Mass shooting in Dayton Ohio bar

[Down Under]

Bend over. I'll show ya shame & in' stigma.

[midnightpulp]

Should we dissect each killer's past voting history or social media posts if the killing doesn't have an apparent ideological motivation? I don't think so.

But when the killer says "I'M DOING THIS BECAUSE OF MY IDEOLOGY," it is absolutely relevant, especially when the given ideology and motivations echo statements by elected officials who should know better.

That is still politicizing it, and when you politicize it, you're trying to score political leverage points for the purpose of using it to enact policy or attribute blame (i.e. blaming an ideology just as much as the person). This tact opens you up for a huge rhetorical counterattack when the eventual disgruntled Latino, Muslim or Black kills a dozen white people. If you just treat them all as insane s and bury the politics of the situation, it'll lead to more productive debate rather than side vs. side flinging.

[Pavlov]

That is still politicizing it, and when you politicize it, you're trying to score political leverage points for the purpose of using it to enact policy or attribute blame (i.e. blaming an ideology just as much as the person). This tact opens you up for a huge rhetorical counterattack when the eventual disgruntled Latino, Muslim or Black kills a dozen white people. If you just treat them all as insane s and bury the politics of the situation, it'll lead to more productive debate rather than side vs. side flinging.

Eh, there were 1.5 of those attacks from aggrieved blacks.

I don't think they were insane either. One had PTSD and the other was probably borderline/narcissist but those aren't crimes.

They aren't all insane. They're all angry.

[Spurminator]

That is still politicizing it, and when you politicize it, you're trying to score political leverage points for the purpose of using it to enact policy or attribute blame (i.e. blaming an ideology just as much as the person). This tact opens you up for a huge rhetorical counterattack when the eventual disgruntled Latino, Muslim or Black kills a dozen white people. If you just treat them all as insane s and bury the politics of the situation, it'll lead to more productive debate rather than side vs. side flinging.

If we're talking about an ideology where the increase of non-white inhabitants represents the downfall of American culture, I do think that ideology and everyone who preaches it share blame.

I'm not aware of any elected officials or major liberal pundits suggesting that white people don't belong here or are threatening our freedom. Certainly if a disgruntled Latino, Muslim or Black kills a dozen white people, they're every bit as terrible and likely insane. But attributing such an act directly to left-wing talking points wouldn't be so easy as it is with white nationalist terrorists and conservative media/congressmen/presidents.

[Spurminator]

Like, I really don't think anyone with any intellectual honesty can truly say with certainty that the El Paso attack wouldn't have happened without Trump's rhetoric. Consider this guy drove 9 hours to commit these murders in the same city that the President recently visited for a campaign rally to drive support for his wall.

Unless you believe that's just a coincidence, how do you not place some blame on Trump for stoking the fires? These dumbasses think we're at war.

[weebo]

It's weird that Thread keeps quoting me after I told him he's on ignore and I've responded to maybe 1 out of his last 100 posts to me. But I guess that's what you do when you're a lonely old piece of garbage with nothing else going on.

[midnightpulp]

If we're talking about an ideology where the increase of non-white inhabitants represents the downfall of American culture, I do think that ideology and everyone who preaches it share blame.

I'm not aware of any elected officials or major liberal pundits suggesting that white people don't belong here or are threatening our freedom. Certainly if a disgruntled Latino, Muslim or Black kills a dozen white people, they're every bit as terrible and likely insane. But attributing such an act directly to left-wing talking points wouldn't be so easy as it is with white nationalist terrorists and conservative media/congressmen/presidents.

My logic is more about sustaining productive debate. When the eventual Latino kills some whites in revenge for El Paso, will there be intelligent discussion about gun control, mental health, etc, etc? No. It'll be, "How's it feel lib s that the shooter was Latino, an immigrant, and a supporter of Bernie Sanders!" Then the left will counter, "Yeah, but most of the attacks carried out were by white nationalists over the past few years." Then, "Keep deflecting lib s. You own this one." And no one will talk about any solutions. White nationalists will also feel vindicated that, "they aren't the only ones." And will use the attack to stir up propaganda fodder for the "race war," they want, meaning more potential radicalization.

Yes, white nationalism should be called out at all times, but in these mass shooter cases, I don't think it's wise to browbeat the point into oblivion.

[weebo]

That is still politicizing it, and when you politicize it, you're trying to score political leverage points for the purpose of using it to enact policy or attribute blame (i.e. blaming an ideology just as much as the person). This tact opens you up for a huge rhetorical counterattack when the eventual disgruntled Latino, Muslim or Black kills a dozen white people. If you just treat them all as insane s and bury the politics of the situation, it'll lead to more productive debate rather than side vs. side flinging.[/B]

Easy for you to say when you're not the one with a ing bullseye on your back.

[TSA]

Like, I really don't think anyone with any intellectual honesty can truly say with certainty that the El Paso attack wouldn't have happened without Trump's rhetoric. Consider this guy drove 9 hours to commit these murders in the same city that the President recently visited for a campaign rally to drive support for his wall.

Unless you believe that's just a coincidence, how do you not place some blame on Trump for stoking the fires? These dumbasses think we're at war.

You’re in the far leftist mass murder thread you dip . Which Dem politician are you placing some blame on for stoking his fires?

[midnightpulp]

Like, I really don't think anyone with any intellectual honesty can truly say with certainty that the El Paso attack wouldn't have happened without Trump's rhetoric. Consider this guy drove 9 hours to commit these murders in the same city that the President recently visited for a campaign rally to drive support for his wall.

Unless you believe that's just a coincidence, how do you not place some blame on Trump for stoking the fires? These dumbasses think we're at war.

Trump should definitely be chastised for his rhetoric. But you can never prove "blame." If Trump didn't exist, it'll probably have been some right wing talking head that influenced him (and many of them probably did). We can never know the specificity of the shooter's influences.

[Pavlov]

You’re in the far leftist mass murder thread you dip . Which Dem politician are you placing some blame on for stoking his fires?

Do you have a link to the 8chan thread where this theory got cooked up?

Oh.

[weebo]

Trump should definitely be chastised for his rhetoric. But you can never prove "blame." If Trump didn't exist, it'll probably have been some right wing talking head that influenced him (and many of them probably did). We can never know the specificity of the shooter's influences.

You shake a hornet's nest some of them are bound to sting bro.

[midnightpulp]

Here's how mass shooting debate has changed. When Columbine happened and then the DC sniper situation happened, no one waited on baited breath about the race or political ideology of the shooters. Sick people did sick things and the concern was how to stop it. Now, EVERYONE waits on what was the shooter's race and political ideology is, because they're more concerned with holding a self-righteous position per their "team," than solutions. All this serves to do is entrench and divide.

[spurraider21]

My logic is more about sustaining productive debate. When the eventual Latino kills some whites in revenge for El Paso, will there be intelligent discussion about gun control, mental health, etc, etc? No. It'll be, "How's it feel lib s that the shooter was Latino, an immigrant, and a supporter of Bernie Sanders!" Then the left will counter, "Yeah, but most of the attacks carried out were by white nationalists over the past few years." Then, "Keep deflecting lib s. You own this one." And no one will talk about any solutions. White nationalists will also feel vindicated that, "they aren't the only ones." And will use the attack to stir up propaganda fodder for the "race war," they want, meaning more potential radicalization.

Yes, white nationalism should be called out at all times, but in these mass shooter cases, I don't think it's wise to browbeat the point into oblivion.

so you're saying people should avoid calling out the ideology to appease people like this?

You’re in the far leftist mass murder thread you dip . Which Dem politician are you placing some blame on for stoking his fires?

[Pavlov]

Here's how mass shooting debate has changed. When Columbine happened and then the DC sniper situation happened, no one waited on baited breath about the race or political ideology of the shooters. Sick people did sick things and the concern was how to stop it. Now, EVERYONE waits on what was the shooter's race and political ideology is, because they're more concerned with holding a self-righteous position per their "team," than solutions. All this serves to do is entrench and divide.

There are only two common threads to all of them: anger and guns.

Now what?

[Spurminator]

My logic is more about sustaining productive debate. When the eventual Latino kills some whites in revenge for El Paso, will there be intelligent discussion about gun control, mental health, etc, etc? No. It'll be, "How's it feel lib s that the shooter was Latino, an immigrant, and a supporter of Bernie Sanders!" Then the left will counter, "Yeah, but most of the attacks carried out were by white nationalists over the past few years." Then, "Keep deflecting lib s. You own this one." And no one will talk about any solutions. White nationalists will also feel vindicated that, "they aren't the only ones." And will use the attack to stir up propaganda fodder for the "race war," they want, meaning more potential radicalization.

I know that's a fake conversation, but the left in your example is absolutely correct, and the right is stretching to politicize. I don't believe in limiting conversation to prevent bad faith or illogical conclusions from others.

And anyway, like I've said before, this conversation would happen regardless. Conservatives ALREADY politicize the out of minority and Muslim murders. It's not like it's a new phenomenon that would be a result of the left politicizing white nationalist attacks. It's the current reality.

And no one will talk about any solutions.

Sure they will. The left will bring up gun control and the right will resist that conversation.

Another simple (partial) solution is to quit preaching xenophobia from the White House and on National TV, and I'm not sure what needs to be discussed there.

[Spurminator]

You’re in the far leftist mass murder thread you dip . Which Dem politician are you placing some blame on for stoking his fires?

Hi TSA, welcome to the discussion, you can find the context of the post you quoted in the posts preceding it.

[DarrinS]

Like, I really don't think anyone with any intellectual honesty can truly say with certainty that the El Paso attack wouldn't have happened without Trump's rhetoric. Consider this guy drove 9 hours to commit these murders in the same city that the President recently visited for a campaign rally to drive support for his wall.

Unless you believe that's just a coincidence, how do you not place some blame on Trump for stoking the fires? These dumbasses think we're at war.

Here's some rhetoric.

[DarrinS]

If you think 2016 was bad, just wait for 2020.

[Spurminator]

Here's how mass shooting debate has changed. When Columbine happened and then the DC sniper situation happened, no one waited on baited breath about the race or political ideology of the shooters. Sick people did sick things and the concern was how to stop it. Now, EVERYONE waits on what was the shooter's race and political ideology is, because they're more concerned with holding a self-righteous position per their "team," than solutions. All this serves to do is entrench and divide.

I agree with this when the ideology is not clearly what drove the attack. I have said as much in other instances where and apparent conservative has committed a crime that did not clearly stem from his ideology.

I disagree when the killer tells us his motivation was ideology. We have to have that conversation.

[midnightpulp]

so you're saying people should avoid calling out the ideology to appease people like this?

No. Just don't browbeat it over and over and over and over. On the hole is twitter, the "outraged" are sharing that meme photo of all the white shooters of the past half decade or so, and making it a point, ignorant to the fact that the Virginia Beach shooter was black. It's obvious where their concern lies, not in mass shooting events, but in blaming a certain demographic they dislike. Case in point. This isn't productive.

[Spurminator]

Here's some rhetoric.

Yes, that is irresponsible. But I'll remind you that I was talking about the President of the United States and your best response was an author.

[weebo]

Here's how mass shooting debate has changed. When Columbine happened and then the DC sniper situation happened, no one waited on baited breath about the race or political ideology of the shooters. Sick people did sick things and the concern was how to stop it. Now, EVERYONE waits on what was the shooter's race and political ideology is, because they're more concerned with holding a self-righteous position per their "team," than solutions. All this serves to do is entrench and divide.

No. It's because of today's political climate and one terrorist president who is stoking the flames of intolerance and violence--that's how today's mass killings differ from the past. No one is arguing that sick people exist and do sick things. What we don't need is someone like the president of the US inciting this type of violent behavior--no matter what you think of Trump--his words carry consequences.

[TSA]

so you're saying people should avoid calling out the ideology to appease people like this?

Right over your head

[midnightpulp]

Here's some rhetoric.

Yes, this is highly unacceptable and should be called out by any well meaning person. I know plenty of Trump supporters in real life, and while I think they're politically ignorant and too infatuated with the man's cult of personality, they aren't "terror supporters," nor deserve eradication.