Waiting for peaceful conservatives to refudiate...
But seriously, why is it so hard for people to refer to white guys as terrorists? How were they able to bring this white guy in when they seem to have so much trouble apprehending black guys alive? Thoughts?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
But seriously, why is it so hard for people to refer to white guys as terrorists?
The problem with that is we don't know the motive. Not every gunman opening fire is a terrorist.
How were they able to bring this white guy in when they seem to have so much trouble apprehending black guys alive?
I'm not sure we even know the circumstances around this guy's arrest, so impossible to answer.
Basically, you're asking for us to make assumptions around a situation when we don't know the details or any kind of context. Which does not make for fertile ground for a discussion.
How were they able to bring this white guy in when they seem to have so much trouble apprehending black guys alive?
I'm not sure we even know the circumstances around this guy's arrest, so impossible to answer.
Basically, you're asking for us to make assumptions around a situation when we don't know the details or any kind of context. Which does not make for fertile ground for a discussion.
I'm not sure it is so easily dismissed like that. It is commonly stated by police when they end up shooting black folks is that the officer feared for their life. For instance, Sam Dubose's murder, the cop tries pulling him out and opens the door, he shuts the door and moves to put the car in drive, the officer shot him before the car moved. Or you can even think of Laquan McDonald walking away from the cops as they open fire. The officers hope(d) to justify their actions by claiming they feared for their life. On the other hand, this guy who attacked the PP shot multiple cops and was intending on shooting more folks than what he was able to, yet the cops did not feel that their life was threatened to such a degree that they didn't simply shoot him? If a white person shooting at them doesn't make them fear for their lives, but a black man just walking or fleeing or being handcuffed on the ground makes them feel threatened and in danger, then I think you have a racial double standard.
Not to mention, the ideological contradiction of pro-life supporters defending this guy's actions of killing and harming others, or as Fox News called him, a "pro-life gunman": https://twitter.com/KeeganNYC/status/670443316803145728
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
No, it is so easily dismissed like that. We know very few details about this man's crime and arrest. Therefore we can't really debate about anything, can we?
All we would bring to the table is what we ourselves read into the case based on minimal details, which is nothing more than our own assumptions and speculations, and that's not a debate. Our debates need to be rooted in facts, and we don't have enough of them as of right now.
No, it is so easily dismissed like that. We know very few details about this man's crime and arrest. Therefore we can't really debate about anything, can we?
All we would bring to the table is what we ourselves read into the case based on minimal details, which is nothing more than our own assumptions and speculations, and that's not a debate. Our debates need to be rooted in facts, and we don't have enough of them as of right now.
Facts:
1.) black men are being shot and killed while not presenting a threat to law officers.
2.) white shooter shot at cops and wounded several, was not shot at and was taken into custody unharmed.
Minimal details sure, but the disparity seems to warrant a discussion.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
Facts:
1.) black men are being shot and killed while not presenting a threat to law officers.
2.) white shooter shot at cops and wounded several, was not shot at and was taken into custody unharmed.
Minimal details sure, but the disparity seems to warrant a discussion.
These are not the facts. Police did shoot at the Planned Parenthood shooter. They were simply unable to hit him because he was shooting from the relative safety of the building. Certainly the attempt was made to kill him.
No, it is so easily dismissed like that. We know very few details about this man's crime and arrest. Therefore we can't really debate about anything, can we?
All we would bring to the table is what we ourselves read into the case based on minimal details, which is nothing more than our own assumptions and speculations, and that's not a debate. Our debates need to be rooted in facts, and we don't have enough of them as of right now.
Facts:
1.) black men are being shot and killed while not presenting a threat to law officers.
2.) white shooter shot at cops and wounded several, was not shot at and was taken into custody unharmed.
Minimal details sure, but the disparity seems to warrant a discussion.
Do you think that we could find examples of white men being shot and killed by police while not presenting a threat? Do you think that a black man has been apprehended even after shooting at police? I believe the Beltway Snipers (certainly deserved classification as 'terrorists') were both apprehended alive, for example. Can't remember if they ever took shots at police but everyone definitely had the right to be in fear of their lives from those guys!
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then where are we going with this?
By the by, I'd like to go back into each of these #BLM events and see how many of them were truly unjustified shootings/killings. I'm sure that many (if not most) were unjustified, but I'm still lost on a few of them. For example, in the Michael Brown case, turns out, after DOJ-led investigation that there's no evidence that he had his hands up as was reported. But Darren Wilson will live the rest of his life as if he did. Truth, sadly, is the first casualty.
I think we should definitely have a discussion about the treatment of black people by U.S. police vs. the treatment of white people by U.S. police. I just don't think that we start that discussion with a carefully selected analogy.
TrappedUnderIce: First of all, those cases are not analogous to this one because those were instances of the individuals being murdered by police officers who then lied that they were in danger in an attempt to get away with the killings. This is completely different from an instance in which someone is actually presenting a threat.
Second, he apparently surrendered to police, which would play a major factor in him being not dead.
And this is why a discussion about this event is not going to be productive right now: we don't have the facts of the case, so all anyone is going to bring is their own commentary on the issue, which will be colored by their own biases and presumptions.
There are too many blanks because we don't have the facts, and attempting to fill in the blanks with speculation is not educated discourse.
Here's a fact: anyone who thinks this guy is alive because of the color of his skin, rather than because he surrendered, has some serious issues. If he was black and he surrendered would the cops have blown him away? Its laughable to think so.
Starting a thread intended to paint officers as racist when there's no reason to think so...well that's just another form of prejudice in itself.
But seriously, why is it so hard for people to refer to white guys as terrorists?
The problem with that is we don't know the motive. Not every gunman opening fire is a terrorist.
So, you don't think someone targeting Planned Parenthood did so because abortion? And talking about baby parts? Well, golly gee, maybe he wasn't a terrorist at all. And maybe two and two make (3+i)/0
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
So, you don't think someone targeting Planned Parenthood did so because abortion?
I mean, I made the same assumption when I first heard about the incident. But that's just it: it was an assumption. We didn't know anything about the guy's motive. He could have shot the place up because he had a personal vendetta against someone who worked there. He could have had other reasons. We didn't know.
And talking about baby parts? Well, golly gee, maybe he wasn't a terrorist at all. And maybe two and two make (3+i)/0
Yes, reference an article posted after I posted my response to invalidate my saying that we didn't know enough about the guy's motivations, then act like this somehow reflects negatively on my intelligence. You do know how time works, right?
So, the real question here is where does mental health problems begin and terrorism end? Can we label it terrorism if the guy had severe mental health issues? How many people do we label as terrorists that DO have these issues?
This shooting is also a very interesting look at how scary Americans are. Regardless of the shooting itself, the number of people who are in support of the shooter should frighten every single one of you, regardless of your political beliefs. A scary number of Americans believe attacks on civilians are justified.
Yes, reference an article posted after I posted my response to invalidate my saying that we didn't know enough about the guy's motivations, then act like this somehow reflects negatively on my intelligence. You do know how time works, right?
Isn't this the second or third time this has happened to you this month? Honestly Highroller, if you're going to make a post on a subject, at least consult an oracle first.
But seriously, why is it so hard for people to refer to white guys as terrorists?
Um, it's not? As Jay mentioned, there my be some mental health complications in this particular case, but I have already heard him referred to as "terrorist", and for some other white criminals like Timothy McVeigh it's a no-brainer.
How were they able to bring this white guy in when they seem to have so much trouble apprehending black guys alive?
The plural of anecdote is not data. "They" apprehend lots of black guys alive -- if they didn't, the black incarceration rate could hardly be as high as it is. And "they" kill some white guys too. Remember that guy in Dallas who attacked a police station this June? Didn't even injure anybody else, shot dead. I don't recall anybody complaining about police brutality then, either.
People were asking the same question after Dylan Roof's surrender. Is this going to be a thing, now, whenever a white guy gets arrested? Because if so you're going to be asking it a lot, and it's not going to sound any cleverer on repetition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But seriously, why is it so hard for people to refer to white guys as terrorists?
From recent history, white people can definitely be labeled as terrorists without thinking twice about it. Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Anders Breivik are good examples of this.
From recent history, white people can definitely be labeled as terrorists without thinking twice about it. Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Anders Breivik are good examples of this.
Less recently, but still in our lifetimes: The IRA.
Oh, and "peaceful conservatives" are repudiating the attack. So there's that too.
Huh. I took it as actually being a dig _at_ the people who comment about 'peaceful Muslims'. Because generally peaceful Muslims do repudiate the acts of Islamic terrorists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
A number of people who knew Mr. Dear said he was a staunch abortion opponent, though another ex-wife, Pamela Ross, said that he did not obsess on the subject. After his arrest, Mr. Dear said “no more baby parts” to investigators, a law enforcement official said.
One person who spoke with him extensively about his religious views said Mr. Dear, who is 57, had praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing “God’s work.” In 2009, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concerns for the privacy of the family, Mr. Dear described as “heroes” members of the Army of God, a loosely organized group of anti-abortion extremists that has claimed responsibility for a number of killings and bombings.
So, the real question here is where does mental health problems begin and terrorism end? Can we label it terrorism if the guy had severe mental health issues? How many people do we label as terrorists that DO have these issues?
The killing of other humans isn't exactly a sane act if you're still thinking of them as humans.
With that said, there's a concept called "stochastic terrorism" which is basically the stirring up of a large group of people with hateful rhetoric so that the less stable members of the group attack members of a demonised group.
The actual terrorist is the individual who commits the attack, but the stocastic terrorist(s) incited the action. For example, Bin Laden's videos were mainly supposed to be incitement of that type.
This shooting is also a very interesting look at how scary Americans are. Regardless of the shooting itself, the number of people who are in support of the shooter should frighten every single one of you, regardless of your political beliefs. A scary number of Americans believe attacks on civilians are justified.
Far Right American political dialogue is filled with incitement against abortion doctors and women. Of course there are people who support the shooter's actions. That's the whole point of the incitement.
Waiting for peaceful conservatives to refudiate...
This reminds me an awful lot of people who comment about "peaceful Muslims".
You do understand the concept of an ironic echo, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
From recent history, white people can definitely be labeled as terrorists without thinking twice about it. Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Anders Breivik are good examples of this.
Less recently, but still in our lifetimes: The IRA.
Which? The Official, Continuity, Provisional or Real IRA? Thats not to mention the Ulster Defence Association and another alphabet soup of organisations from the other side. Going across to Germany we can easily thow in the Baader Meinhof gang.
The only reason these types of people aren't getting more recognition is that they keep getting upstaged by what the "Islamists" are doing. The Troubles still haven't completely ended despite the signing of the Good Friday agreement but both sides are playing it down and blaming any incidents on Dissedent Irish Nationalists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
From recent history, white people can definitely be labeled as terrorists without thinking twice about it. Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Anders Breivik are good examples of this.
Less recently, but still in our lifetimes: The IRA.
Which? The Official, Continuity, Provisional or Real IRA? Thats not to mention the Ulster Defence Association and another alphabet soup of organisations from the other side. Going across to Germany we can easily thow in the Baader Meinhof gang.
The only reason these types of people aren't getting more recognition is that they keep getting upstaged by what the "Islamists" are doing. The Troubles still haven't completely ended despite the signing of the Good Friday agreement but both sides are playing it down and blaming any incidents on Dissedent Irish Nationalists.
Beyond that, many of these groups are defunct. Sure, The Troubles haven't completely abated, but we're a long cry form the '70s and '80s, when the PIRA would bomb places, such as a hotal where Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was staying. And even then we widely called the PIRA a terrorist organization. The problem is as you said, many of these "lone wolf" style attacks are upstaged by the coordinated attacks of groups like ISIS and Hamas. And every time we have a Dylan Roof, it usually ends there. There's no cell continuing their attacks, there's no one following up.
The reason this guy was taken alive is twofold: first off, you had a hostage situation, where he had people they believed he could kill if they attempted a rescue while he was alert. Busting in a door, tossing in a flashbang or four and killing him is nigh impossible in the first couple of hours of a hostage crisis, and that's pretty much standard no matter where you live. Hell, in Paris no one expected GIGN to storm the Bataclan when they did, and had the terrorists not begun executing hostages it probably would have dragged on for quite some time, with hostage negotiation and other groups--notably, GSG-9 and 22nd SAS, as well as the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team--being flown out to support them. If you look at some of the better-known hostage situations, storming the location almost never happens until a significant amount of time goes by (Munich 1972, Prince's Gate 1985, etc.). As others have said, the other thing is that he gave up. He came out peacefully, and it's not possible, with national news watching, to pop the guy in the face after he's done so.
But seriously, why is it so hard for people to refer to white guys as terrorists? How were they able to bring this white guy in when they seem to have so much trouble apprehending black guys alive? Thoughts?
On phasing:
I'm not sure we even know the circumstances around this guy's arrest, so impossible to answer.
Basically, you're asking for us to make assumptions around a situation when we don't know the details or any kind of context. Which does not make for fertile ground for a discussion.
Not to mention, the ideological contradiction of pro-life supporters defending this guy's actions of killing and harming others, or as Fox News called him, a "pro-life gunman": https://twitter.com/KeeganNYC/status/670443316803145728
All we would bring to the table is what we ourselves read into the case based on minimal details, which is nothing more than our own assumptions and speculations, and that's not a debate. Our debates need to be rooted in facts, and we don't have enough of them as of right now.
1.) black men are being shot and killed while not presenting a threat to law officers.
2.) white shooter shot at cops and wounded several, was not shot at and was taken into custody unharmed.
Minimal details sure, but the disparity seems to warrant a discussion.
These are not the facts. Police did shoot at the Planned Parenthood shooter. They were simply unable to hit him because he was shooting from the relative safety of the building. Certainly the attempt was made to kill him.
Do you think that we could find examples of white men being shot and killed by police while not presenting a threat? Do you think that a black man has been apprehended even after shooting at police? I believe the Beltway Snipers (certainly deserved classification as 'terrorists') were both apprehended alive, for example. Can't remember if they ever took shots at police but everyone definitely had the right to be in fear of their lives from those guys!
If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then where are we going with this?
By the by, I'd like to go back into each of these #BLM events and see how many of them were truly unjustified shootings/killings. I'm sure that many (if not most) were unjustified, but I'm still lost on a few of them. For example, in the Michael Brown case, turns out, after DOJ-led investigation that there's no evidence that he had his hands up as was reported. But Darren Wilson will live the rest of his life as if he did. Truth, sadly, is the first casualty.
I think we should definitely have a discussion about the treatment of black people by U.S. police vs. the treatment of white people by U.S. police. I just don't think that we start that discussion with a carefully selected analogy.
Second, he apparently surrendered to police, which would play a major factor in him being not dead.
And this is why a discussion about this event is not going to be productive right now: we don't have the facts of the case, so all anyone is going to bring is their own commentary on the issue, which will be colored by their own biases and presumptions.
There are too many blanks because we don't have the facts, and attempting to fill in the blanks with speculation is not educated discourse.
Starting a thread intended to paint officers as racist when there's no reason to think so...well that's just another form of prejudice in itself.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
So, you don't think someone targeting Planned Parenthood did so because abortion? And talking about baby parts? Well, golly gee, maybe he wasn't a terrorist at all. And maybe two and two make (3+i)/0
On phasing:
Yes, reference an article posted after I posted my response to invalidate my saying that we didn't know enough about the guy's motivations, then act like this somehow reflects negatively on my intelligence. You do know how time works, right?
This shooting is also a very interesting look at how scary Americans are. Regardless of the shooting itself, the number of people who are in support of the shooter should frighten every single one of you, regardless of your political beliefs. A scary number of Americans believe attacks on civilians are justified.
Isn't this the second or third time this has happened to you this month? Honestly Highroller, if you're going to make a post on a subject, at least consult an oracle first.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The plural of anecdote is not data. "They" apprehend lots of black guys alive -- if they didn't, the black incarceration rate could hardly be as high as it is. And "they" kill some white guys too. Remember that guy in Dallas who attacked a police station this June? Didn't even injure anybody else, shot dead. I don't recall anybody complaining about police brutality then, either.
People were asking the same question after Dylan Roof's surrender. Is this going to be a thing, now, whenever a white guy gets arrested? Because if so you're going to be asking it a lot, and it's not going to sound any cleverer on repetition.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
From recent history, white people can definitely be labeled as terrorists without thinking twice about it. Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Anders Breivik are good examples of this.
This reminds me an awful lot of people who comment about "peaceful Muslims".
Murdering a number of people doesn't not, in of itself, classify someone as a terrorist.
The article you posted states that he surrendered.
Most terrorist from the Middle East are white.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Less recently, but still in our lifetimes: The IRA.
Huh. I took it as actually being a dig _at_ the people who comment about 'peaceful Muslims'. Because generally peaceful Muslims do repudiate the acts of Islamic terrorists.
The killing of other humans isn't exactly a sane act if you're still thinking of them as humans.
With that said, there's a concept called "stochastic terrorism" which is basically the stirring up of a large group of people with hateful rhetoric so that the less stable members of the group attack members of a demonised group.
The actual terrorist is the individual who commits the attack, but the stocastic terrorist(s) incited the action. For example, Bin Laden's videos were mainly supposed to be incitement of that type.
Far Right American political dialogue is filled with incitement against abortion doctors and women. Of course there are people who support the shooter's actions. That's the whole point of the incitement.
Art is life itself.
You do understand the concept of an ironic echo, right?
On phasing:
Which? The Official, Continuity, Provisional or Real IRA? Thats not to mention the Ulster Defence Association and another alphabet soup of organisations from the other side. Going across to Germany we can easily thow in the Baader Meinhof gang.
The only reason these types of people aren't getting more recognition is that they keep getting upstaged by what the "Islamists" are doing. The Troubles still haven't completely ended despite the signing of the Good Friday agreement but both sides are playing it down and blaming any incidents on Dissedent Irish Nationalists.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Beyond that, many of these groups are defunct. Sure, The Troubles haven't completely abated, but we're a long cry form the '70s and '80s, when the PIRA would bomb places, such as a hotal where Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was staying. And even then we widely called the PIRA a terrorist organization. The problem is as you said, many of these "lone wolf" style attacks are upstaged by the coordinated attacks of groups like ISIS and Hamas. And every time we have a Dylan Roof, it usually ends there. There's no cell continuing their attacks, there's no one following up.
The reason this guy was taken alive is twofold: first off, you had a hostage situation, where he had people they believed he could kill if they attempted a rescue while he was alert. Busting in a door, tossing in a flashbang or four and killing him is nigh impossible in the first couple of hours of a hostage crisis, and that's pretty much standard no matter where you live. Hell, in Paris no one expected GIGN to storm the Bataclan when they did, and had the terrorists not begun executing hostages it probably would have dragged on for quite some time, with hostage negotiation and other groups--notably, GSG-9 and 22nd SAS, as well as the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team--being flown out to support them. If you look at some of the better-known hostage situations, storming the location almost never happens until a significant amount of time goes by (Munich 1972, Prince's Gate 1985, etc.). As others have said, the other thing is that he gave up. He came out peacefully, and it's not possible, with national news watching, to pop the guy in the face after he's done so.