become radicalized. They only need a cause. More terrorist attacks will definitely happen, not because of Muslim immigration (though I'm sure that will be claimed) but simply because fanatics will always find a cause to kill people.

    "The stated motivation for the terror attack in NZ included retaliation for child protection failures. "

    And again, if Hitler cited the protection of Aryan children as one of the reasons for killing Jewish children, that wouldn't make him an advocate of safeguarding children. Nor would it make it appropriate to draw parallels between Hitler's twisted views and issues of actual child safety.

    "Analyzing a terrorist's motivations is the only way to prevent future attacks."

    Some people will abandon reason, and there are lots of reasons why. But no sensible person could justify killing a 3 year old child in the name of "child safety", and no amount of pseudo-analysis of their "motivations" will change that.

    Instead of naval gazing and wondering how we can pander to terrorists, it would be more useful to focus on disrupting their means of dissemination, their means of radicalization, their ability to organize, their finances etc.

    If the question is: will people continue to become fanatics for all sorts of different reasons? Then the answer is yes. Therefore the key issue is not, what do we do about a particular brand of fanatic. The issue is, what do we do to protect society from fanatics period.

    "Are people allowed to discuss Islam openly and without fear of retaliation?"

    Your original comments was: "Allowing discussion regarding the complaints of the manifesto . . . is important because . . ."  (my emphasis)

    So you are complaining that people are not being "allowed" to make the same kinds of complaints made in a "manifesto" full of racist rhetoric, written by a self-confessed racist. I have no sympathy for your complaint.

    As I said, blatant racism of the kind exhibited in that screed is, on the whole, rejected by most sensible people in society. Just as other things are, like murder for example. If you openly promote murder, you will also likely find yourself censored in various ways. That's not a conspiracy. Blatant racism and murder are both, on the whole, deemed by society as socially unacceptable. If your views promote those things, then the natural consequence is that you won't be able to openly promote them, and that's a good thing.

    "Do you consider criticism of Islam to be racist or fanatic?"

    Again, you said: "Allowing discussion regarding the complaints of the manifesto and whether they were warranted or not is important because . . ." (my emphasis)

    My comments therefore speak to the content of the manifesto.

    Are you suggesting that someone who writes a manifesto literally describing themselves as "racist", then describes the aim of their terrorist attack as being to intimidate people who are "non-European", in order to protect the future of "white children", then kills 50 men, women and children because they are non Europeans, is not a racist?

    And are you suggesting that most sensible people in society would not reject such behavior?

    "Do you consider criticism of religion (beliefs that target a religious group) to be comparable to racism?"

    See comments above.

    "Really? Other threads, plural? Go ahead, link those threads."

    I did says it's (probably) a false impression. If nothing, else but to give the benefit of the doubt, but I now find myself even more confused by your reply:

    "Actually, I've only researched Rotherham, mainly because it's a primary example of self-censorship".

    "My interest in Rotherham is related to the censorious and silencing nature of the event."

    The global abuse of children within the Catholic church, the systemic failure of people at every level of the church to report it, or even believe the victims, and the silencing of those who have tried to speak out, is the epitome of a "censorious and silencing" event.

    So I'm confused that someone with a self-described interest in the "censorious and silencing" nature of a particular abuse scandal, would not be equally, if not more interested, in the abuse scandal within the Catholic church which is likely even greater in scope.

    It seems odd that a "censorious and silencing" event that involves Muslim perpetrators is of so much more interest to you than one involving mostly people who are, by definition, not Muslims. Why is that?

    "Accusations of racism or bigotry, even on non-existent grounds, are exactly the type of thing that silences people from having honest discussions about issues like Islam"

    I have made no accusations of racism. I'm merely trying to clear up a point of confusion. So just to clarify, does your reply mean you have not, in fact, posted any comments about the abuse of children within the Catholic Church? Does it mean you have not, in fact, gone to the trouble of finding out, and posting,the exact number of victims of that abuse like you have with the Rotherham case, even though it meets the exact definition of events you say you are interested in? And does it mean you have not, in fact, raised any other case of child abuse on this forum that doesn't involve Muslims?

    1. mrpopo profile image73
      mrpopoposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      "Red-herring. You are doing more than just agreeing with something."

      No, agreeing with something is exactly what I am doing. Unless you presume to know more about what I am doing than I do.

      "Clearly the terrorist's concept of "child safety" is a grotesquely deformed one that allows for the murder of children."

      His concept of "child safety" is an identitarian one. He only cares about European children's safety. Although his actions are immoral, in this case his motives are not inconsistent with his actions. He never spoke about child safety in general, which is the conflation you're currently engaged in.

      "By saying you "agree" with their concerns about child safety, you are either saying you hold the same distorted view of "child safety" as the terrorists, or you are equating the terrorist's malignant concept of child safety with actual child safety."

      Recognizing that Rotherham is a legitimate concern does not automatically make me agree with the terrorist's general view on child safety. It simply makes me agree on the point about Rotherham being a legitimate concern. That's a fallacy of composition.

      "Straw man. I have not accused you of advocating terrorism. I said you are pandering to terrorism. They are not the same thing."

      If this is a strawman, you will have to clarify. This was what I was responding to:



      Not only do you accuse me of intimidating others into addressing issues, you also suggest I want to do it in a way the terrorists deem to be "adequate." What way would that be, exactly? Open and honest discussion? That should not be intimidating to anyone.

      Or maybe you mean the solution itself. Again, what is the terorrist's solution to the problem? Stop all immigration from Muslim countries? Create divided and racial identitarian societies? As I said, you can provide a quote where I suggested we do that.

      "In other words, this person's twisted concept of "child safety" (i.e. it's ok to kill Muslim children) bears no relationship to actual child safety. I don't need to "analyse" anything to understand that. No reasonable person would. "

      No one said the terrorist's concept of child safety bears actual relationship to child safety. One of the terrorist's specific concerns (Rotherham) has merit and is related to child safety. Please try and notice the difference.

      Note that the terrorist does not actually talk about general child safety anywhere in the manifesto. That's why nobody (except you) is framing the discussion around the terrorist's views on general child safety. That and the fact that he clearly doesn't care about general child safety, just "his own."

      "You are trying to associate the issue of real child safety to this terrorist attack, because you apparently think it will help promote whatever agenda you share with the attacker."

      Again, I am not creating the association. The association between Rotherham and child safety is self-evident; whether the terrorist actually believes in the safety of all children is irrelevant. Just like there is an association with mistreatment of animals and animal rights, regardless of whether or not PETA kills most of the animals in their shelters.

      I share concerns with the terrorist, not an agenda. Since you are capable of recognizing straw men, try to recognize your own.

      "The NZ attacker clearly has no legitimate concern about child safety."

      He has legitimate concerns about child safety of European children, not child safety of children in general. Nobody suggested he had legitimate concerns about the safety of all children.

      "Again, by implying otherwise you are suggesting that either you share the attackers warped view of what "child safety" means, or you are trying to equate the attacker's twisted concept of child safety, with actual child safety."

      A strawman, as should be evident from the above.

      "Issues of child safety should be addressed because they are issues of child safety"

      This is precisely what I am trying to do. The fact that the issue (Rotherham) was raised once by a fanatic does not take away from the fact that the issue is legitimate.

      "Again, by aligning child safety with the attacker's views, you are legitimizing fanatical behavior, which is only an invitation to more fanatical behavior.

      This is again, fallacy of composition.

      The terrorist raised a concern that is legitimate. The concern itself is a small part of general child safety. The terrorist being right on a small part of general child safety does not mean he is correct on all parts of general child safety. Nobody suggested that to be the case.

      The terrorist does not even state "general child safety" as a motivation. It's puzzling why you think we are talking about the terrorist's views on general child safety when he didn't even mention it.

      "This comparison is bizarre. Do you think "animal rights" is something I think carefully about because you perceive me as liberal?"

      Now that is a bizarre accusation. Why I mention animal rights is because, to most reasonable people, animal rights are something we should be working towards as a society. And so, most reasonable people share that concern with Hitler. It usually highlights the absurdity of dismissing legitimate concerns due to illegitimate actions via guilt by association. Usually.

      "Either way, unless Hitler deliberately harmed animals then cited "animal rights" as the reason, your comparison is not only bizarre, it's also invalid."

      My comparison works just fine. If you think it doesn't, prove it with more than an assertion.

      For example: If Hitler killed animals in the name of animal rights, it would in no way invalidate concerns about animal rights. PETA routinely kills the animals in its shelters, yet their actions do not invalidate concerns about animal rights.

      Again, I am looking at the stated concerns in the manifesto and asking if they are legitimate. The actions the terrorist took to address that concern do not have to be congruent with the stated concern for the concern to be legitimate.

      "For Hitler, "child safety" meant protecting Aryan children and killing Jewish children. On that basis, would any reasonable person say Hitler was concerned about child safety? Or do his actions demonstrate that his views were so warped  there is no valid comparison? "

      No reasonable person would say that. What a reasonable person would say is that concerns about "Aryan" children can be legitimate child safety concerns, because "Aryan" children are children. Hitler's concern with protecting "Aryan" children is a small, legitimate part of the larger concern of child safety. The rest of his views on child safety are not legitimate. Again, look up fallacy of composition.

      "Likewise, even if you were aware of several cases where Jewish men had abused children, would that prompt you to say you "agree" with some of Hitler's points about "child safety"? Hopefully not. Hopefully you would simply acknowledge that while child safety is a legitimate concern for lots of people, Hitler's concept of "child safety" is depraved and bears no resemblance to actual child safety."

      Another fallacy of composition. Also, whether or not it prompts me to agree with Hitler does nothing to disprove the legitimacy of the complaint.

      "Not in relation to this terrorist attack it isn't, because again child welfare is clearly not a legitimate concern for the NZ attacker. By definition, no one who advocates killing children has a legitimate concern about child welfare."

      Again, nobody said such a thing.

      "And again, if Hitler cited the protection of Aryan children as one of the reasons for killing Jewish children, that wouldn't make him an advocate of safeguarding children."

      Again, nobody said it would make him an advocate of safeguarding children. A person can be right about one aspect of a subject and wrong on all other counts.

      "Nor would it make it appropriate to draw parallels between Hitler's twisted views and issues of actual child safety."

      Whether it's appropriate or not to you does nothing to disprove the notion that guilt by association is a fallacy.

      "If the question is: will people continue to become fanatics for all sorts of different reasons? Then the answer is yes."

      This again fails to answer the following:

      -If these are random attacks by lunatics, why has anti-Muslim sentiment been one of their primary motivations?
      -If these are random attacks by lunatics, why has there been a recent surge in attacks?
      -If these are random attacks by lunatics, why are at least some of their concerns shared by millions of people around the world?
      -If these are random attacks by lunatics, why were they predictable?

      Your "randomness reason" theory does not hold up in light of the above.

      "So you are complaining that people are not being "allowed" to make the same kinds of complaints made in a "manifesto" full of racist rhetoric, written by a self-confessed racist. I have no sympathy for your complaint."

      I complain because some of the complaints were legitimate and people have been trying to talk about them for decades - or at least, the larger issue these concerns pertain to - with little success. You can continue playing guilt by association and fallacy of composition all you want, it won't disprove the validity of concerns like Rotherham.

      "My comments therefore speak to the content of the manifesto."

      Fine - do you consider concerns like Rotherham to be racist or fanatic?

      "Are you suggesting that someone who writes a manifesto literally describing themselves as "racist", then describes the aim of their terrorist attack as being to intimidate people who are "non-European", in order to protect the future of "white children", then kills 50 men, women and children because they are non Europeans, is not a racist?"

      I am suggesting that a racist's complaints on Rotherham do not make complaints about Rotherham racist. These are the complaints that you have no sympathy for. It is, as I said, guilt by association and fallacy of composition.

      "I did says it's (probably) a false impression. If nothing, else but to give the benefit of the doubt"

      I take it you don't have evidence of me posting in other threads, plural, about other child abuse cases, plural, where the perpetrators are Muslim. In other words, your sample size is 1.

      Why are you getting a false impression from a sample size of 1? Has this ever happened to you before? Would you feel the need to do this if I once talked about Catholic priests?

      "The global abuse of children within the Catholic church, the systemic failure of people at every level of the church to report it, or even believe the victims, and the silencing of those who have tried to speak out, is the epitome of a "censorious and silencing" event."

      If it is, it's one that has been explored extensively for a few decades, at least. Any commentary I provide won't shed much further light on the event.

      "So I'm confused that someone with a self-described interest in the "censorious and silencing" nature of a particular abuse scandal, would not be equally, if not more interested, in the abuse scandal within the Catholic church which is likely even greater in scope."

      Well for one, it's already been explored. I don't consider it an actively ignored issue. There have been hundreds of articles, documentaries, statements etc. I'm not sure what more needs to be said on the issue.

      Second, the nature and extent of the censorship is different. If the government and media were covering up cases of pedophilia by Catholic priests because they were Catholic or white, that would garner my attention. As far as I know, that did not happen.

      In terms of extent - if there was censorship of not just child abuse, but also of:
      - sexual abuse in general (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%8 … in_Germany)
      - books (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses)
      - documentaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submission_(2004_film))
      - cartoons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting)
      - criticism of religion (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 … blasphemy/)

      And this was happening worldwide, resulting in the deaths of thousands of of people, and it was all related to Catholicism... that would sound some alarm bells.

      If you have any evidence that we are less able to talk about issues in Catholicism compared to issues in Islam, in light of the above, I'd be interested in seeing it.

      Otherwise, this is a poor excuse for a red-herring (what relevance does anyone talking about the Catholic church have to do with my argument?), a tu quoque (how does covering one case of child abuse and not covering another pertain to the logic of my argument?), and a false equivalence (see above) all-in-one special.

      "It seems odd that a "censorious and silencing" event that involves Muslim perpetrators is of so much more interest to you than one involving mostly people who are, by definition, not Muslims. Why is that?"

      Because I am more concerned about censorship related to Islam than censorship related to Catholicism.

      "I have made no accusations of racism."

      No, just strongly insinuated as much. As you continue to do immediately after that sentence.

      "So just to clarify, does your reply mean you have not, in fact, posted any comments about the abuse of children within the Catholic Church?"

      Just to clarify, does your reply mean you have not, in fact, posted any comments about the abuse of children within the Catholic Church?

      "And does it mean you have not, in fact, raised any other case of child abuse on this forum that doesn't involve Muslims?"

      lol by virtue of the sample size being 1, that is technically true. But your grasping at straws to insinuate bigotry (despite the false equivalence) reflects more on you than it does on me.

      1. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        "His concept of "child safety" is an identitarian one. He only cares about European children's safety."

        You are failing to mention the most salient point. This fanatic's concept of child safety allows, and includes advocating for, the killing of "non European" children. That is grotesque, whatever label you care to put on it, and I don't think most people need that to be explained to them.

        "Recognizing that Rotherham is a legitimate concern does not automatically make me agree with the terrorist's general view on child safety."

        I never said it did. I did say that it equates concepts of child safety most sensible people have, which is not tied up with killing children, with the attacker's deformed idea of child safety, which is. In so doing, it legitimizes the attacker's concept of child safety. But it works both ways. Associating legitimate child safety issues with a racist terrorist is probably more harmful to those issues than helpful. This may come as a shock to you, but I strongly suspect fewer people will take concerns about child safety seriously, if they come from a person who has literally just filmed themselves killing children.

        "If this is a strawman, you will have to clarify. This was what I was responding to:"

        You have cited the possibility of "more attacks" as a reason to address the issues raised by white nationalist terrorists in a way they deem adequate. That's the message terrorists want to deliver, in an effort to intimidate society at large into doing whatever it is they want. By suggesting we do that, you are pandering, and echoing that message of intimidation. I'm not sure which aspect of that you are disputing. It is a fac that you said we should address the issues raised by racists terrorists in a way they find adequate, in order to stop more attacks

        "No one said the terrorist's concept of child safety bears actual relationship to child safety. One of the terrorist's specific concerns (Rotherham) has merit and is related to child safety."

        The specific "concern" can't be separated from the motives and concept of "child safety" held by the attacker. trying to do so is disingenuous. This was central to the attacker's concept of protecting "white children", while calling for the extermination of Muslim children and their parents.

        And again, it does a disservice to people who raise legitimate concerns about child safety via legitimate means, to associate those concerns with someone who literally advocates genocide. You seem to think such an association is helpful. I'm not sure why. I think a good general rule of thumb would be that it's more helpful to dissociate legitimate concerns about child safety from people who want to commit genocide.

        "The association between Rotherham and child safety is self-evident . . . whether the terrorist actually believes in the safety of all children is irrelevant"

        I did not reference an association between that case and child safety. I referenced your attempt to equate "the issue of real child safety" with  "this terrorist attack", which seems to be part of an effort to promote an agenda. 

        "I share concerns with the terrorist, not an agenda".

        Yes, like concerns about child abuse, which apparently only extend to cases perpetrated by Muslims and not anyone else. That seems to be a strangely narrow and specific concern. Some would suggest the issue of child safety is one way to justify animosity towards a specific religious group. They might also suggest that this animosity is the driver of that very narrow and specific "concern", not the other way round.

        "Just like there is an association with mistreatment of animals and animal rights, regardless of whether or not PETA kills most of the animals in their shelters."

        So, you are happy to equate the killing of Muslim children by a racist fanatic in the name of "child safety", with the killing of dogs by PETA in the name of animal welfare. The fact you don't find that equivalence problematic speaks volumes.

        "He has legitimate concerns about child safety of European children, not child safety of children in general. Nobody suggested he had legitimate concerns about the safety of all children."

        His stated concern is about "white children" so he does not have a concern about "European" children, unless for you "European" means white and non-Muslim. I take it you understand that black children and Muslim, Jewish, Hindu children etc. are also European?

        And the attacker freely states he is a racist and a fascist by nature. By his own admission his concern about white children is driven by racism. So no, I don't consider a concern borne out of racism, for children of a particular race, to be a legitimate concern. It's merely a product of racism coupled with a fascist worldview. You can pretend it's a legitimate concern, but the attacker's own statements and actions categorically demonstrate it is not, unless of course you think concern for white children, driven by racism, is a legitimate concern.

        "The terrorist raised a concern that is legitimate."

        He did not. He mentioned a case of child abuse to justify murderous behavior that (he believed) furthers an agenda which, by his own admission, is driven by racism and fascism. That is not a legitimate concern. It is merely an attempt to justify racism and fascism. This is an example of legitimizing the twisted views of terrorists.

        "Either way, unless Hitler deliberately harmed animals . . ."
        I'll make no further reference to your Hitler/animal rights analogy. It's not only idiotic, but in the context of this discussion, I find you're references to PETA culling dogs to be distasteful. I'll leave you to figure out why that might be an ill-advised comparison.

        The subject of the discussion is people, so let's stick to that. Again, this may come as a shock to you, but if Hitler raised a concern about child safety, I strongly suspect few people would take it seriously, let alone consider it a legitimate concern. If Mister Rogers raised exactly the same concern, I expect many more would view it as a legitimate concern. Can you think of why that might be the case?

        "Again, nobody said it would make him an advocate of safeguarding children. A person can be right about one aspect of a subject and wrong on all other counts."

        When you are at the point in a discussion where you are hypothetically agreeing with Hitler, you know something has gone awry. Something has definitely gone awry with your argument. You seem to be making a philosophical argument, but this is not a philosophical discussion.

        Actions and concerns are partly driven by people's worldview. So if someone who is known to be a racist and a fascist, raises concerns, then people will typically conclude those concerns are likely to be the result of racist and fascist worldviews. If you don't think that's fair, fine, but the simple solution for those people is: don't be racist and a fascist. The simple solution for those who who are neither of those things, but do have the legitimate concerns, is don't let legitimate concerns be hijacked by racists and fascists, because they can be hijacked.

        If you don't believe me, go to your nearest high street and ask anyone you meet if they would take a concern about child safety from Hitler seriously on the grounds that, "[a] person can be right about one aspect of a subject and wrong on all other counts". I think I can reasonably predict what most response would be.

        "-If these are random attacks by lunatics, why has anti-Muslim sentiment been one of their primary motivations?"

        I didn't say these are "random" attacks. That's  your misrepresentation of what I said. On the contrary, these attacks are very well planned and executed. But that doesn't change the fact that the people who carry them out are dysfunctional fanatics who would latch onto any cause that allows them to justify killing.

        That aside, there could be lots of reasons "anti-Muslim" sentiment has been cited by these attackers. The most obvious is that it's just the easiest "noble cause" for these people to latch onto. These attackers also use imagery and language that harks back to historical events. References to the crusades, the knights templar etc. are common, so romanticization of historical times and events may be a factor, much the same as a Muslim might romanticize about past historical glories.

        -If these are random attacks by lunatics, why has there been a recent surge in attacks?

        Again, I did not call the attacks random, you did. But lots of possible reasons for a surge. Because the norms of political discourse have been eroded. Because the prevalence of social media makes it easier for people to become radicalized. Because the gap between rich and poor is wider so more people are disillusioned and naturally looking for scapegoats. Choose your poison.

        -If these are random attacks by lunatics, why are at least some of their concerns shared by millions of people around the world?

        Why do billions of people around the world believe in the existence of an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent being? Is it because such a being definitely exists? I suggest you look up argumentum ad populum.

        -If these are random attacks by lunatics, why were they predictable?

        That's misleading. Such attacks are only "predictable" in that we know other fanatics exist and will, at some point in the future, kill people for whatever "noble cause" they have adopted. Lots of things are "predictable" in that sense. I can predict multiple people will get shot in different places in the world today. What meaning can we infer from that, other than the fact that human beings often behave in ways that are harmful to ourselves and others?

        "Whether you acknowledge it or not, the association exists . . . Observing this fact is no more bizarre than observing the connection between the sky and the colour "blue."

        Again you are not merely observing it. You are presenting it as a reason to pander to the demands of racist terrorists. And again, your analogy is off. A more fitting analogy would be trying to promote a childcare service using the recommendation of a convicted pedophile on the grounds they are sincere. Again, why would any rational person want to make such an association? I don't think they would.

        "Analyzing a terrorist's motivations is the only way to prevent future attacks."

        Nonsense. Analysing terrorists' modus operandi, contacts, financing, links to other terrorist groups, patterns of behavior etc. are all methods modern security services use successfully to disrupt terrorists and prevent terrorist attacks.

        "I complain because some of the complaints were legitimate and people have been trying to talk about them for decades - or at least, the larger issue these concerns pertain to - with little success."

        If you think associating those concerns with a self-described racist fascist who has genocidal tendencies will help with that, then you are naive. Also, while lessons were inevitably learned, the right outcome was, in fact achieved and the perpetrators of that case were brought to justice. So, again your complaint seems to be less about child safety, or even justice, and more about an irrational animosity towards Muslims.

        "Fine - do you consider concerns like Rotherham to be racist or fanatic?"

        I consider the "concern" of the NZ attacker, a self-described racist and fascist who advocates genocide, to be racist and fanatical. His false concern is merely the adoption of a "noble cause" to justify fanatical behavior.

        "I am suggesting that a racist's complaints on Rotherham do not make complaints about Rotherham racist."

        And I am suggesting that when a terrorist admits their complaints about protecting white children are borne out of racism, that makes that terrorists complaints racist, and therefore that terrorists complaints are not legitimate concerns. I am also suggesting that because of that, associating legitimate concerns about child safety, with racist terrorists, actually does a disservice to the issue of child safety.

        In other words, your sample size is 1.

        I don't think it's about numbers. If it is, I could say 100% of your comments about child abuse on this forum have been related to cases involving Muslims, but that would just be facetious, so I won't.

        "what relevance does anyone talking about the Catholic church have to do with my argument?"

        Did the NZ attacker mention the global child abuse scandal in the Catholic church when he wrote his single screed (a sample size of 1 you might say) about protecting "white children" from child abuse? Did he mention any cases of child abuse by non Muslims in that screed ? If not, why do you think that is?

        And has anyone implied that the the global child sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church, which is larger in size and scope than Rotherham, is related to the nature of Christianity, Christian belief or the fact that the perpetrators are Christians?

        Again, I am merely seeking points of clarification. I am not naive enough to think there is no connection between people's words and people's motives. Typically they are closely related. The things the NZ attacker did and said were motivated by racism, not legitimate concern. Therefore establishing motive is an important part of discerning whether someone's concern is legitimate or not.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)