Sorry this happened in your city

[Dill]

(10-29-2018, 11:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: He was a bigoted white guy who feels like white guys are being marginalized.  Just like the rest of them that do these things.

Yes, this one is definitely in the same class as McVeigh, Roof, Page, von Brunn and Fields jr, to name a few--people whose targets are defined by white supremacist ideology.

[Dill]

(10-29-2018, 11:07 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn't quite follow his reason.  They were helping immigrants or something and that pissed him off?

Not just "immigrants"; these were "invaders" from the Soros-paid, ISIS-infested migrant caravan heading for our borders.  That Jews were helping "destroy America" by sheltering them here was just too much. A perfect storm of alt right hate targets maybe?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/27/us/pittsburgh-synagogue-active-shooter/index.html
"According to his posts [on Gab.com], Bowers believed that those in the migrant caravans were violent because they were attempting to leave countries that had high levels of violence. And Bowers repeatedly called them "invaders" on his Gab posts. "I have noticed a change in people saying 'illegals' that now say 'invaders'," read one post, six days before the shooting. "I like this."
A law enforcement source confirmed to CNN that investigators believe the social media postings belong to Bowers and that the language on his account matches the suspected motivation behind the shootings."

Remember that there are thousands of people out there upset about the "war on the white race."  Their numbers are minuscule in a country of 340+ million. But thousands are plenty enough to keep the police and FBI busy when they ACTUALLY BELIEVE what they say they believe and construct an alternative news universe that confirms those beliefs.  For the most extreme, even Trump, with his Jewish son-in-law, is a "globalist race-traitor."  ("Seriously--why CAN'T he build the wall?" one might imagine them asking.)

[treee]

(10-29-2018, 01:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote:

(10-22-2018, 03:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: I spent a whole day explaining to my high school team I coach that "News" did not stand for Noteworthy events, weather and sports. It was a popular post shared on the internet and they all immediately believed it to be true because it made sense from the explanation. It seems what the internet has done is allow people to be sold with more thorough, even though wrong, explanations that would require further investigation to prove wrong so many simply believe it to be true because it sounds believable.

Basically everyone assumes someone else vetted the information before relaying it to them so they take it as true. Ironically enough this used to be what we relied on actual news reporting to do before it got confused with the mishmash of click bait.

First off: Shame on anyone her or Nationwide that tries to make this tragedy a divisive issue. It's attitudes like that that do absolutely nothing to help these cases at best and motivate them at worst.

Secondly, when I do go; I could think of worse things to be doing than worshipping. So in some very small way I take solace in that.

Thirdly, Our elected officials have to come together for humanity. I participate in partisan politics because the Conservative follows more closely to my morals and finances; whoever, none of that is worth a tragedy such as this.

In your view how could one make this a divisive issue? I have a feeling that there is objective speculation you might classify as making it a divisive issue.

Also, partisan politics do not help progress any ideology in a meaningful way. All partisan politics do is propagate divise rhetoric, preventing productive discussion between the participants of the democracy.

[*bfine32*]

(10-30-2018, 06:51 AM)treee Wrote: In your view how could one make this a divisive issue? I have a feeling that there is objective speculation you might classify as making it a divisive issue.

Also, partisan politics do not help progress any ideology in a meaningful way. All partisan politics do is propagate divise rhetoric, preventing productive discussion between the participants of the democracy.

Because the narrative going around now is the Evil of the current administration is fueling this and if you don't act to remove it, you are complicit with this evil. Did Obama's evil fuel Dylan Roof? 

[GMDino]

(10-30-2018, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because the narrative going around now is the Evil of the current administration is fueling this and if you don't act to remove it, you are complicit with this evil. Did Obama's evil fuel Dylan Roof? 

No...other's on the other side did.

Same side that fueled this guy.

The current admin didn't create the problem.  They just refuse to admit that their leader fuels it with his rhetoric.

[treee]

(10-30-2018, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because the narrative going around now is the Evil of the current administration is fueling this and if you don't act to remove it, you are complicit with this evil. Did Obama's evil fuel Dylan Roof? 

I don't know. I can definitively say that Obama never advocated attacking our fellow countrymen, and therefor mentally unwell individuals didn't become incited by him to attack our fellow countrymen.

[*Nately120*]

(10-30-2018, 11:30 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Because the narrative going around now is the Evil of the current administration is fueling this and if you don't act to remove it, you are complicit with this evil. Did Obama's evil fuel Dylan Roof? 

I'd agree with you, but people don't exactly care for my canned response to tragedy being a shrug and saying it's out of my hands.

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2018, 12:11 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd agree with you, but people don't exactly care for my canned response to tragedy being a shrug and saying it's out of my hands.

Sure they do. That's what "thoughts and prayers" are, after all.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-30-2018, 12:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sure they do. That's what "thoughts and prayers" are, after all.

So is the hatred of virtue signaling a bi-partisan thing?  (I'm glad someone came up with a name for it a few years back because it's irritated me my whole life and I never knew how to explain it.)

[*PhilHos*]

(10-30-2018, 12:41 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sure they do. That's what "thoughts and prayers" are, after all.

For some maybe, but for many others, no they are not a "canned response". 

[*Nately120*]

(10-30-2018, 01:48 PM)PhilHos Wrote: For some maybe, but for many others, no they are not a "canned response". 

Canned doesn't have to mean insincere.  I'd say thoughts and prayers is a canned response because it's predictable, pre-loaded, ready at a moment's notice, unchanging, and (this is where people can disagree) ultimately disconnected from the actual situation. We can predict "thoughts and prayers" just as we can predict the laugh track in a sit-com.

My response of "It's out of my hands" is canned, because it's always ready.  Does it help?  No, I guess not, but I believe it.  I'm cynical enough to think that it would go from a bad response to a good one if I could sincerely say "It's in the Lord's hands" instead.

Again, total cynic here, so feel free to disregard.

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2018, 01:48 PM)PhilHos Wrote: For some maybe, but for many others, no they are not a "canned response". 

(10-30-2018, 01:58 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Canned doesn't have to mean insincere.  I'd say thoughts and prayers is a canned response because it's predictable, pre-loaded, ready at a moment's notice, unchanging, and (this is where people can disagree) ultimately disconnected from the actual situation. We can predict "thoughts and prayers" just as we can predict the laugh track in a sit-com.

My response of "It's out of my hands" is canned, because it's always ready.  Does it help?  No, I guess not, but I believe it.  I'm cynical enough to think that it would go from a bad response to a good one if I could sincerely say "It's in the Lord's hands" instead.

Again, total cynic here, so feel free to disregard.

I agree with Nately, here, which I'm sure is no surprise given my statement. If you look at Webster's, they list it like this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canned

Quote:1 : preserved in a sealed can or jar canned peaches canned pumpkin

2a : prepared or recorded in advance especially : prepared in standardized form for nonspecific use or wide distribution

b : lacking originality or individuality as if mass-produced

I'd have a hard time not classifying the "thoughts and prayers" in with that.

[*Nately120*]

(10-30-2018, 02:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree with Nately, here, which I'm sure is no surprise given my statement. If you look at Webster's, they list it like this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/canned


I'd have a hard time not classifying the "thoughts and prayers" in with that.

One could even argue that "thoughts and prayers" has been run into the ground so much that it has become hijacked and turned into a statement of disconnected apathy.  It's possible saying "thoughts and prayers" meant something at one point, but you can only associate something with pointless killings so much before the endlessly repeating negativity of the action that inspires the saying rubs off on it.

I don't blame people for saying it, but I also don't blame people for associating that phrase with apathy and a pervasive societal urge to respond to domestic issues by twisting the facts or sweeping them under the rug.  Personally, I associate "thoughts and prayers" with "let's do nothing and pretend this isn't a big deal" but that's just me.  Politicians have ruined that statement for me. Plus, it's selective application can be seen as an agenda. Thoughts and prayers are a fitting response to a white guy shooting people, but we want legislation to protect us from Mexican rapists...not cheap ass words!

Things change. Words change. You can name your daughter after the Egyptian goddess of the moon...but 99.9% of people aren't going to think of that when they hear the name Isis.

[Benton]

(10-30-2018, 02:27 PM)Nately120 Wrote: One could even argue that "thoughts and prayers" has been run into the ground so much that it has become hijacked and turned into a statement of disconnected apathy.  It's possible saying "thoughts and prayers" meant something at one point, but you can only associate something with pointless killings so much before the endlessly repeating negativity of the action that inspires the saying rubs off on it.

I don't blame people for saying it, but I also don't blame people for associating that phrase with apathy and a pervasive societal urge to respond to domestic issues by twisting the facts or sweeping them under the rug.  Personally, I associate "thoughts and prayers" with "let's do nothing and pretend this isn't a big deal" but that's just me.  Politicians have ruined that statement for me.  Plus, it's selective application can be seen as an agenda.  Thoughts and prayers are a fitting response to a white guy shooting people, but we want legislation to protect us from Mexican rapists...not cheap ass words!

Things change.  Words change.  You can name your daughter after the Egyptian goddess of the moon...but 99.9% of people aren't going to think of that when they hear the name Isis.

It's like "I'm sorry for your loss" after a death.

The person may genuinely be saddened for the recipient's loss, but if you're in mourning, it's the go to line for people who don't have or don't know what else to say. So it takes a lot of the meaning off when you hear it a few dozen times from people ranging from those who knew the deceased to those who showed up for the free peppermints.

[Belsnickel]

(10-30-2018, 03:40 PM)Benton Wrote: It's like "I'm sorry for your loss" after a death.

The person may genuinely be saddened for the recipient's loss, but if you're in mourning, it's the go to line for people who don't have or don't know what else to say. So it takes a lot of the meaning off when you hear it a few dozen times from people ranging from those who knew the deceased to those who showed up for the free peppermints.

Exactly.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-30-2018, 03:40 PM)Benton Wrote: It's like "I'm sorry for your loss" after a death.

The person may genuinely be saddened for the recipient's loss, but if you're in mourning, it's the go to line for people who don't have or don't know what else to say. So it takes a lot of the meaning off when you hear it a few dozen times from people ranging from those who knew the deceased to those who showed up for the free peppermints.

If you are on the receiving end, at least for me, it's understood and appreciated.  You appreciate the person came, and you understand there are no words that will make things better, and that staring at each other for 10 seconds would be awkward. 

 Now "they are in a better place" would be a different story.  My brother was 46 when he died in 2012, and someone telling his wife and three kids that he was in a better place (I don't think any did) would be met with a visual eff you.  Maybe an older person who was sick and in pain you could get away with it.  

[GMDino]

(10-30-2018, 03:40 PM)Benton Wrote: It's like "I'm sorry for your loss" after a death.

The person may genuinely be saddened for the recipient's loss, but if you're in mourning, it's the go to line for people who don't have or don't know what else to say. So it takes a lot of the meaning off when you hear it a few dozen times from people ranging from those who knew the deceased to those who showed up for the free peppermints.

As an aside:  When my grandmother died in 2000 if someone I knew could handle it said "I'm sorry" I would ask "Why? Did you kill her?"

The moment of shock on their faces was so worth it...and they all got that I was joking and no one was offended. I've done it at other funerals too. They can be too serious.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-30-2018, 04:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: As an aside:  When my grandmother died in 2000 if someone I knew could handle it said "I'm sorry" I would ask "Why? Did you kill her?"

The moment of shock on their faces was so worth it...and they all got that I was joking and no one was offended.  I've done it at other funerals too.  They can be too serious.

You're a dick.

[*Nately120*]

(10-30-2018, 03:40 PM)Benton Wrote: It's like "I'm sorry for your loss" after a death.

The person may genuinely be saddened for the recipient's loss, but if you're in mourning, it's the go to line for people who don't have or don't know what else to say. So it takes a lot of the meaning off when you hear it a few dozen times from people ranging from those who knew the deceased to those who showed up for the free peppermints.

The issue isn't commoners saying it,  but our leaders who are supposedly in a position to protect us or change things.  If I tell my friend I have cancer he can say he's praying for me or thinking about me. If I tell my oncologist I have cancer, I expect a more in depth and solutions-based response. 

Unless we are terminal, in which case you'll get the "best of luck...sorry" response from everyone.  

[GMDino]

(10-30-2018, 04:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You're a dick.

Indeed.

But she was 80-something so it's not like the case was unsolved.