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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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".
Does that mean his supporters are white supremacists too?
Promisem, that is only conclusion I can come to, what other justification can there be?
Some of them clearly think that way. Others have different reasons such as legitimate frustrations with illegal immigration.
Honestly, I'm just trying to understand why his supporters ignore his severe character and integrity problems.
I agree that many have what they believe to be "legitimate" problems with illegal immigration. I am not one of them because the facts to me don't show they are much of a problem at all. Much smaller in both numbers and percentages, in fact, than those caused from native born Americans.
Focusing so much time, attention, and resources on it is, IMO, a waste of all three. There are more important things to try to solve with the freed up TAR such as global warming, global hunger, hunger in America, the measles outbreak, and so on and so forth.
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
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.
"the activity of both of these men are and the justification they and you provide"
Credence, this is the second time you claim that I am "ok" with or am justifying this attack in some way, without any proof. Did you forget that I unequivocally condemned the attack in the beginning of our conversation? Do you think I am so morally bankrupt as to actually think the deaths of these innocent people were in any way justifiable?
I am sorry you cannot distinguish between causality and justification, but again that goes to show how ill-equipped you are for this conversation.
professor, ok, you don't justify it, but are putting forth a reason as to why it does happen. The cause and reason are both morally reprehensible, so how does that make these assualts any more palatable?
Neither the cause nor the justification is acceptable. The cause is race and religious bigotry and it's not justifiable.
Conservatives I find to be capable of believing anything that coordinates with their agendas.
Did I properly decode the message hidden through your usual cipher style of communication?
I'm not trying to make the assaults more palatable. I'm trying to explore the causes so that we can address them properly and prevent attacks like these in the future.
The cause is not simply bigotry, otherwise we'd see attacks against other religious demographics as well. Both Breivik and Tarrant single Islam out, specifically concerns about Islamic mass immigration. Like I said earlier, these concerns are shared by a majority of citizens in various European countries: https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/com … mmigration
Are most Europeans bigoted like Breivik and Tarrant? Or are there serious issues within the Islamic world that need to be addressed?
Hopefully you can "decipher" the above - I recommend Occam's razor.
Such as Jew and black churches in America or Christian churches in the Middle East or Shia and Sunny churches also in the Middle East?
Sounds like bigotry being acted on to me.
Islam mass migration? What if they were all white, do you think they would be welcomed with open arms?
I think there are serious problems with the fundamentalist-wing of virtually ANY organized group, including white Christians.
Maybe I'm just tired, but I am not sure what the context of your "such as" question is.
As for the bigotry being acted on, do you think the majority of European citizens are simply bigoted? Do you have any proof?
No, I don't think race matters. The ideology is at the root of the problem.
There may be serious problems within any fundamentalist group. But serious to what degree? We can explore the serious problems of fundamentalist "white" Christians if you want (even though fundamentalist Christianity is not tied to race, but whatever). Some of the larger issues are anti-science e.g. pushing creationism in schools, homophobia, and child abuse. Given the above, would you welcome immigrants from this demographic?
Now try to analyse the issues within the Islamic world and see if you'd be equally receptive.
You make a good point, Professor. While white supremacy is the underlying theme, your case for Islamaphobia standing out as the primary motive at least in the case of this Tarrent fellow is a reasonable assumption based on your previous point and various news reports.
How is the problem prevented in the future? How many people have misgivings about so many adherents of Islam in their midsts, yet don't use extralegal means to address the problem?Get smart like New Zealand, make the weapons of mass mayhem less accessible, since the anti Islam sentiment among people cannot be identified and blocked out, minimize the extent of loss of life that can be caused by any single malcontent.
Since New Zealand is generally a less violent society than the US, this may well be viable solution for them, while we kick and scream about the concept here.
"I am aware of the threat that certain sects of Islam presents to European societies."
Credence, if Islamic extremist terrorism represents the greatest terrorist threat globally, I think it's worth asking, which group does it represent the greatest threat to?
In 2017, ten countries accounted for 84% of terrorism deaths(1). They were all Muslim majority countries, or have relatively high percentage Muslim populations. It's therefore very likely most of the fatalities and injuries were suffered by Muslims. Those ten countries suffered almost five times the number of fatalities from terrorism than the rest of the world combined(2).
In 2011, a National Counterterrorism Centre report said:
"In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82% and 97% of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years"(my emphasis)(3).
So globally, based on the number of fatalities suffered, the people most threatened by Islamic extremist terrorism, are ordinary Muslims. That's in addition to the threat of white supremacist terrorism.
I also think it's worth asking, should the ramblings of a fanatic be considered a legitimate complaint, because it was used to justify mass murder?
If the 9/11 attackers wrote a manifesto complaining about the lack of Sharia Law in the US, should we treat that as a legitimate complaint because it was used as justification for the attack? Or should we treat it as the garbage ramblings of a some murdering Islamic extremists?
The New Zealand attacker wrote a manifesto complaining about Muslim immigrants. Likewise, should we treat that as a legitimate complaint because it was used as justification for mass murder? Or should we treat it as the garbage ramblings of a murdering white nationalist?
Being inconsistent here leads down a dark path, because the reasons that can be conjured up for taking the ramblings of a white nationalist terrorist as legitimate complaints, are the same types of reason that can be given for taking the ramblings of Islamic extremist terrorists as legitimate complaints.
(1) http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads … x-2018.pdf
It's important to actually evaluate the merits of the complaints before dismissing them out of hand. For instance, the manifesto complained about sex scandals like the Rotherham child exploitation scandal. Do you consider the largest child protection scandal in UK history as merely a "garbage rambling"? Do you consider the well-being of children to be an illegitimate complaint?
There's a clear distinction between a complaint that seeks to subjugate a country's citizens, and a complaint that seeks to redress the failures in protecting the most vulnerable members of society.
The fact that most Europeans are also concerned with mass Muslim immigration should indicate the legitimacy of at least some of the complaints. The only dark path is in ignoring or downplaying these concerns without addressing the root of the problem.
"It's important to actually evaluate the merits of the complaints before dismissing them out of hand."
It's important to ensure the complaints of murdering fanatics are not given more exposure than they would otherwise get if those complaints were raised through legitimate means.
"Do you consider the well-being of children to be an illegitimate complaint?"
Do you believe someone who livestreams themselves shooting a 3 year old to death, has a legitimate concern about child protection?
"There's a clear distinction between a complaint that seeks to subjugate a country's citizens, and a complaint that seeks to redress the failures in protecting the most vulnerable members of society"
There's an even clearer distinction between someone who cares about child protection, and a fanatic who uses it as an excuse for a murderous rampage that includes killing children.
The manifesto, and subsequent actions, make it clear the attacker has no legitimate interest in child protection, only an interest in using child-protection to justify his own racist ramblings.
"The only dark path is in ignoring or downplaying these concerns without addressing the root of the problem."
Again, someone who deliberately kills children cannot claim to have a legitimate concern about, or interest in, the well-being of children.
The "root of the problem" is the fact that there are lots of dysfunctional people in the world, who are ready to subscribe to any twisted ideology that can bolster their (often fragile) ego and (often low) self-esteem. Typically these ideologies are seen (by no one but them and their like) as a "noble cause".
Giving greater credence to "concerns" raised by these twisted, dysfunctional people after they commit mass murder, is not addressing the root of the problem. It's merely inviting more fanatics to commit mass murder.
I don't think we are talking about giving legitimacy to a lunatic. The guy was obviously demented.
But, what we do need to do is recognize individual parts of manifestos which might resound with others. Because those particulars may be used to cause another individual to act out in frustration. They may not agree with 99.9% of the guy's ramblings but that .1% may be the fuse which lights another powder keg.
I, personally, can't think of anything which might cause me to act out violently. However, I've seen where particular problems society turns a blind eye to cause acquaintances to begin the journey down a dark path of intolerance. Blowing off their concerns with flippant and derogatory comments doesn't help. Dialogue, open and honest dialogue, which sees their fear and discusses it in a manner that shows we are not unaware of their concerns, we empathize with them on certain levels, and attempt to discuss how to ensure their fears are not, in the long run, realistic goes further than any other course I know of in finding unity.
"I don't think we are talking about giving legitimacy to a lunatic".
That is exactly what is being talked about.
When people suggest pandering to white nationalist terrorists to avoid "more attacks" as someone on this thread suggested, that's legitimizing fanatical behavior. It's the equivalent of suggesting we adopt Sharia law to avoid another 9/11.
When people imply Muslim immigration is the issue that needs to be addressed in response to this attack, because that's what the attacker ranted about, that also legitimizes fanatical behavior. It's the equivalent of suggesting US airstrikes in Syria were the issue that needed to be addressed in response to the Pulse nightclub shooting, because that's what the attacker ranted about.
In reality, the key issue is: how do sensible people protect ourselves from dysfunctional religious and/or racist fanatics who can't cope with the fact that most people reject their religious/ racist fanaticism? Entertaining the pet hate of those fanatics is not part of the answer.
"Dialogue, open and honest dialogue, which sees their fear and discusses it in a manner that shows we are not unaware of their concerns, we empathize with them on certain levels. . . "
You can't engage in reasoned dialogue with someone who has abandoned reason. People who can justify flying a plane into an office building, or killing 50 people including children as young as 3, have clearly abandoned reason.
And this is the issue with conflating the ramblings of this attacker with "legitimate" concerns. It falsely assumes the attacker is reasonable, which implies the attacker's ramblings (or some of them) are reasonable too. They are not. In this case, the attacker's "manifesto" is a diatribe of racist garbage masquerading as reasonable, legitimate concern.
The attacker describes himself as a racist and a fascist, whose goal is to ferment division and further his racist and fascist agenda. The fact he uses the legitimate concerns of other people to do that, doesn't mean we must pander to that racist and fascist agenda.
Hitler didn't kill Jewish people because of legitimate concerns about Jewish immigration. He did so because he was a racist fanatic. The Muslim extremists who flew those planes, didn't do so because of legitimate concerns about US foreign policy. They did so because they were religious fanatics. The New Zealand attacker did not kill 50 people because of legitimate concerns about Muslim immigration. He did so because he's a racist fanatic.
Fanatics who kill innocent people should not be credited with having legitimate concerns. They are beyond reason. Their only concern is how they can progress whatever fanatical agenda they have. Suggesting otherwise only legitimizes their actions.
I know you won't agree on this one, but I do have a certain amount of sympathy for those who commit atrocities, on any side of the spectrum. I guess, because I feel society has somehow failed them.
What did we miss? At what point did they snap? What could we have done differently that would have avoided the fateful moment? The rise in violent fanaticism, across the board worldwide , has to have some unifying thread if we could just put our finger on it we might be able to fight it effectively.
I don't think the track this thread has taken is addressing any valid problems which could be tackled to alleviate the violence. I think, in many ways, ideas espoused on both sides can only serve to escalate it. I think most arguments are driven by fear. The same fear that somehow mutates into violence.
"It's important to ensure the complaints of murdering fanatics are not given more exposure than they would otherwise get if those complaints were raised through legitimate means."
I am raising the complaints through a legitimate means of discussion, so you should have no issue with evaluating the merits of the complaints.
Unless you think that, because the terrorist also made the same complaints we are and have been making over the years, we shouldn't talk about it. Wouldn't that be convenient - all a murdering fanatic would need to do to silence discussion is to make a complaint about X. Hitler complained about lack of animal welfare, therefore let's not evaluate the merits of animal welfare.
"Do you believe someone who livestreams themselves shooting a 3 year old to death, has a legitimate concern about child protection?"
Whether his complaints are congruent with his actions is besides the point.
It would be silly to question whether the jihadist had a legitimate interest in imposing Sharia in your hypothetical. There are many examples of such jihadists and the legitimacy of their interests is not in question. The fact that they have a legitimate interest in establishing Sharia does not make the complaints about lack of Sharia legitimate.
So, back to the point: are complaints about child protection failures like Rotherham legitimate? Avoiding the question does no one any favours.
"There's an even clearer distinction between someone who cares about child protection, and a fanatic who uses it as an excuse for a murderous rampage that includes killing children."
Fortunately, no one here made the case that the fanatic actually cares about child protection. I simply observe that he made a complaint and am asking the question: does the complaint have merit?
"Giving greater credence to "concerns" raised by these twisted, dysfunctional people after they commit mass murder, is not addressing the root of the problem. It's merely inviting more fanatics to commit mass murder."
Sunlight is disinfectant. Allowing discussion regarding the complaints of the manifesto and whether they were warranted or not is important because it allows rational people to devise alternate solutions (if the complaint is legitimate / has merit) or alternate philosophies (if the complaint is illegitimate / lacks merit). By preventing exposure you prevent society from inoculating itself against this type of lunacy.
The fact is that discussion about these concerns (concerns that predate the terror attack) is so non-existent on a societal level that people are increasingly being driven to extreme spaces on the internet (as this terrorist was). There, their ideas can fester unchallenged. Open discussion is the vaccine, and that necessitates exposure.
Your approach to not evaluate the shooter's complaints, to not look at his motivations and to claim (without proof) that doing so will "invite more fanatics to commit mass murder" will fail to address the root of the problem. It is the same approach that allowed scandals like Rotherham to occur - they too, thought that looking into complaints of child sexual abuse would invite perceptions of Islamaphobia or racism. So they did nothing, and allowed 1400 girls to be victims of sexual assault.
Your approach shows a lack of introspection and decision making which will lead to more attacks and radicalization, as the UAE Foreign Minister correctly predicted 3 years ago (https://twitter.com/HSajwanization/stat … 6202675200). Despite our societies largely following such an approach, support for far-right parties is increasing throughout Europe, and as this thread points out, far-right attacks are on the rise.
You have no evidence that your approach will solve the problem, and there is plenty of evidence that such an approach is actually making the problem worse.
"I am raising the complaints through a legitimate means of discussion, so you should have no issue with evaluating the merits of the complaints."
No, your previous comments were:
"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)
"the question I am prompting is: what caused the attack?"(2)
"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."(3)
"Unless you think that, because the terrorist also made the same complaints we are and have been making over the years, we shouldn't talk about it. . . "(4)
So you are essentially saying "sure killing innocent people is terrible, but those terrorists do have a point". In other words you are sympathizing with white nationalist terrorists, because some of their beliefs align with yours.
And you are also using the threat of "more attacks" to persuade (intimidate) others into addressing the "issues" raised by those terrorists (and you evidently) in a way the terrorists deem to be "adequate". That is, by definition, the goal of terrorism. So promoting that is pandering.
The fact you are doing both those things via a legitimate means of discussion (this forum) is irrelevant. It's still sympathizing and pandering.
"Whether his complaints are congruent with his actions is besides the point."
It is entirely the point. You are essentially saying : "It's terrible this person shot those Muslim children to death, but let's focus on the concerns he raised about the safety of white European children, because child safety is important" That's warped and twisted logic.
And interesting that you mention Hitler, because it's the equivalent of saying: "Its terrible Hitler killed all those Jewish children, but let's focus on the concerns he raised about the welfare of Aryan children, because child welfare is important".
The key question is therefore not whether child-welfare is a legitimate concern? Clearly for racist fanatics who kill children, it's not. For many others, it is. The question is, why would any rational person associate a racist, child-killer's "concerns" about children with actual child welfare? It's bizarre.
"Fortunately, no one here made the case that the fanatic actually cares about child protection. I simply observe that he made a complaint and am asking the question: does the complaint have merit?"
Again, that raises the question why? Why does it matter what a racist fanatic who kills children, thinks about child welfare? And why are you associating child welfare with someone who has no legitimate concern about it? There's no connection.
Allowing discussion regarding the complaints of the manifesto and whether they were warranted or not is important because . . .
The issue is not that people aren't allowed to discuss immigration, religion, race, politics etc. People discuss those things all the time. The issue is that, on the whole, most sensible people in society still reject racist and religious fanaticism. When something is deemed socially unacceptable, the natural consequence is that promoting it is frowned upon.
So there's no point complaining that you can't be openly racist, for example, or because you can't promote beliefs that target a specific religious group. One of the reasons such behaviour is still, on the whole, socially unacceptable is because of all the historic examples available that show where such beliefs lead. If your beliefs are not palatable enough to become socially acceptable, perhaps you need to examine your beliefs. Perhaps not associating yourself with racist mass murders would help.
"Your approach . . . will fail to address the root of the problem"
Relative to your beliefs about the root of the problem, that's correct, but only because your belief about w the root of the problem is wrong. The "issue" raised by the fanatic is seldom the root of the problem. It's usually just a cover for relgious and racist fanaticism. The real root cause is the fact that there are religious and racist fanatics in the world who will inevitably find some "noble cause" to justify killing other people. Religious racists and fanatics always find a reason to kill other people.
So the key issue is what do we do to protect society from these fanatics that seek to do us harm? It's not difficult (for some) to see how pandering to their false justifications for killing would encourage others to do the same.
"It is the same approach that allowed scandals like Rotherham to occur"
I have seen your concern about child safety in this and other threads.
That concern seems to extend mainly to cases where Muslims are the perpetrators. Of course that's probably just a false impression. As someone who is concerned about child safety, and has cleary researched examples of large scale abuse, you would naturally be interested in, and aware of, other examples also.
So remind me, in which thread is your research into the global sexual exploitation of children within the Catholic church? In which thread do you go to the trouble of finding out, and posting, the exact number of victims of that abuse? Or any other case of child abuse that doesn't involve a Muslim? I expect you've posted links to references and articles about many, as clearly it's something you're passionate about. Could you point to some?
My previous comments were part of a discussion. So yes, I am raising complaints in a legitimate means of discussion, and you should have no problem with that.
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.
Personally, I don't automatically dismiss claims based on who said it or their actions. To do so would be illogical (guilt by association), childish ("I don't like this person, so they must be wrong about everything they say"), and limiting - can you imagine having to ignore legitimate complaints about the environment or global warming, simply because some evil person may hold the same opinions?
That's called being intellectually honest. Maybe that's too hard for you. Then again, I'd be shocked if you didn't jump at the chance to conflate legitimate concerns/motivations with illegitimate actions.
The way the terrorists want to "adequately" address the issue is to attack and terrorize innocent people. You seem to be good at digging up my comments. Please provide a quote where I suggested we do that.
I'm sure it's there somewhere. I'm sure I didn't say that we should provide alternate solutions and philosophies to deal with the problem. It's not like you to spin things.
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. I am conveying these complaints through legitimate means, so you should not be whining about these complaints being discussed in a discussion.
The complaints/motivations of the terrorist should be analyzed, whether you agree with them or not. That is the only way to prevent future attacks, and that necessitates exposure. People should not be silenced just because you think guilt by association is a valid way to approach discussion. It's a convenient position if you want to silence critics, but not an intellectually honest one.
I agree, it is warped and twisted logic. That tends to happen when someone strawmans an opposing position. That's the problem when someone says what someone "essentially" said instead of what they actually said.
What I am focusing on are the motivations of this terrorist, which, according to his manifesto, includes child abuse scandals like Rotherham. Related to that are concerns about Islamic immigration, concerns that are shared by hundreds of millions of people worldwide.
Is that concern valid? If so, it must be addressed adequately, or else there will be more people from that population of hundreds of millions who are pushed to extremism. By focusing on the terrorist's motivations I am looking to find a way to prevent future attacks, either by addressing concerns through alternate solutions (if the concerns are valid) or by providing alternate philosophies (if the concerns are invalid).
That does not preclude me from thinking about ways to protect society from fanatics, but I prefer prevention over mitigation.
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?
Actually, the analogous situation would be a Jewish terrorist killing "Aryan" children because he was motivated by the inhumane treatment of the Jews, including Jewish children, under Hitler's regime.
Like Rotherham, the inhumane treatment of Jews was covered up. Like Rotherham, the inhumane treatment of Jews is a legitimate complaint. And like the NZ terror attack, attacking innocent children is an illegitimate action.
Your scenario lacks most of those elements (there's no cover-up, nor is there an illegitimate, retaliatiory response), so it's hardly "equivalent."
That is a key question. In the wake of rising far-right attacks it is crucial to determine whether the motivations are:
2) held by a majority of the broader population
3) not being adequately addressed
- because if they are, it stands to reason that more attacks like these will happen as more and more people within that broader population become desperate (due to concerns not being adequately addressed) and are pushed to extremism.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, the association exists. The stated motivation for the terror attack in NZ included retaliation for child protection failures. Observing this fact is no more bizarre than observing the connection between the sky and the colour "blue."
Why it matters is because Rotherham was one of the terrorist's stated motivations that resulted in the deaths of 50 innocent people. Analyzing a terrorist's motivations is the only way to prevent future attacks.
That is, unless you believe that these attacks are random since lunatics will use any justification to attack people. Unfortunately, that fails to explain why these attacks follow certain patterns:
-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?
Are people allowed to discuss Islam openly and without fear of retaliation?
Do you consider criticism of Islam to be racist or fanatic?
Do you consider criticism of religion (beliefs that target a religious group) to be comparable to racism?
You must have forgotten the part where millions of people in Europe have had concerns about Islam for the better part of a decade. Evidently it's "palatable" enough for the majority of the European populace, but for some reason, despite the belief being widespread, people are not openly free to discuss concerns regarding Islam. On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to talk about concerns regarding Catholocism or Christianity, without any fear of retaliation.
Regardless, whether a concern is "palatable" or not does nothing to disprove the validity of the concern. It used to be the case that the abolition of slavery was not palatable or socially acceptable.
Perhaps not using guilt by association fallacies would help us have an open and honest discussion.
Really? Other threads, plural? Go ahead, link those threads.
Although I am concerned about child safety, it's not my main interest in this discussion. But you already knew that, and are attempting to cast a red herring, a moral equivalence and a tu quoque all in one strike. I hope educated readers see through your ploy.
Really? Cases, plural? Go ahead, list those cases.
Funny - you know it's false, but you felt the need to peddle it anyway. For entirely honest reasons, I'm sure.
Actually, I've only researched Rotherham, mainly because it's a primary example of self-censorship. It should alarm any sensible person the lengths people will go to to avoid being perceived as racist or Islamophobic - evidently, people have such an aversion to being labelled as such that they are capable of ignoring large scale child abuse for decades. Despite this, there are people like you who think the conversation around these issues is allowed to occur openly. If people are so afraid that they won't even uphold the law to protect children, what makes you think they'll be able to have a dialogue?
Incorrect. My interest in Rotherham is related to the censorious and silencing nature of the event.
Remind me, in which thread is your research?
Really? Passionate? You'll have to elaborate that spin. I mean, I introduced Rotherham to this thread in parentheses as an example of an event that was buried or minimized:
No objective person would call that "passionate." Although if that meets your standards of passion that may explain a few things.
It's rather fitting that you'd use Rotherham to insinuate that I am racist or bigoted towards Muslims (as opposed to Catholic priests, apparently). 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. It's what allowed the child abuse in Rotherham to be ignored. You use a clear example of silencing and censorship to engage in the same censorious behaviour without an ounce of self-awareness.
Or maybe you actually want to silence and derail discussion? Hard to say.
"Credence, if Islamic extremist terrorism represents the greatest terrorist threat globally, I think it's worth asking, which group does it represent the greatest threat to? "
Understood, Don, I think that I brought this up in an earlier comment to the "Professor" as a part of this thread and discussion. The point that the vast majority of Islamic terrorism and violence is in the very "backyard" of the most of the adherents is not lost on me.
I am sure that Roof had recorded scribblings about the hegemony of whites and the fact that Blacks in America are an innate threat to justify his carnage in South Carolina 4 years ago.
Looking at the motives at one Islamic terrorism vs terrorism base on white identity and such the players are more similar than different in the their fanaticism. But, in America the instances of offense coming from the latter are more visible and brazen now than in over previous periods.
"in America the instances of offense coming from the latter are more visible and brazen now than in over previous periods."
I think I can agree with this. But I'm wondering if we're also seeing more brazen crimes in general? It seems to me that both violent and non violent crime is becoming more brazen.
"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?
Citing examples from hundreds of years ago is part of the problem with addressing violence today. No one alive today participated in any of your examples. No one alive then is alive today.
This argument is as pointless as an argument by an atheist lambasting modern Christianity because of the Inquisition.
Edit. Citing Muslim progress hundreds of years ago is part of the reason many turn a blind eye to Islamic barbarism toward women today.
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/
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?
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.
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.
Why should we not count certain areas of the globe when talking about global terrorism? Simply declaring it apples to hand grenades isn't convincing.
But fine, I'll play along. Let's ignore everything but Western Europe and the US for Islamic terrorism.
Islamic terrorism in 2017: 70 deaths
62 deaths in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_t … urope#2017
8 deaths in US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_ … uck_attack
Far-right terrorism from 2013-2017 worldwide: 66 deaths.
Even when looking at a subset of Islamic terrorism outside of its "home" regions, it is still deadlier than the whole of far-right terrorism.
Where is your source for the 66 worldwide deaths by right-wing terrorists, your provided it for Islamic terrorists. Hell, that right-wing white guy in Sweden beat that total all by himself.
Also, the body count is the wrong metric, the number of events has more meaning. In America alone, since 2003, there were 37 events:
2009: 6 (Obama elected)
2017: 4 (Trump elected)
My source is in an earlier comment to Credence, the sixth edition of the Global Terrorism Index: http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads … 2018-1.pdf
Speaking of sources... where are yours? I notice you haven't yet posted a source regarding right-wing terrorism making up 35% of worldwide terror attacks. And none in your latest comment.
I don't know who that "ring-wing white guy" in Sweden is (a source would be helpful). I looked at the attacks in Sweden and none are greater than 66 - the largest death toll was the truck attack committed by an Islamist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism … _in_Sweden
Could you explain why the number of events has more meaning? I find that hard to believe. For one, the GTI - though it talks about number of incidents - does not display that data as frequently as it displays the number of deaths. For example, Table 1.1 on p.18 contains the top 10 countries impacted by terrorism ranked by number of deaths, not by number of incidents. Similarly, the graphic at the top of pages 19-28 breaks down the deaths committed by group, but there’s no chart breaking down incidents committed by group.
I assume it’s because a death is a measurable impact whereas an attack can be ineffective or have minimal impact. But I’d love to hear your explanation.
In any case, we can talk about number of events if you want. Here's the number of far-right attacks worldwide from 2013-2017 (taken from the GTI report):
And let’s look at the number of attacks from, say, Boko Haram in 2017:
A single Islamist group committed more attacks than all far-right groups and individuals combined across 4 years. I hope that's enough for you to retract your opening comment.
Sorry, I didn't add your own reference to my numbers, thought you would have recognized it. But, in case you missed it, it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism. As to the other, I already commented on my misinterpretation from the Global Terrorism Database and agreed, it pertained only to the United States, which is bad enough.
I never referred to that link so I'm not sure why you think it's my own reference, but thanks for the source.
Anyway, I wasn't disputing those figures. I was more curious on sources or explanations regarding:
- your original comment's figures (which you agree was a misinterpretation, so no need)
- the "right-wing white guy in Sweden"
- why number of events is more meaningful as a metric compared to number of deaths
Why are more events more meaningful than the number of deaths? Well, you get to make a choice. A 1,000 people are killed in one year. Which is worse?
1. 1,000 people killed in one attack or
2. 1,000 people killed in 1,000 attacks.
Number 2 is the obvious answer to me, as an analyst. Maybe it isn't to you.
Also meaningful is the rate of death per event. But even that fails in the above scenario. For that to be useful, there must be a distribution of deaths over multiple events.
It's not obvious to me, which is why I was hoping for an explanation, not plopping down two numbers and declaring the answer obvious.
From what I gather, your example is addressing something completely different from the original claim. First, your two sets are using the same metrics: number of deaths, number of events, and (indirectly) deaths per event. By using the same metrics you fail to prove that one metric is more meaningful than the other. If anything, you prove that number of deaths is the most important metric because you had to keep it as a constant value.
Second, what you chose to highlight is that a lower death per event value is "worse" to you than a higher death per event value. That's outside of the original claim. Whether a higher or lower value is "worse" does not answer the question of whether the metric is "meaningful."
I agree with you that deaths per event is a meaningful metric, but that was not in dispute. Remember: your claim is that number of events is more meaningful than the number of deaths. One way to do that is to provide two sets of data - one with number of events, and the other with number of deaths - and then make the case that the former is more important than the latter.
1. 6,000 dog attacks
2. 70 terror attacks
1. 30 deaths from dog attacks
2. 100 deaths from terror attacks
The first set shows that dogs attack more often than terrorists. The second set shows that terrorists kill more people than dogs. Which is more meaningful?
To me, impact is more meaningful than frequency (though they both have their value). By only focusing on the number of events, you focus on a metric that is not inherently impactful. Even though there are thousands of dog attacks per year, that volume does not translate to a significant impact.
FYI, I'd also consider deaths per event to be a measure of impact.
Just listen to what you are saying PoPo - "By using the same metrics you fail to prove that one metric is more meaningful than the other. "
You are saying there is no difference in having 1 or 1,000 terrorist attacks each year - that they are equivalent simply because the same total people died.
As to your example, I find Set 1 more worrisome because the chances of being a victim is higher.
While I don't want 1,000 people to die to start with, but I would feel much, much safer having only 1 massive attack a year than wondering if I will be part of the one of the 2.73 attacks a day, on average.
You, on the other hand, say you feel equally safe or unsafe in either scenario. Interesting.
Not what I am saying. Let me try an analogy.
Let's imagine that we were talking about cars, and I compared two cars: one that could travel 1,000 km, and another that could travel 100 km. My claim is that the one that can travel 1,000 km is better (more impactful) than the other.
You chip in to say that time traveled is more meaningful than distance traveled. I ask you to provide an explanation, and you compare two cars: one that travelled 1,000 km in one second, and another that travelled 1,000 km in 1,000 seconds. You then say that one is obviously better (more impactful) than the other.
Instead of comparing distance with time, you compared two values of speed. Your example does not establish time (events) as more meaningful than distance (deaths); your example merely distinguishes a slower speed from a faster speed (deaths per event).
To sum up: I am not suggesting there is no difference between 1 event and 1,000 events. I am saying you distinguishing two different values of deaths/event does not demonstrate that events are more meaningful than deaths as a standard of measurement.
Set 1 has two different "chance" values of being a victim - 6,000 attacks in a year and 70 attacks in a year. Which are you referring to? Since you said the "higher" value, I assume it's the 6,000 attacks per year figure. That figure is the number of dog bites resulting in a hospitalization per year in the United States.
Do you think dogs are more worrisome than terrorists because you are more likely to be attacked by a dog? Please clarify.
Also, can you demonstrate that the probability of being a victim is higher in the 1,000 attacks scenario vs the 1 attack scenario? In my mind, rolling a die 1,000 times in a day has the same probabilities as rolling a die 2.73 times a day for a year.
Actually, I did not opine on your scenarios. They had no bearing on your original claim.
Although both are significant problems, in my opinion the 1,000 attacks per year group is less of a problem because it is easier to solve. Despite the high volume of attacks, this group's lethality is consistently low, suggesting that this group is not keen on causing mass casualties. Thus, their lethality is likely to remain consistently low for the foreseeable future. The main problem is that individuals in this group are highly active. In theory, if you reduce the frequency of attacks (through surveillance and counter-terrorism means) the overall impact of this group will be low.
The other group is highly lethal. What would happen if they increase the frequency of attacks (something that is not unheard of)? Not only do you need to expend resources to keep the frequency of attacks low, but you also need to find a means to lower their lethality since a single attack can be so devastating. Our efforts to weaken ISIL and al-Qaeda include international military intervention, for example. That would not be necessary for a low-lethality group.
There are other considerations - highly lethal attacks are more likely to cause infrastructure damage, and they put an immediate burden on hospitals and emergency services. Both of those factors will result in more indirect deaths.
Consider the damage caused by 9/11, and then ask yourself if you'd rather than happen once a year vs. 3,000 individual attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September … cks#Damage
Or, consider something like a nuclear detonation in a major city. The frequency of this event is close to 0, yet the threat of a nuclear attack is impossible to ignore.
None of this is to say that frequency shouldn't be considered. But to conclude that an event is worse than another solely because of its higher frequency is a weak analysis.
Actually, it was a Right-wing guy from Norway I was thinking of, although Sweden has it share as well, just not as recently. This is who the right-wing terrorist in New Zealand said, besides Trump, was his inspiration - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
Yes, it was the guy from Norway. I have already mentioned him in previous comments. Why he wasn't included is because his attack occurred before 2013, the starting year of the data point mentioned in the GTI.
I notice you complain about Breivik not being included in the far-right data but you ignore that the Islamic data is limited to events in Europe in 2017. Why did you not complain about Charlie Hebdo not being included, or Nice, or Brussels?
Again, I must reiterate: the comparison is between Islam in Europe in 2017 vs far-right terrorism worldwide from 2013-2017.
You can include Breivik and Tarrant in the far-right numbers, but you'll risk missing the point that Islamic terrorism dwarfs far-right terrorism both in number of events and number of deaths. You'll risk focusing on a minor problem that's likely caused or at least exacerbated by the larger problem.
As to your Swedish source it seems like a mixed bag to me. Of the seven events listed since 2000:
2 were Islamic related domestic terrorism
1 was Islamic related foreign terrorism
3 were right-wing domestic terrorism
1 from Russia said he was ISIS-inspired but ISIS didn't take credit
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.
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?
Interesting the killer called Trump "a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose".
https://thehill.com/policy/internationa … -symbol-of
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
Oh gosh. I wonder when we'll reach the point where slander and libel is no longer in style.
Sorry, next time I will be more political correct.
Slander and liable only apply when the statement isn't true.
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 !!!!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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??
Sometimes, it is not easy to take things as there are. Are we acting like small boys and girls in believing these?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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?
"Everything about our history belies his version of it, don't you think?"
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?
"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.
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.
I begin to understand the fragmentation and divisions of our country a little better. While it is popular to blame it all on President Trump, the truth is that the people themselves glory in the divisiveness and promote it. They WANT it, they claim it was always as it is now. It is now to the point that the gang has become the family throughout our nation, not just the ghettos.
So, Now, we are "gangs". Can you see by your attitude and disposition regarding this topic, how you are unwittingly part of this fragmentation and division you speak of?
And so why do you think it is OK that Trump makes it worse, then?
"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.
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.
"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.
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?
WHY on Earth would a "White Nationalist" like Donald Trump confess to the fact that "White Nationalism" is a threat?
Someday, maybe, you'll add something of value to the conversation. Probably when unicorns roam all continents. But, it is possible.
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":
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's difficult to accept that otherwise intelligent people can't see what they are doing. More likely they understand it quite well and intend it. IMO.
That's incredibly scary. It isn't decent. But, it makes sense. My experience in life has been that people accuse others of what they, themselves, are doing in order to divert attention from the fact that they are doing what they know is wrong.
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.
May I ask what VERIFIED facts you are referring to about Clinton? I certainly would be interested in knowing.
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?
"Bill Clinton is a proven sexual predator. " - I'll modify that by saying "Bill Clinton AND Donald Trump are proven sexual predators". I add him so that you can apply your condemnation equally. So yes, Bill Clinton probably was because too many women made similar claims. That, however, is NEITHER proven nor verified. It just seems likely.
Now, I don't agree with "Hillary Clinton attempted to minimize the damage by scoffing, making derogatory remarks about the women, pretending it was 'a right wing conspiracy'. " WHY? Because she was right about the right-wing conspiracy against her husband. The investigation into Linda Tripp proved that.
As to Trump, there are about twice as many women claiming Trump violated them than claimed Clinton. As far as I know, no woman has claimed Trump raped her, like the unproven one against Clinton (I don't discount her claim like you probably discount the lady Kavanaugh allegedly raped. BUT, Trump has been credibly accused of damn near everything else including one where Trump tried to grab her by her pussy, just like Trump bragged about.
Actually, I haven't.
You provided nothing VERIFIED, which is your claim.
I just happened to agree with you Bill Clinton (and Donald Trump) are probably sexual predators. More likely in Trump's case sense he has more women making claims and Trump has bragged about it in writing and on the air - something Clinton never did.
The difference between the two is Bill Clinton, despite his faults, did a reasonably good job as President. Your guy, Donald Trump, is an unmitigated disaster as President and doesn't have a clue how government is supposed to work. He still appears astounded that the government doesn't work personally for him and not the American people.
And that is where our opinions diverge. I don't consider an allegation of groping as violent as rape. Clinton was accused of rape. Trump was accused of groping.
As a woman, I find rape so much more offensive. As a Democrat, you use a lesser crime as justification for a greater crime.
Then you forgot that Ivana Trump accused Donald Trump, under oath, that he raped her.
Now, I obviously agree that rape is more offensive than things just short of that, but does that mean, since you split that hair, you excuse the less violent modes of sexual assault??
BTW, I am not a Democrat; I just vote that way because there are no good alternatives (save for one local election where I wrote in a Republican). I use to vote a straight Republican ticket until they lost their way.
Well, if we are being honest I vote Republican mainly because the left is just barely left of many of my views and I'm left of most Republican ideas.
I don't excuse oafish behavior. But, I do consider rape much, much worse. As to Ivanka's claim...I'd say I question her motives for the accusation. I don't necessarily believe her as much as I would a credible woman,not married to him, who had cried rape; which none have.
But, I'm surprised you say you aren't a Democrat. By your comments, you appear left of many democrats I know.
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.
I say screw the poor, let's give Trumps white billionaire many more chances of trickling it all down again.
Like eight years of it against Obama from your side. At least he was a man, unlike the current occupant of the White House.
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.
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.
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:
"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.
Good point. I remember Jake bragging about getting a cheap car wash, thanks to exploitation of illegal immigrant labor.
I don't want to pay more for my mcnuggets nor can most Americans afford to pay more, and considering the overwhelming majority of undocumented humans do NOT cross the southern border, in REALITY, a big dumb concrete or Russian supplied steel wall will never secure anything except a very small empty space inside Bozo Trump's little warped head:
In REALITY, a nationalist who walks into a peaceful place and mows down 50 human beings which happens way to often here in the states as well, represents a serious EMERGENCY, whereas an immigrant crossing the border to pick your strawberries is an individual contributing to our economy and society, unlike the Trumps who are under numerous investigations and are forced to shut down their foundation for using donations for personal enrichment, how unholy is that?:
"In REALITY, a nationalist who walks into a peaceful place and mows down 50 human beings which happens way to often here in the states as well, represents a serious EMERGENCY"
Okay. When you figure out how to stop someone from BEING a "white nationalist", you definitely need to pass that information along.
On the other hand, we can prevent most illegal immigration, meaning people entering the country illegally.
Stopping an undocumented immigrant from cleaning your bathroom at the Best Western Hotel while keeping the cost of said room rental DOWN is NOT an Emergency, Stopping a nationalist from walking into a church and killing innocent human beings is:
I find your constant references to below normal wages for illegal immigrants as being some wonderful reason for illegal immigration appalling.
If such is the rational of people who advocate open borders we have really lost our moral compass, as a nation.
"Stopping an undocumented immigrant from cleaning your bathroom at the Best Western Hotel while keeping the cost of said room rental DOWN is NOT an Emergency".
We clearly have a different understanding of what constitutes an emergency. Preventing ANYONE from coming into our country illegally is important, not merely for economic reasons, but for national security reasons as well. It's also something our government is supposed to do, and is capable of doing.
Stopping ANYONE from walking into churches (or synagogues, or mosques) and killing people is impossible. Individual groups can take action to prevent a shooter from gaining access - perhaps - but if someone is determined to kill a building full of people, by golly they very well might succeed.
Interestingly, your desire to use the government to make everyone's lives easier seems to take a vacation when it comes to the lives of those who work menial jobs like cleaning your bathroom "at the Best Western". You support a $15.00 minimum wage, and yet you're entirely happy to see workers denied an appropriate wage for their work IF they're here illegally. This makes zero sense. It's hypocritical. And you're using them for your pleasures.
Between the companies that hire illegals and Americans who think like you do, it's no freakin' wonder that our borders are still relatively easily breached. Furthermore, there is going to come a time when the US WILL lose a city because of our weak border security, and you're just fine with it.
I would rather spend the resources trying to tamp down white nationalism rather spend $30 billion to MAYBE stop the few illegals who actually are criminals from crossing the Southern border. But then, since it more likely really bad guys will cross over our Northern border, why not build a $1 trillion wall their?
Trump's-type wall is useless and a huge waste of money.
If it were up to me, here's the LEAST I would do about the Canadian border:
1) Ensure that every road crossing that border has CBP monitored crossing, including those coming into Alaska.
2) Build up CBP presence on the Great Lakes, substantially.
3) Have a discussion with Canada about it's weak asylum policies
4) As we discover problem areas along the border that can't be addressed simply by monitoring, beef them up with fencing/barriers/walling.
That's a start. Sadly, having a national discussion about our northern border seems impossible - it's a difficult enough time having a discussion about the Mexican border.
And the fact is, as you point out, the likelihood of the really bad folks coming in is at least as good on the Canadian border. What little we've heard from government officials over the years tells us that we MUST do something about that border.
While "bad guys" entering through unguarded borders, both north and south, is a problem I'm not sure there is a reasonable answer. Given enough resources they CAN enter both Mexico and Canada and CAN make their way into the US no matter how hard we might try to stop them. Same thing for Alaska or even Hawaii; fake driver's license and a sub at night will put them ashore on any coastline, after all.
What we CAN do is stop the large majority of simple illegal border crossings that have only a small resource base behind them.
Since so few bad guys come across the borders anyway, you are creating a problem where none exists.
It might be different if the net cost of illegal immigrants entering America was negative, but it is not. Virtually every COMPREHENSIVE study shows the BENEFIT to America outweighs the cost.
So, where is the problem you are trying to solve?
"Virtually every COMPREHENSIVE study shows the BENEFIT to America outweighs the cost."
Costs exceeding 50 billion per year does not show the benefit outweighs the cost. Particularly as that does not include any wages (a cost) being paid. No one can look at the costs of illegal aliens flooding the country and honestly say they give more than they get.
What if benefits exceeded $60 billion per year? That does show the benefits outweigh the costs.
What you refuse to get is that those studies show that the economic benefit of illegal aliens EXCEED the economic cost. Why is that so hard for you to understand unless you simply don't want to know the Truth (just like Trump)
And what you refuse to get is that all the costs are not included in your faux figures. That the "benefits" are paid for via salaries already, and are not included in costs. Looking at just half the picture and drawing conclusions from it never works.
There is no chance at all that the lowest paid segment of our society provides more benefits than the average American; that is self evident even without doing the math.
You are Forced to say that, Wilderness, because what the word "comprehensive" means is they considered everything they could think of that is legitimate to consider. You forget, that is what I spent a career doing. You, on the other hand, have zero training or experience in economic analysis.
You only have your unsubstantiated opinion. I, however, understand how these comprehensive studies are accomplished. So you can keep repeating your false narrative until the cows come home, I am right, you are wrong and I bet you didn't know this either - the earth is not flat.
The first thing to do is get rid of a President who encourages them with his hate speech. The second is take the huge resources spent to keep people who are running from terror in their own country and redirect it to stamping out white nationalists. The third thing is to reduce the wasteful EXTRA spending for intense background checks Trump is making the FBI use that is doing over and above the successful job they did under Obama in keeping foreign terrorist out, and redirect it to domestic terrorism.
"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?
"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?"
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.
"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.
by IslandBites 8 weeks ago
I do not know why this case hasn't got more attention. US Coast Guardsman Lt. Christopher Paul Hasson, a self proclaimed white nationalist, is accused of being a "domestic terrorist". Hasson, who is assigned to Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, is a former Marine. Hasson was...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 months ago
There are those who are fearful of the concept that societies of the future will become globalized. Although some people will become fanatically nationalistic, nationalism will eventually die out as people become more universalistic in their beliefs i.e. that all humankind is one. Do...
by JAKE Earthshine 9 months ago
As we all know, the clergy is known for working with, consoling and counseling murderers and other hard core criminals in prison who have repented of their sins: Do you truly understand how dreadfully evil and corrupt of the heart and soul an individual must be to receive the ultimate Christian...
by cooldad 4 years ago
I can't help but wonder if the United States could be considered a terrorist nation. With its actions in the past and the present, can the U.S. be considered terrorists?The treatment of Native Americans, slavery, Cambodia bombing, Iraq, Afghanistan are just a few potential examples.What are...
by Susie Lehto 2 years ago
Milo Yiannopoulos announced that he will return to give his speech at the University of California, Berkeley in a few months. Former head of the Dept. of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, now president of the University of California has been put on notice. She failed to...
by Susie Lehto 2 years ago
But, I want Obama and Trump to see this video a mother posted on Facebook. We have a problem when children are treated with cruelty because they voted for Trump at school. I am sure that child protection has already been contacted and this mother has been relieved of her duties until...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|