|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population?
Do we mean recent as in past decade or recent as in modern? Timothy McVeigh and the other Oklahoma City bombers were 20 years ago, after all, and I think that's universally called a terrorist attack.
|
On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population?
Dude get over your race obsession. The next time a white guy start running people over with a car while shouting "allahu akbar" we will all line up to call him a terrorist.
|
On November 06 2017 08:32 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Do we mean recent as in past decade or recent as in modern? Timothy McVeigh and the other Oklahoma City bombers were 20 years ago, after all, and I think that's universally called a terrorist attack.
I was thinking the past decade but post 9/11 would probably work. That you have to reach that far back to pull one off the top of your head should be a clue.
On November 06 2017 08:34 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Dude get over your race obsession. The next time a white guy start running people over with a car while shouting "allahu akbar" we will all line up to call him a terrorist.
But not "White Power" right?
|
On November 06 2017 07:55 KwarK wrote:
The whole allegation that the left are doing identity politics is completely absurd on the face of it anyway. Ever since the Southern Strategy the right have had an open strategy of courting white heterosexual Christian men who feel threatened by the slow erosion of their privileged place in society. It's been one long "fuck you" to women, minorities, gays etc. And then they have the nerve to accuse the Democrats of pandering to those groups, simply because the Democrats won't join them shouting "fuck you" at American citizens.
Letting homosexuals marry is not pandering to gays, they're American citizens, marriage is their right. Refusing to let homosexuals marry is pandering to homophobes.
Investigating police departments accused of systematic racism is not pandering to blacks, they're American citizens, protection from undue search and seize is their right. Refusing to investigate is pandering to racists.
Enshrining equal rights within the workplace for women is not pandering to women, they're American citizens, they should have legal recourse when facing workplace harassment. Refusing to give them that is pandering to sexists.
As GH will happily tell you over and over, the Democrats have basically done the bare minimum for these groups. They're not playing identity politics, the right has set up a theocratic patriarchy as the default and is insisting that anyone not joining them is some kind of feminazi white hater.
Refusing to pander to white identity politics is not black identity politics.
This shit right here? This shit is the truth. But it won't be acknowledged by the conservatives. Because in their alternate reality of the USA, it's been fire and brimstone for the past 8 years.
|
On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population?
Though in the U.K., I think this is pretty widely considered a terrorist attack: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attack
I think the thing about terrorism is that to be called terrorism it has to have a political goal. I wouldn't consider the Las Vegas guy a terrorist because there was no political goal for what he did, I would consider Dylan Roof's shootings a terrorist attack because there was a goal for that.
Was the Charlottesville guy called a terrorist by the media in the US?
|
On November 06 2017 08:45 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Though in the U.K., I think this is pretty widely considered a terrorist attack: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attackI think the thing about terrorism is that to be called terrorism it has to have a political goal. I wouldn't consider the Las Vegas guy a terrorist because there was no political goal for what he did, I would consider Dylan Roof's shootings a terrorist attack because there was a goal for that. Was the Charlottesville guy called a terrorist by the media in the US?
Talking about the US still.
Some did, some didn't.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/us/dylann-roof-guilty-plea-state-trial/index.html
|
On November 06 2017 08:34 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Dude get over your race obsession. The next time a white guy start running people over with a car while shouting "allah Akbar" we will all line up to call him a terrorist.
If he is white they won't even report that he was yelling allahu Akbar.
|
On November 06 2017 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:45 kollin wrote:On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Though in the U.K., I think this is pretty widely considered a terrorist attack: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attackI think the thing about terrorism is that to be called terrorism it has to have a political goal. I wouldn't consider the Las Vegas guy a terrorist because there was no political goal for what he did, I would consider Dylan Roof's shootings a terrorist attack because there was a goal for that. Was the Charlottesville guy called a terrorist by the media in the US? Talking about the US still. Some did, some didn't. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/us/dylann-roof-guilty-plea-state-trial/index.html
There's obviously a discrepancy between white people and brown people being called terrorists, but I think a lot of the outrage over white people not being called terrorists after they commit atrocities is misplaced, and can often play into the hands of those who seek not to 'politicise' these tragedies and thus face some uncomfortable truths. Terrorism is a political act, and has a political solution. Some lunatic killing people might have a political solution, but it is important to make a distinction.
|
|
|
United States42778 Posts
On November 06 2017 09:13 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:45 kollin wrote:On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Though in the U.K., I think this is pretty widely considered a terrorist attack: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attackI think the thing about terrorism is that to be called terrorism it has to have a political goal. I wouldn't consider the Las Vegas guy a terrorist because there was no political goal for what he did, I would consider Dylan Roof's shootings a terrorist attack because there was a goal for that. Was the Charlottesville guy called a terrorist by the media in the US? Talking about the US still. Some did, some didn't. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/us/dylann-roof-guilty-plea-state-trial/index.html There's obviously a discrepancy between white people and brown people being called terrorists, but I think a lot of the outrage over white people not being called terrorists after they commit atrocities is misplaced, and can often play into the hands of those who seek not to 'politicise' these tragedies and thus face some uncomfortable truths. Terrorism is a political act, and has a political solution. Some lunatic killing people might have a political solution, but it is important to make a distinction.
He's not saying that all attacks by white guys are terrorism. Nobody is saying to call all attacks terrorism, obviously criteria should be applied. The problem is the main criteria being applied by large parts of the media is the skin colour of the attacker, and not the criteria you're talking about.
|
On November 06 2017 09:13 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:45 kollin wrote:On November 06 2017 08:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 08:01 Falling wrote:
@GH
Not really true. I would see the FLQ and the IRA as very much terrorists and being French-Canadian and Irish- and indeed, they were viewed as such by the wider populace. And they're are as white as you can get without being Anglo-Saxon (if we want to jump back to that old hierarchy). But definitions, categories, and motivations matter. If a lone guy goes out and kills a bunch people, it might just be a mass murder. He might also be mentally ill. Or perhaps he was connected to something larger, in which case maybe he was a terrorist. And maybe he was also mentally ill- some of these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it seems to me that terrorism needs some sort of ideology or organization. I'm not exactly sure of the dividing line, and I'm sure there are lots of edge cases. But at the very least, I think the idea is false that the distinction is really just a matter of colour codes. I can't speak to the IRA conflict regarding this, and it's not for that. It's about the US. So the question would be what are some recent examples of white men in the US universally named as terrorists by corporate media and the general white population? Though in the U.K., I think this is pretty widely considered a terrorist attack: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Finsbury_Park_attackI think the thing about terrorism is that to be called terrorism it has to have a political goal. I wouldn't consider the Las Vegas guy a terrorist because there was no political goal for what he did, I would consider Dylan Roof's shootings a terrorist attack because there was a goal for that. Was the Charlottesville guy called a terrorist by the media in the US? Talking about the US still. Some did, some didn't. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/us/dylann-roof-guilty-plea-state-trial/index.html There's obviously a discrepancy between white people and brown people being called terrorists, but I think a lot of the outrage over white people not being called terrorists after they commit atrocities is misplaced, and can often play into the hands of those who seek not to 'politicise' these tragedies and thus face some uncomfortable truths. Terrorism is a political act, and has a political solution. Some lunatic killing people might have a political solution, but it is important to make a distinction.
It's more than a "discrepancy". The "political" connections of plenty of Muslim "terrorists" have been tenuous at best in some situations causing no hesitation in calling them terrorists.
https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrorist/
This argument is primarily used to distract from the real problems in why white terrorist attacks aren't called terrorist attacks.
|
I think we're probably talking past each other a bit here. I agree the media is awful at doing anything as it should be done, but what I do notice on social media (for what it's worth) is people thinking that attacks such as the Las Vegas one should be called terrorist attacks. Basically I agree with you entirely though.
|
On November 06 2017 08:27 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 07:08 Danglars wrote:On November 06 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I am interpreting the loaded gun and flight 93 analogies to mean that if the gun fires or the plane arrives, in some fashion the United States ceases to exist as a country.
The point I was really trying to make is that the writer of the article admits that Trump is potentially as dangerous as he believes Clinton and liberals to be, but in a different way. My takeaway from that essay was that conservatives would be more okay with a scenario where everybody loses (the one bullet in the Trump revolver ends up fired) than that liberals win. What's missing from that essay is a willingness to accept that liberals want to see America thrive.
An analogy. I think that the Republican economic blueprint is disastrous. I'm pretty sure Kansas bore me out here, but that's not really the point. The point is that I never determined that conservatives would rather see Kansas collapse as a functional state in the union than change course, and I don't know any liberals who think that way. I don't know any conservatives who think that way, either.
It's not like I don't understand the feeling of needing to stop a political movement. I'd really hate to see the US become a Christian theocracy, as some Republicans indicate support for once in a while. But given the choice between the US becoming a theocracy or the US collapsing, I'd take the former. I'd hate to see it happen, but it's still salvageable. Like with Kansas, I am willing to believe that if doesn't work out well, the country can and will change course.
It's not that I don't want you or other conservatives to not care about dangers that liberalism might present.
I just find the attitude that the country falling apart is an acceptable and possibly preferable alternative to liberals getting their way to be terrifying. All my first post really wanted to do was express that sentiment. I’m not in this to differentiate between misguided liberals and anti-civilizations/dyscivic liberals. Trump has a danger, but it’s mild compared to Clinton’s. Conservatives survive Trump to fight another day. Clinton puts conservatism on the ropes so hard that it’s doubtful that the movement ever again holds political power. Liberals had their chance to show compromise and didn’t choose it. Welp, that’s that. It’s pretty humorous talking about theocracy in the age of Trump. It’s like you’re searching for the most implausible scapegoats because it’s too hard to present compelling arguments. You want to call the shots to how and why the country is falling apart? Meet me at the electoral college, because the rationales are fundamentally irreconciliable. What the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read what I said or did you just skim it for a few words to write insults around? I never came close to suggesting that we're looking at the possibility of a theocracy. There's a few outlier Republicans that indicate support for it. I just used it as an example of something that I would find to be absolutely abhorrent. In the meantime, you're happily joining the push for a conservative US or no US at all, and you're wondering why liberals aren't comfortable compromising with that. If America decides that conservatism as represented by the Republican party isn't what it wants, then that movement should die off and be replaced by something America does want as political parties have done in the past, not be preserved at all costs by breaking the country until that movement can put up a fight again. Can we start talking about anti-civilization conservatives now? Because you're clearly not interested in more than the facade of discussion.
Yeah, dude. Did you read what you wrote? You'd really hate to see the US become a Christian theocracy? You contrast that with American collapse? You would do well not to mention it unless you're bringing it to the table as a non-negligible American movement. I might as well suggest you support an Antifa takeover and allege that you'd prefer that to American collapse. Ridiculous and strange.
If you want to make the case that the conservative vision for America is anti-civilization, make the fucking case. All I've seen is you throw around these Caesar Augustus bizarre reductionist conclusions and then jump back aghast the I think your view is ignorant. We have these institutions. The constitution endures. Trump isn't leading a united coalition to destroy America. Listen to the way you talk and please, follow through on your thoughts. I won't be responding to spoken positions that you forget in the response to the response for much longer.
|
On November 06 2017 09:30 kollin wrote:
I think we're probably talking past each other a bit here. I agree the media is awful at doing anything as it should be done, but what I do notice on social media (for what it's worth) is people thinking that attacks such as the Las Vegas one should be called terrorist attacks. Basically I agree with you entirely though.
Part of it is that he did terrorize people (which has no political connotation definitionally) so people are inclined to call such a perpetrator a "terrorist".
It's hard to understand how and why people would/could murder masses of somewhat random people without intention/awareness of the political implications. It's hard to believe we're getting the whole story and the true story out of Las Vegas or other instances since police across the country are notoriously untrustworthy and known to manipulate evidence.
I generally don't like the increase of the use of "terrorist" for specifically the reasons of Trumps tirade of sending people to gitmo.
But the US media jumps through all sorts of hoops to make it where no one can find an example of white US terrorists being universally called such since 9/11, even though they've committed more attacks and killed more Americans in the US.
|
On November 06 2017 07:28 kollin wrote:
'Classic liberal' is the umbrella under which people who are either racist or educated on YouTube (often both) like to hide.
Trump leaves office, but the idiots that think classical liberalism is a front for racists will endure. Trump is a symptom of the problem, but the problem is much deeper.
|
On November 06 2017 09:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 07:28 kollin wrote:
'Classic liberal' is the umbrella under which people who are either racist or educated on YouTube (often both) like to hide. Trump leaves office, but the idiots that think classical liberalism is a front for racists will endure. Trump is a symptom of the problem, but the problem is much deeper.
I think it's a front for racists because I see racists describing themselves as it. That simple.
|
This is really important and we should not let this tragedy hide this.
|
On November 06 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 09:30 kollin wrote:
I think we're probably talking past each other a bit here. I agree the media is awful at doing anything as it should be done, but what I do notice on social media (for what it's worth) is people thinking that attacks such as the Las Vegas one should be called terrorist attacks. Basically I agree with you entirely though. Part of it is that he did terrorize people (which has no political connotation definitionally) so people are inclined to call such a perpetrator a "terrorist". It's hard to understand how and why people would/could murder masses of somewhat random people without intention/awareness of the political implications. It's hard to believe we're getting the whole story and the true story out of Las Vegas or other instances since police across the country are notoriously untrustworthy and known to manipulate evidence. I generally don't like the increase of the use of "terrorist" for specifically the reasons of Trumps tirade of sending people to gitmo. But the US media jumps through all sorts of hoops to make it where no one can find an example of white US terrorists being universally called such since 9/11, even though they've committed more attacks and killed more Americans in the US.
I do broadly agree with you, I guess the point I was making is that if we use the term terrorist too broadly, then the fact that terrorists carry out their act with political motives in mind can often be forgotten, leading too easily to the 'don't politicise this tragedy' mindset that shuts down any discussion of solutions from the outset.
|
Preliminary chatter is he was an air force veteran and taught Sunday school
![[image loading]](https://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/DN53EbUW0AEPTnU.jpg)
|
On November 06 2017 09:54 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2017 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 06 2017 09:30 kollin wrote:
I think we're probably talking past each other a bit here. I agree the media is awful at doing anything as it should be done, but what I do notice on social media (for what it's worth) is people thinking that attacks such as the Las Vegas one should be called terrorist attacks. Basically I agree with you entirely though. Part of it is that he did terrorize people (which has no political connotation definitionally) so people are inclined to call such a perpetrator a "terrorist". It's hard to understand how and why people would/could murder masses of somewhat random people without intention/awareness of the political implications. It's hard to believe we're getting the whole story and the true story out of Las Vegas or other instances since police across the country are notoriously untrustworthy and known to manipulate evidence. I generally don't like the increase of the use of "terrorist" for specifically the reasons of Trumps tirade of sending people to gitmo. But the US media jumps through all sorts of hoops to make it where no one can find an example of white US terrorists being universally called such since 9/11, even though they've committed more attacks and killed more Americans in the US. I do broadly agree with you, I guess the point I was making is that if we use the term terrorist too broadly, then the fact that terrorists carry out their act with political motives in mind can often be forgotten, leading too easily to the 'don't politicise this tragedy' mindset that shuts down any discussion of solutions from the outset.
The "we need to call this terrorism" when it's unclear it's terrorism and the perp was clearly white is a small segment of the general population with some comparably sized "independent" outlets somewhat agreeing, vs 0 effort not to politicize any brown or black people killing more than one white person. There's a lot of overlap between "crazy" and "political" the idea is that when the crazy lines up however loosely with predominantly brown or black ideologies it's terrorism and when it overlaps with predominately white ideologies it's just crazy and coincidence.
The truth is it's closer to the latter for everyone, but that treatment is reserved exclusively for white people.
The people who would use the diversion you speak of to justify their "let's not politicize this tragedy" would do it regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
