(03-19-2021, 01:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: Long article so I won't copy and paste but there is a lot more information on the victims and so more background on the shooter.
It's very interesting how, with no solid evidence, the media and the current administration is running with the hate crime angle.
FBI Director Christopher Wray said in an interview with NPR that the investigation into the shootings was ongoing, but "at the moment it does not appear that the motive was racially motivated."
Who cares, we decided it was because it fits our narrative.
Crappy comedian Trevor Noah adds;
Trevor Noah on Atlanta shootings:'If that's not racism then the word has no meaning'
If this terrible tragedy is racism simply because the victims were predominantly of a certain ethnicity then inner city gang members are the most racist people on the planet.
Also, remember kids, this is all because of white supremacy, because one white person's actions are indicative of the entire ethnicity, apparently.
The rush to politicize this awful occurrence is both troubling and nauseating at the same time. Also, what about the two victims who weren't Asian? Aww, who gives a shit about them.
(03-19-2021, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Certainly not at a national level.
Something to fear at some level perhaps? State, city, neighborhood?
(03-19-2021, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's address this a different way. We've been inundated in this country about the dangers of white supremacy. We've been told, and it's been repeated here, that the Capitol Hill rioters are representative of Trumps supporters and their "cult". Let's say there were ~2,000 at the Capitol overall, not just the ones engaged in riotous behavior. So, if these people are representative of the 74+ million Trump voters and supporters, what does the 100k+ members of ISIS say about Islam? Just posing the question.
Please answer so I can keep it for my records.
Yow! This looks like a very useful analogy. For both our records.
Tucker Carlson says that MSM journalists reporting on the beliefs and justifications given by the insurrectionists seek to brand all Trump supporters as rioters. The difficulty Trump and many Republican Senators and Representatives had denouncing them lends credence to such a view, but those reporters would still be crazy wrong to generalize from part to whole like that. I'm not aware of any MSM journalist who would actually make that claim. It's more a Fox thing; how people reason when they want something to be true.
So I reject the fallacy of composition here, when constructing wholes from statistical parts. Like good MSM journalists, I have always disaggregated Trump voters into groups (often overlapping) which may have very different interests and susceptibility to conspiracy theories and insurrection--the alt-right, Evangelicals, traditional Republicans, the military, police, Reagan Dems in the Rust Belt, and white people who own country clubs, casinos, and oil companies. QAnon supporters appear in all these groups as well. Some of these seem over-represented among the insurrectionists so far arrested, like the alt-right and QAnon supporters, if we are going by those with the most visibility so far, though the distribution is surprisingly broad.
One more point to secure here, regarding your 2,000 number. It is thanks to the FBI and the Dept. of Homeland Security that we are inundated with warnings domestic terrorism threatened by white supremacy. The number of groups and hate incidents dramatically increased under Trump. 1/6 was the culmination of that growth so far. Their warnings are surely based upon a larger number--their concerns encompassing incidents like the attempt to capture and execute the governor of Michigan last year and the crowds of protestors who sought to disrupt the vote count in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. A composite number of white supremacist group membership would be considerably higher than 2,000. High estimate of the Pro-Western Proud Boys is 6,000 according to Wikipedia, and the current Klan is between 3-5,000. If we include supporters, sympathizers and other marginals, I don't see why the number white supremacists couldn't approach 100,000, though not all would be inclined to violence.
So turning to the 100,000 ISIS members (all violent) part of the world's billion+ Muslims--what do they say about Islam? I have an idea how Tucker would answer this question, but I'd say--not much. Not just because they have been denounced as un-Islamic by every Muslim-majority nation in the world. In the first place, their emergence was rather unique--created by the mismanaged and unnecessary war in Iraq, out of an ideology developed in another mismanaged war in Afghanistan decades earlier. Like our own white supremacist militants, the original group were individuals suffering from acute identity crises, a sense of diminished future. ISIS itself emerged in the cauldron of Sunni demotion and dispossession which followed the ousting of Saddam. Their outreach was to identity-stressed and dispossessed Muslims wherever they can find them. Only a trickle responded, though. The inter-organizational competitions intensified their extremism as did their initial success in acquiring territory in the power vacuum of two broken states, making them an international pariah beyond the pale even of North Korea.
I'd say most Muslims around the world interpreted their faith in Islam such that it prevented them joining or approving of ISIS, just as in the U.S. the Christian beliefs of many Republicans would prevent them from killing a Capitol cop or a governor, or breaking the law in general. Listening to an insurrectionist pray and thank God in the House of Representatives didn't raise my fear level of world-wide Christianity.
So, hard to get to ISIS just from Islam; easy to get there, if one compares the phenomenon to other insurgencies arising from radical destruction of immediate social environment--e.g., the Tamil Tigers, Khmer Rouge, Shining Path, the Sierra Leone Civil War, Nauxalites in India. Nazi Germany might figure here too, though their seizure of power was not an insurgency. I am thinking of circumstances that produced both a particularly ruthless political machine and the opportunities it needed to assume control of a state (though that was not a necessary outcome).
(03-19-2021, 12:38 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not aware of white guys killing Asian women in massage parlors as statistically salient.
White guys killing women who "tempt" or frustrate them is though. The 1989École Polytechnique massacre in Montreal, in which 15 women were killed by an avowed anti-feminist, is an example. Incel Elliot Rodgers may also count https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/us/elliot-rodger-killings-in-california-followed-years-of-withdrawal.html
And he was a role model for incel Alec Minassian.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/03/03/incel-alek-minassian-found-guilty-van-attack-killed-10/6906716002/
I'm not sure the incel phenomenon is an issue for all ethnicities at the moment, though it may become so. Things like male coercive control over women, for example, may indeed be spread across all "races," but also be spread more thickly in some places because of culture, not nature (e.g., think of "honor killings in Africa and the ME"). Same for the incel phenomenon. Same for the desire to punish women for putting impure thoughts in one's head. That usually requires some special binding of sex and shame learned from religious or cultural teachings.
I think it has to do with hate, and I think that has not just as much to do with Christian culture, or white Christian culture. "Incel", I don't kow about them. I would not put every lonely man into this group, and I would not blame this group for a man killing 8 people.
But I am not intending on doing social analysis now. I'm not Asian, I don't run the numbers on that. I just always wondered how these things work without it anyway, when which assumption is ok and when it is not.
If there's a vehicle driving in a crowd, we shall never jump to the conclusion it was an islamic terror attack. Although it always is. The one time it was not, facebook was full of people calling anyone who dared to assume it was should be ashamed to the bone. How could you jump the gun like that. Bad bad people.
There's a famous turkish soccer player who campaigned for Erdogan, that autocrat. But quite some people claimed he is not to blame, the western failure in integrating people is. Bad western people, look what you made this broken dude do. Sure.
On the same hand, I can say about Germans whatever I want. Or Americans for that matter. They can't find themselves on the map, right, yeah ha, so uneducated, no one has a problem with that here. And they're fat and stupid and overly nationalistic and whatnot. You can't say these things about Turkish people. It would be "dangerous right wing talk".
If a black person is found dead, one should not assume he was killed by another black person. Though that most often is the case. (You still shouldn't, I agree with that.)
But for some reason, you can always assume a white guy is racist. Not defending that killer's honor, assume at will. But how so many politicians and media people just declare this a racist deed is astonishing. And apparently racism is more of a thing as misogyny right now, so it's not about inherent sexism, but inherent racism. Though 6 - or all, that would not hinder the bigger point - victims were women and the killer actually talked about women.
You also always can blame Christianity for all kinds of bad things and bad deeds. With Islam, you need to be more careful already. Islamophobia is something people are quick to assume.
Can say all kinds of shit about men. Have to be careful not to stereotype women.
I always wondered how that is. So I figured it out, of course. It's, well duh, about power and influence. The more power and influence a certain demographic has or is thought to have, the more you are allowed to assume or talk in unflattering stereotypes and call it social analysis or whatever. That seems to be the code.
I often feel there's an inherent disingenuity factored into many debates because of that, but that feeling seldomly is shared.
Sorry for not answering in a more thoughtful way. I don't have the time to smarten it up.
(03-19-2021, 06:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Something to fear at some level perhaps? State, city, neighborhood?
I don't know. To speak definitively on this I'd have to actually engage in studies to either prove or debunk the claim. Do you know the answer?
Quote:Yow! This looks like a very useful analogy. For both our records.
Hurah!
Quote:Tucker Carlson says that MSM journalists reporting on the beliefs and justifications given by the insurrectionists seek to brand all Trump supporters as rioters. The difficulty Trump and many Republican Senators and Representatives had denouncing them lends credence to such a view, but those reporters would still be crazy wrong to generalize from part to whole like that. I'm not aware of any MSM journalist who would actually make that claim. It's more a Fox thing; how people reason when they want something to be true.
OK, so let's completely concede your MSM point, which we obviously shouldn't do without being thorough, but still. Are you saying there are no politicians who have made this analogy? Are you saying none of the posters here have made this analogy?
Quote:So I reject the fallacy of composition here, when constructing wholes from statistical parts. Like good MSM journalists, I have always disaggregated Trump voters into groups (often overlapping) which may have very different interests and susceptibility to conspiracy theories and insurrection--the alt-right, Evangelicals, traditional Republicans, the military, police, Reagan Dems in the Rust Belt, and white people who own country clubs, casinos, and oil companies. QAnon supporters appear in all these groups as well. Some of these seem over-represented among the insurrectionists so far arrested, like the alt-right and QAnon supporters, if we are going by those with the most visibility so far, though the distribution is surprisingly broad.
Forgive me, but this seems to be a back door way of saying exactly what you're claiming no one is saying.
Quote:One more point to secure here, regarding your 2,000 number. It is thanks to the FBI and the Dept. of Homeland Security that we are inundated with warnings domestic terrorism threatened by white supremacy. The number of groups and hate incidents dramatically increased under Trump. 1/6 was the culmination of that growth so far. Their warnings are surely based upon a larger number--their concerns encompassing incidents like the attempt to capture and execute the governor of Michigan last year and the crowds of protestors who sought to disrupt the vote count in Arizona, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. A composite number of white supremacist group membership would be considerably higher than 2,000. High estimate of the Pro-Western Proud Boys is 6,000 according to Wikipedia, and the current Klan is between 3-5,000. If we include supporters, sympathizers and other marginals, I don't see why the number white supremacists couldn't approach 100,000, though not all would be inclined to violence.
OK, let's roll with the 100k comparison. If nothing else it makes for easy math.
Quote:So turning to the 100,000 ISIS members (all violent) part of the world's billion+ Muslims--what do they say about Islam? I have an idea how Tucker would answer this question, but I'd say--not much.
Tucker Carlson's opinion is not germane to our discussion, nor would I care what it is.
Quote:Not just because they have been denounced as un-Islamic by every Muslim-majority nation in the world. In the first place, their emergence was rather unique--created by the mismanaged and unnecessary war in Iraq, out of an ideology developed in another mismanaged war in Afghanistan decades earlier. Like our own white supremacist militants, the original group were individuals suffering from acute identity crises, a sense of diminished future. ISIS itself emerged in the cauldron of Sunni demotion and dispossession which followed the ousting of Saddam. Their outreach was to identity-stressed and dispossessed Muslims wherever they can find them. Only a trickle responded, though. The inter-organizational competitions intensified their extremism as did their initial success in acquiring territory in the power vacuum of two broken states, making them an international pariah beyond the pale even of North Korea.
How they were able to come into being is important, but it's not nearly as important as the number of people who flocked to join it afterwards. Interestingly enough, you appear to be laying the blame on the, admitted shit show, war and subsequent managing of Iraq. However, you don't mention the Syrian civil war that really spawned the movement. Unless your assertion is that Assad and his policies had nothing to do with ISIS coming into existence and everything would have been fine there if Saddam was still in power in Iraq.
Quote:I'd say most Muslims around the world interpreted their faith in Islam such that it prevented them joining or approving of ISIS, just as in the U.S. the Christian beliefs of many Republicans would prevent them from killing a Capitol cop or a governor, or breaking the law in general. Listening to an insurrectionist pray and thank God in the House of Representatives didn't raise my fear level of world-wide Christianity.
Most, absolutely. So we appear to be on the same page. That the Capitol rioters are no more representative of white people or conservatives in the US than ISIS is for Muslims.
Quote:So, hard to get to ISIS just from Islam; easy to get there, if one compares the phenomenon to other insurgencies arising from radical destruction of immediate social environment--e.g., the Tamil Tigers, Khmer Rouge, Shining Path, the Sierra Leone Civil War, Nauxalites in India. Nazi Germany might figure here too, though their seizure of power was not an insurgency. I am thinking of circumstances that produced both a particularly ruthless political machine and the opportunities it needed to assume control of a state (though that was not a necessary outcome).
Actually Islam is absolutely essential to ISIS's existence. While it may express a twisted and militant understanding of the religion, the religion itself is required for someone to interpret it in the first place. In addition there are widely followed, virulent sects, within it, such as Wahabism. As we have discussed on many instances Saudi Arabia provides a near perfect petri dish for radical interpretations of Islam, as decades worth of events have shown. Also, just like the Bible, there are passage in the Quran and the Hadith that absolutely lend themselves to the kind of aggressive militancy expressed, at it's most vile, by ISIS. So I don't think you can completely divorce Islam from the conduct of ISIS as readily as you would like.
The good thing here is that we both agree that throwing a label on a large group of people due to the actions of individuals is wrong.
(03-20-2021, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: I think it has to do with hate, and I think that has not just as much to do with Christian culture, or white Christian culture. "Incel", I don't kow about them. I would not put every lonely man into this group, and I would not blame this group for a man killing 8 people.
But I am not intending on doing social analysis now. I'm not Asian, I don't run the numbers on that. I just always wondered how these things work without it anyway, when which assumption is ok and when it is not.
If there's a vehicle driving in a crowd, we shall never jump to the conclusion it was an islamic terror attack. Although it always is. The one time it was not, facebook was full of people calling anyone who dared to assume it was should be ashamed to the bone. How could you jump the gun like that. Bad bad people.
There's a famous turkish soccer player who campaigned for Erdogan, that autocrat. But quite some people claimed he is not to blame, the western failure in integrating people is. Bad western people, look what you made this broken dude do. Sure.
On the same hand, I can say about Germans whatever I want. Or Americans for that matter. They can't find themselves on the map, right, yeah ha, so uneducated, no one has a problem with that here. And they're fat and stupid and overly nationalistic and whatnot. You can't say these things about Turkish people. It would be "dangerous right wing talk".
If a black person is found dead, one should not assume he was killed by another black person. Though that most often is the case. (You still shouldn't, I agree with that.)
But for some reason, you can always assume a white guy is racist. Not defending that killer's honor, assume at will. But how so many politicians and media people just declare this a racist deed is astonishing. And apparently racism is more of a thing as misogyny right now, so it's not about inherent sexism, but inherent racism. Though 6 - or all, that would not hinder the bigger point - victims were women and the killer actually talked about women.
You also always can blame Christianity for all kinds of bad things and bad deeds. With Islam, you need to be more careful already. Islamophobia is something people are quick to assume.
Can say all kinds of shit about men. Have to be careful not to stereotype women.
I always wondered how that is. So I figured it out, of course. It's, well duh, about power and influence. The more power and influence a certain demographic has or is thought to have, the more you are allowed to assume or talk in unflattering stereotypes and call it social analysis or whatever. That seems to be the code.
I often feel there's an inherent disingenuity factored into many debates because of that, but that feeling seldomly is shared.
Sorry for not answering in a more thoughtful way. I don't have the time to smarten it up.
(03-20-2021, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: I think it has to do with hate, and I think that has not just as much to do with Christian culture, or white Christian culture. "Incel", I don't kow about them. I would not put every lonely man into this group, and I would not blame this group for a man killing 8 people.
Three points on this:
1. "Hate" is an impossibly vague term. But we hear it all the time. Last night I was listening to commentators and interviews talk of "stopping the hate." It's like asking "What causes COVID-19? How do we stop the spread?" and answering "It's all caused by 'disease.' Stop the disease." So sure, it has to do with hate, but we need to go further, and as with the fight against COVID, research the variants, their causes, vectors of dissemination.
2. Hope I didn't give you the impression that "incel" is the catch-all label for any lonely man. No. Like Bengals fans, they are a group with a self-identified interest who share their views online in their own "code." E.g., you and I would be "Chads" to them. So if some guy were to pop up in this forum saying he had trouble dating women, no responsible person would call him "incel." It's not a catchall term like "bachelor" or "homeowner." If I hear someone say "I love football," I don't respond "Ok, that guy's a Bengals fan."
3. I don't know that the Atlanta shooter has any ties to the incel movement at all, that he spends time on line, etc. In any case, I'm not sure I would even say incel was the cause when incels do kill people, like those cited in my earlier post. Those people had serious problems before they identified as "incel." I only brought up the incel movement to explain why, as Dino says, there is a stereotype of frustrated white males who kill women, but so far as I know, none of frustrated black males who commit this kind of crime. (Not saying they can't; would that be "racist"? Or is it racist to note that Americans of African descent can commit every category of crime too?)
(03-20-2021, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: But I am not intending on doing social analysis now. I'm not Asian, I don't run the numbers on that. I just always wondered how these things work without it anyway, when which assumption is ok and when it is not.
If there's a vehicle driving in a crowd, we shall never jump to the conclusion it was an islamic terror attack. Although it always is. The one time it was not, facebook was full of people calling anyone who dared to assume it was should be ashamed to the bone. How could you jump the gun like that. Bad bad people.
There's a famous turkish soccer player who campaigned for Erdogan, that autocrat. But quite some people claimed he is not to blame, the western failure in integrating people is. Bad western people, look what you made this broken dude do. Sure.
On the same hand, I can say about Germans whatever I want. Or Americans for that matter. They can't find themselves on the map, right, yeah ha, so uneducated, no one has a problem with that here. And they're fat and stupid and overly nationalistic and whatnot. You can't say these things about Turkish people. It would be "dangerous right wing talk".
As to the first, the pattern of "when which" is clearer when we look to the history of who has dominated whom.
That's why we can all say about Germans whatever we want. Things might be different if you guys* had lost Kahlenberg and then spent 200 years winning independence from your Turkish oppressors. As it is, Turks entered the Germanosphere in the 60s as needed labor, and have remained "on site" in significant numbers and in a socially dominated position ever since, and fueling traditional xenophobia there. Your neighbors get to decide whether they are good and responsible enough to join NATO. And you get a vote on whether they can join the EU, or stay in it.
I have many times listened to your Germanophone northern brothers complain about Amis and Turks, and I never detected racism against white Americans in the former; against the Turks it was complaints about an inferior and foreign culture, inflected with racism. I can imagine what some are saying now about the influx of Syrians.
I suppose some Americans get huffy if you criticize them. I don't, at least not when the criticism is justified. (Two years ago, I had a discussion with a local student who was about to graduate with a degree in political science. He could not point out Mexico on a map of North and Central America.)
Don't know which soccer player you refer to, or his circumstances. Did he play for a European team and experience racism, as non-Europeans often do? Or are you just trying to evade your shared responsibility for turning him, Hollo!
I'm going to finish this in separate post, so it doesn't get too long.
*Not "you Germans" but "you Viennese."**
**With a little help from your Polish friends. A lot of help, really.
(03-20-2021, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: If a black person is found dead, one should not assume he was killed by another black person. Though that most often is the case. (You still shouldn't, I agree with that.) But for some reason, you can always assume a white guy is racist. Not defending that killer's honor, assume at will. But how so many politicians and media people just declare this a racist deed is astonishing. And apparently racism is more of a thing as misogyny right now, so it's not about inherent sexism, but inherent racism. Though 6 - or all, that would not hinder the bigger point - victims were women and the killer actually talked about women.
Doesn't where and when a person is found play some role here? If a black person were found dead on the roads around Indiana, PA, I would not assume he was killed by another black person. I doubt the county sheriff would either. My bet is statistics play a much lesser role than location and, perhaps, cause of death. Sure, though, if a Crip is found murdered on Blood territory, it probably wasn't the Klan. But if we are police we don't just "assume" do we? We investigate regardless of assumptions.
I'm not sure we always a assume a white guy is racist. But there is less pushback in a case where six victims are of another race, one now frequently targeted for hate crimes. There can be non-racist reasons for the killings, I suppose. Perhaps the majority of spas in Metropolitan Atlanta are staffed by Asian women, and the sex of those who worked there was more important for the killer than race. Were the staff in the region predominately white or black, then so would the victims have been. But you are saying maybe the media and the online condemnation have decided "racism" in this case. Prematurely. Because they can. Because, as you note below, it's the whites who have the power and influence. But also more, because its the whites who have an organized ideology of racial superiority which includes a need to defend that race, which often manifests itself in events like mosque or synagogue shootings. There are near mirror-reflections of such ideology held by a small number of Black people in the U.S., but it has so far not expressed itself in similar massacres.
In the Atlanta case the rush to judgment is not that astonishing if we listen to what some of the judges say. E.g. Rep. Meng, whose tearful response to the "lynching" comments of her colleague from Texas, was frustrated for years in her attempts to get the Trump administration to take anti-Asian violence seriously. I think she is fair in assuming that racial stereotypes, racism, played a part in that lack of interest. After all "her kind" brought the virus to the U.S., right? And I think others, like Hu, Lee, and Huang above, are not at all wrong in assuming this pre-disposition to blame Asians as a group, this license to violence against them, did not appear overnight. It is rooted in a long history of racial assumptions on the part of those calling the shots in the U.S.
Doesn't mean you are wrong about people reaching too quickly for the racist label when ever one of us white guys kills a a non-white person. But in this case, it looks like a lot of justified, pent up frustration in the U.S. Asian community has them speaking out more often and loudly than in the past, and sympathetic liberals amplifying the message, while tone deaf whites like Chip Roy and Captain Jay Baker illustrate the problem from public platforms.
Still wrong for them to jump to conclusions in their attempt to get recognition. I am just saying I understand why their judgment may push too quickly past what the evidence authorizes.
(03-20-2021, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: You also always can blame Christianity for all kinds of bad things and bad deeds. With Islam, you need to be more careful already. Islamophobia is something people are quick to assume.
Can say all kinds of shit about men. Have to be careful not to stereotype women.
I always wondered how that is. So I figured it out, of course. It's, well duh, about power and influence. The more power and influence a certain demographic has or is thought to have, the more you are allowed to assume or talk in unflattering stereotypes and call it social analysis or whatever. That seems to be the code.
I often feel there's an inherent disingenuity factored into many debates because of that, but that feeling seldomly is shared.
Sorry for not answering in a more thoughtful way. I don't have the time to smarten it up.
Er, in the U.S., one cannot blame Christianity* "for all kinds of things" with complete impunity. You think so and you get Trump for president.
I don't know if "Islamophobia" is something people are quick to assume. Certainly not more of a problem than Islamophobia. Islamophobes like Pamela Gellar dispute that it even exists.
Can't say shit about gay men, poor men, elderly men, or handicapped men, at least in reference to those attributes.
But yes, power is what un-levels the playing field in discussions of ethnicity and gender. And whether it is "social analysis" depends on whether it is actually analysis, and not just blaming. (I understand that many do not see the difference. But I am always seeking to affirm it in discussions like this.)
I don't have trouble with the un-leveling, but I do have a problem when blame precedes or utterly replaces analysis. And I think that might be what so discomfits you now. The standards are always changing, and competing groups claim authority to define and judge. But you aren't in those groups. That one word you and everyone around you have been saying all your life was ok yesterday, but not today, and presto--you are a racist, according to some teenager. "And not surprising, given you are Austrian." Suddenly the judges practice the same kind of inherently biased hasty ethnic generalization they claim to criticize. But if you push back, that too is racist.**
This is especially confusing for people of my age, who grew up when overt racism was still common, if not always ok.*** And you were a good guy if you openly rejected that. Now my peers muddy the waters further by simply trying to flip or mirror the charge--"You said 'white,' so you are the one referring to 'race' and that makes you the racist."
LOL am I racist for suddenly noting out loud how easy these discussions are with other white people acting in good faith? I'll take the risk.
*Just found out the Atlanta shooter was a Southern Baptist, and getting religious counseling for his "sex addiction," and was close to being disowned by his family for this shameful behavior. This looms at least as large for me as that bystander who supposedly heard him say he was going to "kill Asians."
**If it's any consolation, some concerned minorities in the U.S. are discussing this problem, the unfair bind in which it places white people, and the fact it creates backlash, not the desired listening and understanding. Check out the Race Card Project. https://www.npr.org/series/173814508/the-race-card-project
***My sixth grade ('63-64) teacher would never let anyone in my all-white class use the N-word. But we could comment on whether Black Americans should have equal rights or, as some said echoing their parents, "Go back where they came from." When a Japanese missionary came to visit for a week, and walked around the neighborhood smiling and waving at people, some friends and their parents were curious as to why we had a "Jap" was living with us.
A day after the Atlanta shootings, Xiao Zhen Xie, 75, was standing at a San Francisco intersection, waiting to cross the street, when a white man ran up to her and punched her face.
White men make up around 38% of the population. Of the 7,964 arrests for murder only 3,650 of them were white, or 46% or the total arrests. But hold on, Hispanic/Latino is included in that number, as shown further to the right of the chart where we see Hispanic/Latino account for 1341 of them. So, our new total is 2,309 or 29%, which is obviously lower than 38%. Now, here's where certain people will deal the racism card off the bottom of the deck. Black men make up ~7% of the population. The number of arrests for murder in 2019 was 4078. Not only is that raw number in excess of white arrests, even when Hispanic/Latinos are included in that number, but it's also 51% of the total number of arrests. So, 38% commit 29% of murders, and 7% commit 51%. Consequently, I'll start taking the liberal shill media seriously when they start treating all problems equally instead of constantly banging the drum of "white supremacy" and deliberately reinforcing it with the manner in which they report stories.
I should note, for those among us inclined to view things like this in a negative light, this in no way means black people are inherently violent. It also does not take into account the differing circumstances for many black and white people. But it does expose the utter flaws in the MSM narrative, which I firmly believe is done deliberately.
You'll notice the only thing approaching national coverage of this story as Yahoo news, and who the hell reads that? The circumstances of this crime are egregiously brutal and nauseating. Why would this story zero national attention? It's so blatant that a search of google using "asian woman raped and murdered in wisconsin" actually has The Guardian's report on the shooting in GA on the front page.
Remember folks, even though numerous anti-Asian incidents are committed by non-whites you will only be told of the ethnicity of the attacker if they are white. I wonder if these people have even the slightest inkling of the long term damage this type of racism is going to cause?
(03-20-2021, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't know. To speak definitively on this I'd have to actually engage in studies to either prove or debunk the claim. Do you know the answer?
There can always be "lone wolf" threats. Hard to predict where they come from. While the FBI is watching Somalis and Saudis, a Yemeni immigrant might decide the best way to call attention to his country's plight is an attack. The push to de-couple some Arab states from backing the Palestinian Authorities would have me concerned, were I in the FBI. (Though as a private citizen, I support Palestinian rights and deplore the occupation.)
But no real national, state, or local threat in the sense that white supremacists groups do now. The destruction of the ISIS state and degrading of Al Qaeda has greatly diminished the threat of terrorism from those quarters.
(03-20-2021, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OK, so let's completely concede your MSM point, which we obviously shouldn't do without being thorough, but still. Are you saying there are no politicians who have made this analogy? Are you saying none of the posters here have made this analogy?
There are more than 200 Dem representatives in the House, and 50 inn the Senate. Who knows how many hundreds more at the state level. I cannot assert with 100% confidence that no Dem politician somewhere sometime validated Tucker's claim. I can say no one with a national platform has been claiming that. As far as posters here, I have no idea. There are many threads I have never clicked on. Some of the longer ones, I check them maybe once every two weeks. This is a message board and people frequently blurt out stuff without thinking, so I'd grant the possibility. Do not recall actually reading that, though.
What we want to be careful of is this--Tucker wants us to talk about how the MSM identify ALL Republicans or Trump supporters with window-breaking, cop-beating, Capitol-desecrating insurrectionists. Isn't that something? And after tolerating BLM violence all summer! But I don't think he expects his audience to check that closely. So far as I can tell Tucker, and friends at Fox, are the primary source of the claim. It's like one of his recent segments on COVID, in which he keeps asking questions like "How effective is this Corona virus vaccine? How necessary is it to take the vaccine? Don't dismiss those questions from anti-vaxers; Don't kick people off social media for asking them--answer the questions!" The questions, of course are answered everyday and easy to find. But for people who don't "trust" the mainstream media and so never tune in, creating this issue of "unanswered" questions keeps viewer attention on a non-problem, on alternative facts created by Tucker and others like him. Same deal for the "MSM paints us all as rioters" theme.
(03-20-2021, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So I reject the fallacy of composition here, when constructing wholes from statistical parts. Like good MSM journalists, I have always disaggregated Trump voters into groups (often overlapping) which may have very different interests and susceptibility to conspiracy theories and insurrection--the alt-right, Evangelicals, traditional Republicans, the military, police, Reagan Dems in the Rust Belt, and white people who own country clubs, casinos, and oil companies. QAnon supporters appear in all these groups as well. Some of these seem over-represented among the insurrectionists so far arrested, like the alt-right and QAnon supporters, if we are going by those with the most visibility so far, though the distribution is surprisingly broad.
Forgive me, but this seems to be a back door way of saying exactly what you're claiming no one is saying.
Well, you have to be clearer then if you want me to understand this point. What do you think I am claiming?
Number one, that I've heard no one beyond some people at Fox insist that MSM journalists and Dems want us all to believe that 74 million Republican voters are as fanatic the insurrectionists, that all the Repub voters are like that, etc.
But I am not asserting there is NO connection between the insurrectionists and the Republican party and its leader, who sent them to the Capitol.
I am definitely not claiming that ONLY some 2,000 out of 74 million share the insurrectionists views.
In the passage above, I say the Republican party is composed of lots of groups--many, maybe even a majority of the 74 million, may have no more in common with the insurrectionists than garden-variety Dem voters. That is not a way of saying the insurrectionists symbolize or otherwise stand in for the whole of the Republican party, as Tucker claims MSM journalists do. Quite the opposite.
I am saying these groups exhibit different degrees of susceptibility to the insurrectionists' constitutional fundamentalism. Same for their representatives. That's why McConnell wants to condemn the whole show and its sponsor, while Hawley can contest certification of electoral ballots as the Capitol is stormed--and not fear being primaried. That's why someone like Marjorie Greene or Devin Nunes can win at all. A January poll showed 53% of Republicans still thought the election had been stolen. That's millions of people and VERY scary and concerning to me. They have something in common there with the insurrectionists. But I'd be surprised if the number of people who might actually break Capitol windows and lynch Nancy Pelosi exceeded 100,000, if gathered from every locality in the U.S. Tucker's claim is more extreme. He wants us to believe MSM journalists identify the entire 74 million with that radical 100,000. Same same. No part, just a whole.
(03-20-2021, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Tucker Carlson's opinion is not germane to our discussion, nor would I care what it is.
It is not relevant in the sense that it contributes knowledge. But it is relevant as a benchmark for bad practice. We don't want to make the kind of hasty generalization he does.
(03-20-2021, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Not just because they have been denounced as un-Islamic by every Muslim-majority nation in the world. In the first place, their emergence was rather unique--created by the mismanaged and unnecessary war in Iraq, out of an ideology developed in another mismanaged war in Afghanistan decades earlier. Like our own white supremacist militants, the original group were individuals suffering from acute identity crises, a sense of diminished future. ISIS itself emerged in the cauldron of Sunni demotion and dispossession which followed the ousting of Saddam. Their outreach was to identity-stressed and dispossessed Muslims wherever they can find them. Only a trickle responded, though. The inter-organizational competitions intensified their extremism as did their initial success in acquiring territory in the power vacuum of two broken states, making them an international pariah beyond the pale even of North Korea.
How they were able to come into being is important, but it's not nearly as important as the number of people who flocked to join it afterwards. Interestingly enough, you appear to be laying the blame on the, admitted shit show, war and subsequent managing of Iraq. However, you don't mention the Syrian civil war that really spawned the movement. Unless your assertion is that Assad and his policies had nothing to do with ISIS coming into existence and everything would have been fine there if Saddam was still in power in Iraq.
1. In comparison to the total number of Muslims in the world, it is a trickle statistically. In terms of damage they were definitely punching above their weight. In emphasizing the minimal number, I don't mean to minimize the problem. The damage to the region, under-reported horror inflicted upon civilians, is just jaw-dropping.
2. And yes, I am assigning sufficient cause to the Iraq shit show. What drew Zarkawi to Iraq? The U.S invasion. Who would join ISIS? Neither Shia nor Kurds. Their membership and chain of command comes from the collapse of the Baathist government and the Iraqi military, and subsequent domination of the State by Shia. If Saddam were still in power--No ISIS, though a small AQ in Iraq cell may have eventually developed there to fight Saddam, with little support from Saddam's Sunni backers.
3. Notice I mention the power vacuum of "two broken states." The other broken state is not Turkey or Iran or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Jordan. It is Syria, which offered relatively safe refuge. The vacuum created by the Syrian Civil War might be a necessary condition for the emergence of ISIS, but it was not a cause.
(03-20-2021, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Most, absolutely. So we appear to be on the same page. That the Capitol rioters are no more representative of white people or conservatives in the US than ISIS is for Muslims.
Quote:So, hard to get to ISIS just from Islam; easy to get there, if one compares the phenomenon to other insurgencies arising from radical destruction of immediate social environment--e.g., the Tamil Tigers, Khmer Rouge, Shining Path, the Sierra Leone Civil War, Nauxalites in India. Nazi Germany might figure here too, though their seizure of power was not an insurgency. I am thinking of circumstances that produced both a particularly ruthless political machine and the opportunities it needed to assume control of a state (though that was not a necessary outcome).
Actually Islam is absolutely essential to ISIS's existence. While it may express a twisted and militant understanding of the religion, the religion itself is required for someone to interpret it in the first place. In addition there are widely followed, virulent sects, within it, such as Wahabism. As we have discussed on many instances Saudi Arabia provides a near perfect petri dish for radical interpretations of Islam, as decades worth of events have shown. Also, just like the Bible, there are passage in the Quran and the Hadith that absolutely lend themselves to the kind of aggressive militancy expressed, at it's most vile, by ISIS. So I don't think you can completely divorce Islam from the conduct of ISIS as readily as you would like.
We might be on the same page about a lot here, if we sift through the issues carefully.
One cannot understand the ISIS phenomenon, it's political agenda and attraction/revulsion for Muslims in particular, without reference to Islam, certainly. They did not attract Southern Baptists or Chinese Communists. Their first and most numerous victims were other Muslims. The passages you mention regarding war, captives etc. are indeed there and became very literal criteria of jurisprudence and governance. So I agree with you--there is no "understanding" ISIS without reference to Islam, as one might understand, say, the Pinochet Coup in Chile without reference to Catholicism. And as you say, Wahabism, Saudi funded, has been an incredibly destabilizing force in the region. The most virulent Islamists in the Gulf region tend to have Wahabist roots.
But Islamism gets to be a force by, among other things, bad governance in the region and destabilizing wars. And this may be where we diverge when assigning causes. Some 5-6 years ago I read a report that some 20% of the Egyptian population espoused Islamist views. That would be roughly 16 million people. The vast majority however, like many fundamentalist Christians, feel the fight against Satan is a spiritual one, to be fought by distancing oneself from material possessions and temptations, and not participating in politics.
So when I say one cannot get to ISIS from Islam, I mean that, while certainly required for understanding, Islam alone cannot "cause" the kind of thing ISIS became. It requires a sufficient mass of traumatized, deprived, and twisted individuals who then reciprocally drive each others' extremism. It requires security and space to operate and grow, but also enough resistance to keep existence a life and death issue. Saddam's intelligence officers, who constructed ISIS' intel department, did not join ISIS to fight to the death because they suddenly read the Qu'ran and the Hadith passages you mentioned, which had been there for them all their lives and the lives of their parents and grandparents. They joined because their careers were destroyed, their family members dead, their property forfeit, and they'd spent months or years in captivity, deprived of food and respect and often tortured. And then found a space to gather strength, re-organize, and identify with an apocalyptic movement. God-backed revenge.
Perhaps you agree with this though, and just want to be sure that I don't rattle on as if Islam were not even in the picture, as if they only chose the black flag because Al Baghdadi liked the color.
(03-20-2021, 03:14 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. "Hate" is an impossibly vague term.
It is. It's also the one pretty safe initial assumption. That a killing spree is a hate crime, as in based on hatred.
Disclaimer, I know using the term hate crime is incorrect. I always found it odd how America uses the word hate crime for murdering someone of a different race though, as if it weren't a hate crime when murdering someone of your own race. But that's a sidenote really.
And I sure did not deny the need for research on to how that Atlanta incident or incidents like that came to happen. Maybe it's religion, maybe it's some incel stuff, maybe it's racism involved. I am wary of jumping to conclusions, especially to conclusions that just neatly fit into the existing thought pattern. Which, imho, is a problem, in this case and totally different cases. People reach a conclusion or a viewpoint on whatever, and then everything they see further confirms it. A pattern easily to see with others (eg. Trump supporters, we all see it there), but hard to impossible to spot within some others, a more familiar group, or oneself. Not so much talking about you specifically there.
(03-20-2021, 03:14 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. Hope I didn't give you the impression that "incel" is the catch-all label for any lonely man.
You did not. Many many people do. As is true with many other topics.
(03-20-2021, 03:14 PM)Dill Wrote: I only brought up the incel movement to explain why, as Dino says, there is a stereotype of frustrated white males who kill women, but so far as I know, none of frustrated black males who commit this kind of crime.
I don't know about that. I seem to remember an Asian guy though, responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting, that had issues with females. Not quite feasible to stereotype Asians based on that though. There's also "honor killings", this stuff does happen, but one should (and I agree) shy away from painting Muslims as potential honor killers.
But yeah I think the stereotype of white frustrated killers imho stems from a certain willingness to stereotype white people in a manner you would not quite that easily stereotype asian men, or muslim/latino/black men. It's the woke thing to do, somehow.
--- And I'm not out to defend Mr. Whitie on anything. I suffer from double standards and disingenuous debates stemming from certain socially acceptable and inacceptable takes that often are not based on reality, but on a presumption of what is good to say and what is not. I expresssed quite a lot of them in my previous post, and to a large part these things still stand. Any of my exaggerations were used as a rhetorical trait.
(03-20-2021, 03:14 PM)Dill Wrote: As to the first, the pattern of "when which" is clearer when we look to the history of who has dominated whom.
Yes it is. I thought you'd mainly expand on that. I am not unsympathetic to this argument. As in you need wo be way more careful to use certain stereotypes if said stereotypes actually were used to oppress people, hurt people, or stem from a time where people were oppressed. And that makes sense, to a certain degree. There's just a point where it doesn't, as in critizising Israel is antisemitic or whatever example. Which, again, you probably wouldn't say, but many many people would.
(03-20-2021, 03:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Don't know which soccer player you refer to, or his circumstances. Did he play for a European team and experience racism, as non-Europeans often do? Or are you just trying to evade your shared responsibility for turning him, Hollo!
He was called Mesut Özil, he played in Europe and for Germany. I'm sure he got called something bad within his earlier life. I still called him an asshat for openly supporting Erdogan. Which wouldn't fly with leftist people, who rather blamed Germany and Germany's brown spots. Because white dude is always at fault and it's always the cool stance to take.
--- I don't have the time to address your other points and your other post now, maybe later. One thing I want to address from your other reply though, and it's this one.
(03-20-2021, 05:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Er, in the U.S., one cannot blame Christianity* "for all kinds of things" with complete impunity. You think so and you get Trump for president.
Yes! Exactly! And you did get Trump, didn't you. Now how did that happen. I think you laid the finger on it right there.
I wondered about that a lot too, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that to a large part, or at least a certain part, it is a counterreaction to disingenuous PC points made, in one way or another. Not just about religion and religious people, but including about religion and religious people.
Trump did not tell it how it is, of course not. He had a certain appeal for not demanding everyone tell it like it is not though, on some topics at least. I get how this sentence is a tough sell, it is for me too. In the extreme, when I listen to some of the more woke social warriors out there making one questionable point after another and painting everyone who disagrees as primitive reactionary who is beyond them has a lot to do with it though. In the not so extreme cases, there's often still some residue of that. Left-leaning folk, at times, are tough to talk to if you don't align 100% with their take. Real tough.
A similar thing happening in my country, for sure. Try making a point here of how there's of course a natural limit in the number of refugees we can take in, including the social structure of a society. Which is not islamophobic, it's just true, at some point. Oh my, you immediately get scolded and called names, in the left spectrum at least. And non-leftists, independends, middle ground people, whatever, are so pissed about that they increasingly start going for the right-wing option. And then there's consternation.
Quote:GOP senator on Atlanta shooter: 'It may be that he was too fond of Asian women' By Oliver Willis
- March 23, 2021 10:00 AM Without evidence, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) speculated on Monday that the man who shot and killed people at three spas in the Atlanta area on March 16 may have done so because he was "too fond of Asian women."
Robert Aaron Long has been charged with multiple counts of murder in the shooting deaths of eight people, six of whom were women of Asian descent.
Cassidy made his comment during an interview on the conservative Newsmax TV network.
Discussing media coverage of the case, host John Bachman asked Cassidy if he had seen "any evidence" to back up the claim that the killings were racially motivated.
Cassidy said there was "no evidence for, there's no evidence against," noting, "The guy was white and most of the victims were Asian."
"It may be that he was too fond of Asian women and that's what he somehow was afraid of within himself," Cassidy told Bachman. He also said, providing no evidence, "But there was underlying mental illness."
The shooter has blamed his action on a "sex addiction."
Cassidy did not respond to a request from the American Independent Foundation to provide evidence for his claim that "underlying mental illness" was the cause of the killings.
From the March 22 edition of Newsmax TV's "John Bachman Now":
Quote:JOHN BACHMAN, host: I wanted to talk about this, the media coverage, of the Atlanta spa shootings. They continue to perpetuate that this was a racially motivated crime. Have you seen, has anyone told you anything, is there any evidence to back that up? BILL CASSIDY: There's no evidence for, there's no evidence against. Right now, clearly, the guy was white and most of the victims were Asian. But there was underlying mental illness. And underlying mental illness changes everything. And we know that. Period, we know that. It may be that he was too fond of Asian women and that's what he somehow was afraid of within himself. Until we know that, it is better not to jump to conclusions, unless you wish to push a narrative, a narrative which otherwise served your purposes, and that is a cynical manipulation of a tragic event. BACHMAN: Do you think that's what Sen. Warnock was doing on the floor and then on the Sunday shows yesterday? CASSIDY: I think when anybody jumps to conclusions prior to knowing all the facts, and then lays out a whole course of action as to where they're jumping to a conclusion, that you have to wonder — it seems apparent, but I don't want to jump to a conclusion myself — it does seem apparent, as if there's a political narrative which they're seeking to further.
Video at link.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
Dill Wrote: Wrote: I only brought up the incel movement to explain why, as Dino says, there is a stereotype of frustrated white males who kill women, but so far as I know, none of frustrated black males who commit this kind of crime.
I don't know about that. I seem to remember an Asian guy though, responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting, that had issues with females. Not quite feasible to stereotype Asians based on that though. There's also "honor killings", this stuff does happen, but one should (and I agree) shy away from painting Muslims as potential honor killers.
But yeah I think the stereotype of white frustrated killers imho stems from a certain willingness to stereotype white people in a manner you would not quite that easily stereotype asian men, or muslim/latino/black men. It's the woke thing to do, somehow.
Sorry I am late getting back to this.
Just a quick note here: "issues with females" is an incredibly broad category. The possible application to the Atlanta case is a man who blames women for arousing him. For that to happen, there has to be a certain kind of shame, internally experienced, and conception of women as source of sin. We don't find that in every culture. It is not uncommon among fundamentalist Christians, who feel especially guilty about such temptations. God can see into their minds. So how does one stop that? I don't see why men of other ethnicities would not be subject to this, provided they have the right "training" and in enough numbers.
Honor killings are not a response to sexual arousal. And also are not limited to Muslims, and do not stem from Islam but from pre-existing culture in some areas. Some Christians do this and it is a big problem among Hindus as well. In the U.S. and Europe it is almost exclusively Muslim, practiced among immigrants, hence the association. The VTech shooter may have had two stalking incidents, but his 1,800 page manifesto/suicide note mainly complained about "the wealthy" and snotty rich kids.
I don't know what was in Dino's head when he referred to the "typical" frustrated white offender, but I assumed he was targeting a specific kind of attack on women, not just "issues" in some broad sense. The Southern Baptist Church has counseling programs for people who suffer from "sex addiction" as they understand it. Which means the counseling will be psychology (the mental health discipline) mixed with a Biblical and "Christ-centered" understanding of how "sin" operates in the mind (NOT part of psychology, the mental health discipline). They are acutely aware of this "secret sin" problem and how it torments their believers. https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/sexual-addiction-tragedy-prompts-seminary-conference/. The "stereotype" of this kind of male behavior is also not just about murder. It includes televangelists who rail for years about the evil women who seduce men, only to find themselves arrested for soliciting.
Anyway, that's the "stereotype" I assumed Dino was referring to.
(03-21-2021, 05:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: He was called Mesut Özil, he played in Europe and for Germany. I'm sure he got called something bad within his earlier life. I still called him an asshat for openly supporting Erdogan. Which wouldn't fly with leftist people, who rather blamed Germany and Germany's brown spots. Because white dude is always at fault and it's always the cool stance to take.
Yes, I know of Özil. One of the best midfielders in the world, or was. I remember reading an article some years back when he played for the national team, and he was complaining of racism in Germany.
But I find it hard to believe anyone is violating a PC rule by criticizing him for supporting Erdogan.
I forgive your attack on this non-European from a Muslim country, if that is any consolation. Tell your social media friends that you know an American familiar with Critical Race Theory who says it's ok. (Don't give them my name, though.)
This really needs to stop and I hope it's addressed.
Isn't CBS News "national coverage".
Weren't you just crying about how national news is going to damage white people by refusing to ever cover violence against Asians that was not committed by white people?
(03-21-2021, 05:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote:Er, in the U.S., one cannot blame Christianity* "for all kinds of things" with complete impunity. You think so and you get Trump for president.
Yes! Exactly! And you did get Trump, didn't you. Now how did that happen.[b] I think you laid the finger on it right there.
I wondered about that a lot too, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that to a large part, or at least a certain part, it is a counterreaction to disingenuous PC points made, in one way or another. Not just about religion and religious people, but including about religion and religious people.
Trump did not tell it how it is, of course not. He had a certain appeal for not demanding everyone tell it like it is not though, on some topics at least. I get how this sentence is a tough sell, it is for me too. In the extreme, when I listen to some of the more woke social warriors out there making one questionable point after another and painting everyone who disagrees as primitive reactionary who is beyond them has a lot to do with it though. In the not so extreme cases, there's often still some residue of that. Left-leaning folk, at times, are tough to talk to if you don't align 100% with their take. Real tough.
Late, but there is still more:
The Trump phenomenon is certainly a reaction to "disingenuous PC points" and the like. But one already has to be primed with a certain rightist world view before that sends one to the polls to vote, uncritically, for a grifter who speaks out against the "enemies" of this country, especially those within. The guy who is not afraid to say the quiet part out loud.
Trump jumped on the Fox train, which for two decades had already been selling the narrative that Americans were in the process of losing their country to people who didn't deserve its benefits--the "takers": race hustlers, environmentalists and socialists. Important to the latter, especially was to get God out of our schools, out of our courts, out of our government and out of our country, a step at a time, to leave Americans vulnerable.
Hence the well known War on Christianity. "Not just but including" means this attack on Christianity in the name of secular government is bound with issues like immigration and the fear of "replacement," loss of control of politics and law and the distribution of public goods on THIS side of the border.
--though less on immigration it seems, where Jesus was horribly lax on questions of how to deal with strangers and the poor and so easily misunderstood. (C'mon. He would NEVER have voted for open borders.)
(03-21-2021, 05:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: [b]Trump did not tell it how it is, of course not. He had a certain appeal for not demanding everyone tell it like it is not though, on some topics at least. I get how this sentence is a tough sell, it is for me too. In the extreme, when I listen to some of the more woke social warriors out there making one questionable point after another and painting everyone who disagrees as primitive reactionary who is beyond them has a lot to do with it though. In the not so extreme cases, there's often still some residue of that. Left-leaning folk, at times, are tough to talk to if you don't align 100% with their take. Real tough.
LOL sounds like you've had some experience with this. Don't know how to respond unless I hear the actual points. Sometimes I wonder if there is a personality type that embraces black and white. So it doesn't matter where it is on the political spectrum. On the other hand, everyone has values they would never compromise on. Once one links political issues to those, there is no compromise. One isn't going to provide that marriage license to gays or turn children away at the border--even if it means losing one's job.
(03-21-2021, 05:53 AM)hollodero Wrote: A similar thing happening in my country, for sure. Try making a point here of how there's of course a natural limit in the number of refugees we can take in, including the social structure of a society. Which is not islamophobic, it's just true, at some point. Oh my, you immediately get scolded and called names, in the left spectrum at least. And non-leftists, independends, middle ground people, whatever, are so pissed about that they increasingly start going for the right-wing option. And then there's consternation.
James Kirchik has written a book called The End of Europe (2017) in which he argues that unless the center liberal parties of Central and Western Europe wake up and recognize the bolded, they risk delivering their countries over to Orban-style "illiberal democracy." They have to recognize and respect a saturation point. Or else, as you say, there is consternation.
The question is, though, where is that point? For the "racist" the bar will be considerably lower than for wokeratti. I'm guessing that in the final bolded above you were maybe describing your own country, which has turned back to Kurz it seems--a guy who listens when people say they don't feel at home in their own country anymore. Yes, like the U.S. But maybe fewer complaints about secularization?
Also, I don't think race plays quite the same role there as here. Not that there is no precedent there for thematizing "takers" and internal parasites there, which could be activated and applied to new scapegoats, but here people will gladly relinquish union jobs and public goods for themselves like healthcare if that is what it takes to keep "takers" from getting a free ride. For our Right, the primary symbols of "taking" are minorities and immigrants. And we have learned to talk about them without actually mentioning them, by keeping the discussion on services, taxes, election integrity, and "urban" and immigration policy.
(03-20-2021, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: White men make up around 38% of the population. Of the 7,964 arrests for murder only 3,650 of them were white, or 46% or the total arrests. But hold on, Hispanic/Latino is included in that number, as shown further to the right of the chart where we see Hispanic/Latino account for 1341 of them. So, our new total is 2,309 or 29%, which is obviously lower than 38%. Now, here's where certain people will deal the racism card off the bottom of the deck. Black men make up ~7% of the population. The number of arrests for murder in 2019 was 4078. Not only is that raw number in excess of white arrests, even when Hispanic/Latinos are included in that number, but it's also 51% of the total number of arrests. So, 38% commit 29% of murders, and 7% commit 51%. Consequently, I'll start taking the liberal shill media seriously when they start treating all problems equally instead of constantly banging the drum of "white supremacy" and deliberately reinforcing it with the manner in which they report stories.
I should note, for those among us inclined to view things like this in a negative light, this in no way means black people are inherently violent. It also does not take into account the differing circumstances for many black and white people. But it does expose the utter flaws in the MSM narrative, which I firmly believe is done deliberately.
Remember folks, even though numerous anti-Asian incidents are committed by non-whites you will only be told of the ethnicity of the attacker if they are white. I wonder if these people have even the slightest inkling of the long term damage this type of racism is going to cause?
I guess I need a little help here.
If 7% commit 51% of the murders, and Blacks are not inherently violent,
then what are the "differing circumstances" that account for the difference here?
How are those circumstances separated from the legacy of white supremacy?
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
