|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
They’ll pick another group. The last major act of political violence in the US was a left wing nut that shot up a bunch of Republican congressmen playing baseball.
I'm surprised that no one called him out on that bullshit.
The last major act of political violence was a fucked up white prick shooting up a synagogue in pittsburgh my guy. Not that i'd expected you to remember that, that's not how selective perception works.
Of course, this can't work. We know that it doesn't, because.. well.. it wouldn't work. You can't just be reasonable and decent and expect the toiletscrapings of the country to not rise up.
|
People called him/her/it out on it. Believe that. And the scuttlebutt is that NZ already has very strict gun laws. Not sure what more they can do.
|
On March 16 2019 06:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2019 05:06 youngjiddle wrote:On March 16 2019 05:00 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 16 2019 04:43 youngjiddle wrote:
Above all else, the NZ shooter's motive was to ignite tensions and push us towards civil war as stated in his manifesto. Predictably, everyone seems to be taking the bait and that's not sitting well with me. "Tensions" are already "ignited" around the time the terrorist murdered a bunch of other people. There is no bait, except to inspire others to do the same. To make clear that the greater part of society views his political act as negative is the only only way to combat this. What would make you sit well? To simply allow his message spread without counter? A proper and timely reaction is what is needed, NOT comments like AO-Cortez's mocking the "NRA" and prayer. For those confused, this is what youngjiddle is referring to: We previously spent some time talking about Candace Owen’s bad response. Is there anyone here that thinks AOC’s response on thoughts and prayers and the NRA is appropriate? Is there anyone here who thinks it is inappropriate? I want to know if the forum regulars want to go with “both sides” of bad responses, or “one side.” I don’t really know anymore. She’s kind of a rising star and some of the comments I’ve seen here echo her argument.
Candace Owen's response was full of LOLs, completely failing to grasp the dramatic event and its implications, including her own message.
AOC's message is properly articulated and on point with what I think : I find the whole "thoughts and prayers" message highly inappropriate when it comes from associations advocating for all-around possessions of deadly weapons facilitating these massacres. You could argue about the timing, but the whole "the time for mourning is now, we may (in fact, will not) think about changing policy maybe next time, just spam 'thoughts and prayers' like we care" endless loop is sad and has long since become a sad meme. She's just saying it aloud. The NRA is entitled to its policy, but it should keep its mouth shut during these events.
edit : especially when I see this kind of BULLSHIT :
(Don't let me start on an investigation to check if that guy has got money invested into that specific company)
https://www.local10.com/news/national/state-rep-introduces-bill-to-require-residents-to-own-ar15s?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=snd&utm_content=wplg10
|
AOC took a NZ tragedy and used it to antagonize her political opponent, the NRA
|
United States24701 Posts
I don't know if the NRA came out with a standard "thoughts and prayers" message after the tragedy. If not, then AOC's timing was poor. If yes, then she was justified in calling them out... it's happened before and it will continue to happen (calling people out for saying "thoughts and prayers" and otherwise not lifting a finger to help reduce the risk of tragedy).
|
On March 16 2019 20:55 BerserkSword wrote:
AOC took a NZ tragedy and used it to antagonize her political opponent, the NRA
I also feel that in general the NRA and all the pro-NRA politicians should take their messages of sympathy when one of those mass shootings happens and shove it up their collective asses. And in that New Zealand case, everyone who surfs on white supremacism, anti-muslim biggotry and so on and so forth. So basically the whole of the GOP. AOC is right, they should really stfu.
Do something and then offer your sympathy. But offering your sympathy when you are part of the problem is adding insult to the injury.
Meanwhile, Trump is downplaying the threat of white terrorism. Because of course he is.
|
nah
AOC is a buffoon regardless of what the NRA said
this is a NZ tragedy not a US tragedy. the NRA has nothing to do with NZ
she used this NZ event as a chance to try and publicly denounce one of her domestic political opponents. It's a NZ tragedy - why bring US politics into this
|
On March 16 2019 21:14 BerserkSword wrote:
nah
AOC is a buffoon regardless of what the NRA said
this is a NZ tragedy not a US tragedy. the NRA has nothing to do with NZ
she used this NZ event as a chance to try and publicly denounce one of her domestic political opponents. It's a NZ tragedy - why bring US politics into this Because it happens pretty regularly in the US aswell?
|
United States24701 Posts
On March 16 2019 21:14 BerserkSword wrote:
nah Quite a well thought out argument you have there.
AOC is a buffoon Already nobody is taking you seriously. regardless of what the NRA said She can completely hold the NRA accountable for what they said.
this is a NZ tragedy not a US tragedy. the NRA has nothing to do with NZ That is why I acknowledged, if the NRA hadn't made any statements, that it was poor timing for AOC to respond to the NRA.
she used this NZ event as a chance to try and publicly denounce one of her domestic political opponents. It's a NZ tragedy - why bring US politics into this This isn't about defeating the NRA. This is about preventing mass shootings, whether they are in the USA or NZ or anywhere else. Your attempts to paint this as only being about politics puts you in the same camp as the folks from the NRA who tweet out "thoughts and prayers" whenever there is a mass shooting but make no effort to change their policies or make helpful recommendations.
In other words, you are partly responsible for shooting victims with your god-awful attitude and lack of self-awareness.
|
The idea that these incidents can be neatly separated out based on nationality is ridiculous given how increasingly interconnected everything and everyone is. This website itself is proof in the pudding that the divide between the US and other countries, especially in terms of ideas and culture, is close to non-existent or, at minimum, extremely porous. Accordingly, the notion that the NRA has nothing to do with gun violence that occurs in other countries doesn't even make it out the gate given how much we export our cultural ideas of gun ownership. Add in the fact that the shooter, troll or not, made explicit references to American political and cultural institutions and the notion that this tragedy belongs to NZ and NZ alone falls apart.
I think this relates rather nicely to another flawed concept peddled by some, that speakers have no responsibility or connection to listeners who act on the ideas spoken. We no longer live in a world in which speech acts are confined to local, geographic borders, so while the question of how culpability attaches to a speaker who says something that is construed by another as an impetus for wrongful acts is still open, the notion that there is no culpability whatsoever as a matter of course clearly no longer holds water.
|
|
|
On March 16 2019 21:20 micronesia wrote:Quite a well thought out argument you have there. Already nobody is taking you seriously. She can completely hold the NRA accountable for what they said. That is why I acknowledged, if the NRA hadn't made any statements, that it was poor timing for AOC to respond to the NRA. Show nested quote +she used this NZ event as a chance to try and publicly denounce one of her domestic political opponents. It's a NZ tragedy - why bring US politics into this This isn't about defeating the NRA. This is about preventing mass shootings, whether they are in the USA or NZ or anywhere else. Your attempts to paint this as only being about politics puts you in the same camp as the folks from the NRA who tweet out "thoughts and prayers" whenever there is a mass shooting but make no effort to change their policies or make helpful recommendations. In other words, you are partly responsible for shooting victims with your god-awful attitude and lack of self-awareness.
Governments kill more people than "citizens" killing other "citizens", yet there are very few calling for the abolishment of Government, or, more appropriately to the topic, disarming the Government. Why does this singular institution skirt by the moral outrage? I assume someone will argue that it's necessary for self-defense of the community, but yet, will also say that the right of the individual to do the same should be stamped out. I never understood how people can trust a group of individuals in charge of a monopolistic power that has a history of far more bloodshed and violence, than individuals themselves. Empirically, it's indefensible.
|
Yeah., this thread has never talked about police violence and a need for large scale reform.
Nope, never talked about. /s
|
Plenty of people advocate for the de-militarization of the police, dramatic decreases in military funding, and other reductions in the extent to which the government perpetrates violence. While I'm sure that doesn't go far enough for someone who thinks "disarming the Government" is a coherent position, Spoonerist anti-government whataboutism has very little to do with the extent to which the US exports its gun/white nationalist culture and plays a culpable role in hate crimes like that committed in NZ.
|
On March 16 2019 22:41 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2019 21:20 micronesia wrote:On March 16 2019 21:14 BerserkSword wrote:
nah Quite a well thought out argument you have there. AOC is a buffoon Already nobody is taking you seriously. regardless of what the NRA said She can completely hold the NRA accountable for what they said. this is a NZ tragedy not a US tragedy. the NRA has nothing to do with NZ That is why I acknowledged, if the NRA hadn't made any statements, that it was poor timing for AOC to respond to the NRA. she used this NZ event as a chance to try and publicly denounce one of her domestic political opponents. It's a NZ tragedy - why bring US politics into this This isn't about defeating the NRA. This is about preventing mass shootings, whether they are in the USA or NZ or anywhere else. Your attempts to paint this as only being about politics puts you in the same camp as the folks from the NRA who tweet out "thoughts and prayers" whenever there is a mass shooting but make no effort to change their policies or make helpful recommendations. In other words, you are partly responsible for shooting victims with your god-awful attitude and lack of self-awareness. Governments kill more people than "citizens" killing other "citizens", yet there are very few calling for the abolishment of Government, or, more appropriately to the topic, disarming the Government. Why does this singular institution skirt by the moral outrage? I assume someone will argue that it's necessary for self-defense of the community, but yet, will also say that the right of the individual to do the same should be stamped out. I never understood how people can trust a group of individuals in charge of a monopolistic power that has a history of far more bloodshed and violence, than individuals themselves. Empirically, it's indefensible.
"Empirically", you should have a look and take other countries into account. There are a LOT less deaths due to the government powers here (prison, police, etc, unless you take into account our military forces killing terrorists abroad, and even counting them I'm not sure) than citizens killing other citizens. Overall, it's still a drop compared to US gun deaths (relative to population)
The US has got a unique problem with police violence and privately owned weapons due to its history, but is very good at burying its head in the sand (and sending thoughts and prayers !).
|
It's not like we as a society can't tackle various negative aspects at once...
|
On March 16 2019 21:36 farvacola wrote:
The idea that these incidents can be neatly separated out based on nationality is ridiculous given how increasingly interconnected everything and everyone is. This website itself is proof in the pudding that the divide between the US and other countries, especially in terms of ideas and culture, is close to non-existent or, at minimum, extremely porous. Accordingly, the notion that the NRA has nothing to do with gun violence that occurs in other countries doesn't even make it out the gate given how much we export our cultural ideas of gun ownership. Add in the fact that the shooter, troll or not, made explicit references to American political and cultural institutions and the notion that this tragedy belongs to NZ and NZ alone falls apart.
I think this relates rather nicely to another flawed concept peddled by some, that speakers have no responsibility or connection to listeners who act on the ideas spoken. We no longer live in a world in which speech acts are confined to local, geographic borders, so while the question of how culpability attaches to a speaker who says something that is construed by another as an impetus for wrongful acts is still open, the notion that there is no culpability whatsoever as a matter of course clearly no longer holds water.
Please slow down before you totally erode responsibility of people for their own actions. This isn't the Manson family where you have an incitement or order to actually commit any crime. Someone says something, a public intellectual let's say, and someone else hears it, then decides to shoot someone. Forget that the person is crazy, and would have shot someone under different conditions anyway, maybe after hearing someone else talk, maybe after reading a book, maybe even one written by someone long dead - who you'd then have no chance to hold accountable. Anyway. Can I say the same thing and still not be culpable as long as I'm lucky enough that no psychopath mentions me later in a narcissistic manifesto? Am I safe then? And what about the poor sap who does get mentioned? What punishment is appropriate to exact on them? If this isn't just an excuse to advocate stifling political thought of your opposing side I'm interested to hear where you're going because it sounds to me to be a direction away from that of justice and towards thought crime.
|
It’s curious that you begin your comment with a request that I slow down, only to then run with what I said far beyond the ambit of its contents, complete with a a du jour mention of Orwellian thought crime as though that’s somehow relevant. I made no mention of anything resembling criminalization and stated that the extent to which speakers are culpable for the acts of listeners remains an open question for a reason, after all. This isn’t about jailing people who say dangerous, inciteful things (regardless of the merits in that), it’s about complicating outdated notions of speech act culpability with attention paid to the practically unlimited scope of audience exposure and dissemination, among other contemporary concerns. I don’t know how we as a society ought go about that, but I do know that throwing up our arms and saying, “uh oh, [insert stilted Orwell reference here]” isn’t it, chief.
|
It seemed vague and abstract so I wanted to get to the tangible parts of what you were saying, not trying to put words in your mouth but narrow the boundaries a little.
Since you're dismissing the idea of thought crime, I'll take that to mean that I wouldn't be as culpable as the public figure for the same speech owing to my having such a smaller audience.
In which case, again, how is this justice (Forget whether this is a legal issue, you've brought up culpability, this is treading on moral ground)? If the speech is really so powerful that it could drive someone to kill, why would the public figure and I be held to different standards?
You say it's an open question but you're not putting the finger on any problem or offering even the most superficially brainstormed solutions. If the person is culpable as you seem to want to say (but maybe only have enough footing to make the weaker claim that it's an open question), but there's nothing anyone can do about it, it's functionally different from not being culpable at all and it seems the issue would therefore be moot. Because we can't apparently conclude or derive anything from it. Right?
If you don't know, I'm asking you to please try and think of something. Will this just boil down to ban them from social media? In which case we have to wait until after a tragedy to do anything, right. For example you wouldn't have wanted to preemptively shut down 8chan in the event someone reading it might have committed an atrocity in the future, and say that all the thousands of posters there each were to share in an infinitesimal culpability for it?
|
The day after the NZ attack, trump explicitly called illegal immigrants in the US invaders. The NZ attacker, of course, said the same about immigrants. It's not an accident that trump said that. At the very least, he wants to keep white supremacists in his tent. I would bet that, deep down, hes an old fashioned white supremacist himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
