It depends. A lone wolf doing it for ISIS yes because he may be acting alone but he is defending a terrorist group position.
A random muslim shooting people, even if for religious reasons, but separate from any political position or group, I don't think so. That military muslim doctor that shoot up other soldiers was treated as workplace violence.
That white supremacist that rammed people, maybe. There needs to be a more complete investigation. What groups he was affiliated with? Did he plan it in advance?
That gets fuzzy really quickly. So a guy who watched an ISIS video about attacking people kills several innocents while shouting Alla Akbar, and its terrorism. This Muslim doctor murders a dozen people shouting Allah Akbar and no one can get tot eh bottom of his motives.
I mean, I generally agree with your notion that terrorist acts are better sorted by ideology than by race, but there's a lot of dishonesty on both sides in just how different acts of violence are being categorized.
I think the media is right to call this recent rally a group of white supremacists. But they are laughably wrong to categorize murders based explicitly on Muslim religious views as workplace violence.
. I believe Obama's reason was that he didn't want to alienate the many American muslims and our muslim allies around the world. What is Trumps reason?
Or because Obama was a piece of shit and would rather be politically correct than state the obvious. His "workplace violence" after Fort Hood will go down in infamy.
1. How is a reservation and their bylaws randomly related to Native Americans? Is that your extent of critical thinking or mine?
2. If burial grounds and the rights of people to keep and commemorate them religiously or otherwise is not in your definition of human rights that is a short sighted opinion not shared by our courts.
3. If by peacefully assemble you are including a group of people showing up in riot gear and chanting Nazi originated quotes then we have a difference of opinion and you are free to that.
4. I didn't base anything it was a question, you didn't answer.
5. No the United States has not always been a "Nation with borders defended to a varying degree" that is not true, unless of course it was just a vernacular.
I've addressed every one of your excuses for points and still you come back rewording, changing my context, and deviating further from your original post. I am forced to conclude that you are either mentally retarded or a troll. Either way there is no communicating with you. Although, in an effort to leave with love, I will honor you by responding.
Reservation is random as so far as how you shoehorned it into the conversation. The equivalent of, "der, don't you understand reservations der?". Imagine if I said something like "yeah but haven't you ever used a tomahawk?" Can't you see how that is irrelevant and simply something effortlessly conjured up by having the thought of Native Americans in my head? Not so much an idea as much as a peripheral image. Can't you see how it doesn't expound upon anything? Now imagine, that later after wasting your time, I try to legitimize my ignorance by including the word "bylaws". Not examples of bylaws that build my case, no, just that they exist. Do you lick windows?
Believe it, or not doesn't really matter at this point, the United States (an uncontested sovereign nation) actually has a definition for human rights. Spoiler alert,
dirt patches are not included.
. And no, no court has ever upheld that burial grounds are human rights, you God damned mouth breather.
No, by "peacefully assemble" I do not include a group of people showing up in riot gear and chanting Nazi originated quotes. That is something you brought into this. Are you having an argument in your head that I am not privy? You said "you'd have to tell them they've got no right to peacefully assemble?" and I replied that I would not say that. I know it's brave of me, but I stand by that; people ought to be able to peacefully assemble.
"Your sense of affording reason seems to hinged on a date." is a question? Alright, I'll answer it. You're reading comprehension seems to be hinged on getting milk prior to second recess.
At what point during the existence of the United States did it not have borders? Do you know what borders are?
UTC time, 4:03 AM August 16, 2017
One day, when you are ready, you will realize I've left behind everything you need to find your way.
That is when you must go out and create your own disciples.
I don't know if the people pictured here are anti-white, just as I don't know if everyone who attended the Charlottesville statue protest was anti-black, but the ideologies these groups generally adhere to are based on dividing people by race, and yes, many of them are racist, and many of them explicitly so. It doesn't matter if BLM/Antifa is largely white, they can still believe that white people are a problem by virtue of being white.
I believe that some of these self-hating white people are actually racist against minorities themselves, and this self-flagellation is an attempt to (over)correct for their own biases. A large part of their doctrine is really condescending to people of color, and they treat them like defective children that need to be treated with kid gloves, that need safe spaces, can't succeed without some sort of intervention, and must be allowed to speak first and foremost. It's gross.
My point is that I don't think it's a good idea to speak about one racist group as being better than the other, nor do I think it's better to treat Neo Nazis as being worse than the new wave of Commie-flag waving fascists that want to "punch Nazis" and infringe of people's right to protest. Both the left and right have racist factions that show up to these protests acting despicably, but if you listen to the legacy media, you would think one group is virtuous and the other is not. This will only get worse if we can't be objective and call out racism on both sides.
100% correct. If black people started to put themselves on equal or above footing with whites in terms of education, health, income, crime, life expectancy etc, then that would really bum out these radical leftist groups and people like HRC. I mean who would they talk down to then?
But, I guess they could keep pretending that they're still totally oppressed....I mean it remains their tactic with women.
I've addressed every one of your excuses for points and still you come back rewording, changing my context, and deviating further from your original post. I am forced to conclude that you are either mentally retarded or a troll. Either way there is no communicating with you. Although, in an effort to leave with love, I will honor you by responding.
Reservation is random as so far as how you shoehorned it into the conversation. The equivalent of, "der, don't you understand reservations der?". Imagine if I said something like "yeah but haven't you ever used a tomahawk?" Can't you see how that is irrelevant and simply something effortlessly conjured up by having the thought of Native Americans in my head? Not so much an idea as much as a peripheral image. Can't you see how it doesn't expound upon anything? Now imagine, that later after wasting your time, I try to legitimize my ignorance by including the word "bylaws". Not examples of bylaws that build my case, no, just that they exist. Do you lick windows?
Believe it, or not doesn't really matter at this point, the United States (an uncontested sovereign nation) actually has a definition for human rights. Spoiler alert,
dirt patches are not included.
. And no, no court has ever upheld that burial grounds are human rights, you God damned mouth breather.
No, by "peacefully assemble" I do not include a group of people showing up in riot gear and chanting Nazi originated quotes. That is something you brought into this. Are you having an argument in your head that I am not privy? You said "you'd have to tell them they've got no right to peacefully assemble?" and I replied that I would not say that. I know it's brave of me, but I stand by that; people ought to be able to peacefully assemble.
"Your sense of affording reason seems to hinged on a date." is a question? Alright, I'll answer it. You're reading comprehension seems to be hinged on getting milk prior to second recess.
At what point during the existence of the United States did it not have borders? Do you know what borders are?
UTC time, 4:03 AM August 16, 2017
One day, when you are ready, you will realize I've left behind everything you need to find your way.
That is when you must go out and create your own disciples.
I get how it looks, and I agree it looks bad. And I agree that it is bad. This should be a wake-up call. The thing I also see is that the media has not been objective, even before this event.
A few people have made the observation that this looks like red shirts versus brown shirts, and I agree, but the media only seems to see brown shirts, i.e, Nazis. I believe this will only exacerbate the problem and radicalize even more people. From the start, when people were "protesting Trump" even back in January, the media, if they ever even said anything negative about violence, or about Antifa/BLM, it was always downplayed, or it had nothing to do with Trump proponents, but in this case, you'd think the Alt-Right is the Third Reich incarnate. And maybe they are, but there is a whole other group of people with whom they're fighting with.
I noticed bias in all sorts of media and it depended on the audience they were catering to. CNN is left leaning and obviously don't like Trump or the right and it shows in their stories, Fox is right leaning did not like Obama and liberals and the bias showed in their stories during his tenure as well. Is it fair, no but we each view the world through a certain lens and we should really look to find a middle ground between the two extremes. Unfortunately I think you are correct in your assessment that things will only get worse from here, centrists like myself are dwindling and the polarization of the West is accelerating.
Violence from both sides aside..
The core principal of BLM was to take s stand against mistreatment of black people by people in authority. It was not to promote that only black people's ideals be progressed.
That's how it started, extremists in the black power movement came in and warped the movement and now that's what a lot of white people see and they feel threatened by it.
White nationalists core principals are very poorly defined because what they seem to want is an all white country according to their self described title but that narrative is hard to sell.
I think most would be satisfied with keeping some multiculturalism but firmly entrenching white dominance and power in the West. That's what their "You will not replace us" chant was really about
Also I find it interesting that a half white, half black man is classified as black.
Is this because any black gene is contamination, or that only all white genes are pure?
Or because Obama was a piece of shit and would rather be politically correct than state the obvious. His "workplace violence" after Fort Hood will go down in infamy.
Start with their illogical demands, and then work your way to their leaders, and then to their supporters. If you don't see it by now, I'm not going to change your mind, so there's no sense in a discussion.
Start with their illogical demands, and then work your way to their leaders, and then to their supporters. If you don't see it by now, I'm not going to change your mind, so there's no sense in a discussion.
Violence/Genocide: Do not condone violence or genocide on a person or group of people. You are free to attack a person or groups ideas but you are crossing the line when calling for violence. This will be heavily enforced in threads with breaking news involving victims.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
