White terrorist kills muslims with car

[Dill]

(06-19-2017, 02:28 PM)Millhouse Wrote: As I said, I think he was referring to the attacker's religious beliefs because the OP made a snarky quip of him being Christian without any info to back it up.

Obviously the victims were Muslims and it was an attack directed specifically at them. But the attacker could be a neo-nazi atheist for all we know. 

My apologies Mill.
The original statement is ambiguous.

I can't find the part where this attack was based on religious belief.

I took Matt to questioning whether the attack had anything to do with religion.

Neo Nazis are generally Christian though, not atheist.

[Millhouse]

Thankfully it appears that no one died or will die from this attack, though two are in serious condition. The one person that did die at the scene apparently was already being given first aid when the attack started, so its unclear as of now if the attack was the cause of his death.

[Dill]

(06-19-2017, 03:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: What about being an atheist would stop people from being a national socialist? Atheist just means they don't believe there's a God. It has nothing to do with a political view.

Well, atheists are usually materialists (in the philosophical sense). They don't believe in a spiritual/supernatural realm.

National socialists, on the other hand, are idealists. They are all about "spirit"; many were and are Christian; some German Nazis were into the occult or rejected Christianity for "volkisch" culture which expressed the eternal Spirit of the German nation and its DESTINY.  Also, Nazi Germany was not a "secular" state in the sense the US and France are. Lutheranism was the established the church, the one proper volkisch expression of Christianity. Hitler was Catholic and so Catholicism was accommodated. E.g., SS soldiers were allowed to take confession. Catholic Bishops swore allegiance to the German state. Hitler urged SS recruits to read St. Ignatius Loyola to understand how to found a disciplined order. Hitler expresses admiration for Catholicism in Mein Kampf--though not for qualities the US Church wants to be admired for.

In Nazi Germany there might have been an atheist opportunist here and there, once the Nazis had seized power and to get along they had to go along. But atheists generally reject spiritual politics. Atheist materialism, openly expressed in Nazi circles then and now, would mark one as Marxist and/or "Jewish."

[GMDino]

Will someone notify me when the POTUS tweets out anything about this?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-19-2017, 11:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: Will someone notify me when the POTUS tweets out anything about this?

Like you don't have an alert.

[GMDino]

(06-20-2017, 09:04 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Like you don't have an alert.

I do follow the POTUS account, but I don't have alerts set up.  I just check it once or twice a day. 

I do NOT follow his personal account.

[mallorian69]

(06-19-2017, 07:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: There was a teen Muslim girl murdered outside of her mosque here in Virginia, recently. They haven't confirmed whether it was anti-Muslim in nature or not, but the community is certainly on edge in that area of Virginia.

So far doesn't seem to be.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/muslim-teen-killed-trnd/index.html

One thing CNN leaves out is the killer is also an illegal.

https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/56504#ampshare=http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/20/virginia-mosque-killing-suspect-darwin-martinez-torres-illegal-immigrant

[Dill]

(06-20-2017, 11:52 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: So far doesn't seem to be.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/muslim-teen-killed-trnd/index.html

One thing CNN leaves out is the killer is also an illegal.

https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/56504#ampshare=http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/20/virginia-mosque-killing-suspect-darwin-martinez-torres-illegal-immigrant

Does CNN leave that out or does Fox add it?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-20-2017, 11:52 PM)mallorian69 Wrote: So far doesn't seem to be.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/19/us/muslim-teen-killed-trnd/index.html

One thing CNN leaves out is the killer is also an illegal.

https://www.google.com/amp/insider.foxnews.com/amp/article/56504#ampshare=http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/20/virginia-mosque-killing-suspect-darwin-martinez-torres-illegal-immigrant

Far left heads must be exploding while deciding how to react to this.

(06-22-2017, 05:57 AM)Dill Wrote: Does CNN leave that out or does Fox add it?

If it's a fact why would anyone omit it?  Isn't journalism about reporting facts?

[GMDino]

(06-22-2017, 05:57 AM)Dill Wrote: Does CNN leave that out or does Fox add it?

It was in the USA Today article the day of the story.

Legal or illegal it's a horrible story.

[Rotobeast]

(06-19-2017, 12:29 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Can't believe the hatred these disgusting religions spew.   Wonder if there was merely a tornado this guy was diverting with power of Christ and horsepower.  

Apologize for the poor story quote.  I'm on my phone at a meeting with a bunch of atheists to help homeless people find jobs.  As opposed to killing people like some smut rags encourage others to do.

White !?!?
I mean, we all know there's a ton of Irish mixed in over there. We can't speculate.


Anyway....

[Vas Deferens]

(06-22-2017, 12:48 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: White !?!?
I mean, we all know there's a ton of Irish mixed in over there. We can't speculate.




Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

There's a package on your porch for you roto. Why don't you go have a look lad.

[Rotobeast]

(06-22-2017, 12:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: There's a package on your porch for you roto.  Why don't you go have a look lad.

Oy... I'm no langer, ya shtate !!

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 09:22 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Far left heads must be exploding while deciding how to react to this.

If it's a fact why would anyone omit it?  Isn't journalism about reporting facts?

Like whether someone is white or black?

And no, journalism isn't JUST about "reporting facts."
That gets you Fox News and lots of stories about "the far left."

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 09:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: It was in the USA Today article the day of the story.

Legal or illegal it's a horrible story.

It's in all news reports now. So far as I can tell, reporters did not have that info until a day after the murder.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2017, 02:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Like whether someone is white or black?

Sure.  I've yet to see you upset when a headline or story reads, "White police officer shoots black man".  This exact topic has been discussed on this board numerous times.  Maybe you missed all of them?

Quote:And no, journalism isn't JUST about "reporting facts."

I looked really hard and didn't see the qualifier "just" in my post.  Regardless, maybe you can tell us what else journalism is about?

Quote:That gets you Fox News and lots of stories about "the far left."

An interesting postulation.  Perhaps you might favor all of us by explaining your position more than not at all?

[GMDino]

(06-22-2017, 02:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Like whether someone is white or black?

And no, journalism isn't JUST about "reporting facts."
That gets you Fox News and lots of stories about "the far left."

I wonder if FOX mentioned that on their Latin version?

They've been known to alter headlines to play to their audience.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=9554

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure.  I've yet to see you upset when a headline or story reads, "White police officer shoots black man".  This exact topic has been discussed on this board numerous times.  Maybe you missed all of them?

I looked really hard and didn't see the qualifier "just" in my post.  Regardless, maybe you can tell us what else journalism is about?
An interesting postulation.  Perhaps you might favor all of us by explaining your position more than not at all?

LOL Did you favor us all by explaining your position "more than not at all"?

Sure, in liberal democracies, journalism is about informing voting citizens. That means, along with reporting the weather and sports, watching elected officials closely and often challenging their version of events--and also those events as represented in other news sources, since some may be more partisan than others. All that involves providing context and back story, and including contrary points of view.  It does not mean giving everyone a voice. It means editorial decisions play a central roll in what is reported and how. Nowhere is anyone reporting "just facts."

In dictatorships, journalism has rather a different task, namely supporting the regime's version of reality, which often means anticipating domestic and foreign events which could contest that version, and providing counter-narratives, all this in a news environment which forbids counter-counter narratives. No one can discuss politics without descriptive labels like "right" and "left" and "white" and "black" and "socialism" and "fascism." In liberal democracies, the ideal is to do so without politicizing them. But under dictatorships, these terms are intentionally politicized, so that merely applying them is already a judgment. We have seen Russia move in this direction, after a brief flirtation with a free press during the '90s. Highly partisan journalists in liberal democracies may do this as well.

Which brings us to Fox News. Throughout the '50s and '60s, there were right wing fringe groups who pretty much called everyone they disagreed with "the far left." Among the most famous of these were the John Birch Society, whose founder called Dwight Eisenhower a Communist who knowingly carried out Communist policies. Same for Kennedy. For these people, there was no center. "The left" was everywhere, and its voice was "the liberal press." This was in contrast to the three major news networks, as well as the major papers, which rarely used the terms right and left at all when talking about mainstream politicians. For them the far left would be people who wanted to nationalize banks, oil, and all manufacturing. This right wing fringe remained a fringe group until the reaction against the Civil Rights movement, Roe vs Wade, and new media opportunities allowed them to move from the periphery to the center of national politics, beginning in the late '70s. In the '90s, Fox News became the "force multiplier" they had always wanted. Now for almost three decades Americans have turned on their televisions to hear what "leftists" like Bill and Hillary Clinton are up to. People who watch Fox regularly get just the facts about "leftists." Then THEY decide.

Now we have all kinds of people who NEVER watch Fox News or maybe only occasionally and think themselves "centrist" or non partisan as they grouse about "the far left" in American politics.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-22-2017, 04:57 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL Did you favor us all by explaining your position "more than not at all"?

I didn't make a declarative statement about journalism, I asked a question.
 

Quote:Sure, in liberal democracies, journalism is about informing voting citizens. That means, along with reporting the weather and sports, watching elected officials closely and often challenging their version of events--and also those events as represented in other news sources, since some may be more partisan than others. All that involves providing context and back story, and including contrary points of view.  It does not mean giving everyone a voice. It means editorial decisions play a central roll in what is reported and how. Nowhere is anyone reporting "just facts."

I'm curious about the term "liberal democracy".  Is there such a thing as a conservative democracy?  Would not the democracy of our nation at its founding be considered somewhat less than liberal by current standards?  Is the US version of democracy not decidedly more conservative than that of many/most European democracies?  Also, it sounds like you're talking more about editorials than hard news.  While the "why" part of a story can certainly contain opinion the "who, what when, where and how", i.e. the bulk of the report, should not by definition.  As to your final sentence in this paragraph, that's nonsense.  There are plenty of articles that contain nothing but hard facts.  If you are talking about the entirety of a news organization's output then you're talking about something completely different.

Quote:In dictatorships, journalism has rather a different task, namely supporting the regime's version of reality, which often means anticipating domestic and foreign events which could contest that version, and providing counter-narratives, all this in a news environment which forbids counter-counter narratives. No one can discuss politics without descriptive labels like "right" and "left" and "white" and "black" and "socialism" and "fascism." In liberal democracies, the ideal is to do so without politicizing them. But under dictatorships, these terms are intentionally politicized, so that merely applying them is already a judgment. We have seen Russia move in this direction, after a brief flirtation with a free press during the '90s. Highly partisan journalists in liberal democracies may do this as well.

What a wholly irrelevant piece of pontificating.  You clearly can't discuss issues without injecting partisan opinion which must be why you have trouble discerning reporting from editorializing.

Quote:Which brings us to Fox News. Throughout the '50s and '60s, there were right wing fringe groups who pretty much called everyone they disagreed with "the far left." Among the most famous of these were the John Birch Society, whose founder called Dwight Eisenhower a Communist who knowingly carried out Communist policies. Same for Kennedy. For these people, there was no center. "The left" was everywhere, and its voice was "the liberal press." This was in contrast to the three major news networks, as well as the major papers, which rarely used the terms right and left at all when talking about mainstream politicians. For them the far left would be people who wanted to nationalize banks, oil, and all manufacturing. This right wing fringe remained a fringe group until the reaction against the Civil Rights movement, Roe vs Wade, and new media opportunities allowed them to move from the periphery to the center of national politics, beginning in the late '70s. In the '90s, Fox News became the "force multiplier" they had always wanted. Now for almost three decades Americans have turned on their televisions to hear what "leftists" like Bill and Hillary Clinton are up to. People who watch Fox regularly get just the facts about "leftists." Then THEY decide.

Is your point that Fox News is a bad news source and throws journalistic standards in the dumpster, therefore it's alright if others engage in the same behavior to a lesser degree?  I suppose if you were quoting my pointing out that Fox is a good news source this paragraph would be relevant.  Seeing as I have repeatedly attacked their reporting throughout the years your "point" comes off as rather oddly placed.

Quote:Now we have all kinds of people who NEVER watch Fox News or maybe only occasionally and think themselves "centrist" or non partisan as they grouse about "the far left" in American politics.

I love it when you make thinly veiled insinuations.  I grouse about extremists, which is why I grouse about the left at this point in time and the right for the previous 12-16 years, again all proven by posts I made either here or on the old board.  Face it, you're part of the extremists now.  I get that you're potentially uncomfortable with this fact, hence your need to attack me.  Remember, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

[Dill]

(06-22-2017, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't make a declarative statement about journalism, I asked a question.

Looks like I addressed your premise before you stated it in declarative form.

(06-22-2017, 05:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:Nowhere is anyone reporting "just facts."

As to your final sentence in this paragraph, that's nonsense.  There are plenty of articles that contain nothing but hard facts. 

Can you provide an example of an article which provides "nothing but hard facts" which have not been selected by an editorial policy which decides which "hard facts" to include and which not?