|
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 |
A) You're just shy of having dropped a link into the thread without an explanation, because B) the article you shared contains exactly zero references to the DNC or people coordinating responses.
I find your conspiracy pushing to be far more interesting than the article you shared or the conspiracy you're trying to use it to push.
|
On April 23 2019 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Is this the next phase in the outrage machine? People who worship on the day of Easter must be referred to by the religious sect and given a full and detailed reason why they are worshiping. No short hand will be used. If it is, it disrespectful to Christians. Or something?
On the list of things that don’t matter, what short hand people/political parties use on twitter is up there.
It's more that they all call it that, when no one else does or ever has called Christians "Easter worshipers".
Imagine if Trump called Muslim people "Eid al-Fitr worshippers" after an attack on Eid al-Fitr. Imagine the outrage.
|
|
|
Interesting, yes. Wrong? No. It makes perfect sense. Christians in America are already hollering "wahhh we are discriminated against! Christians are so persecuted!". I wouldn't want to give them any more fucking ammo for their bullshit. You can show sympathy with the term "Easter worshippers", which is technically correct, without having to say "Christians". In my not-so-humble opinion, the last thing we need to do is stir up more us vs them religious garbage.
|
On April 23 2019 03:40 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Is this the next phase in the outrage machine? People who worship on the day of Easter must be referred to by the religious sect and given a full and detailed reason why they are worshiping. No short hand will be used. If it is, it disrespectful to Christians. Or something?
On the list of things that don’t matter, what short hand people/political parties use on twitter is up there.
It's more that they all call it that, when no one else does or ever has called Christians "Easter worshipers". Imagine if Trump called Muslim people "Eid al-Fitr worshippers" after an attack on Eid al-Fitr. Imagine the outrage.
I’m having a hard time imagining any outrage at all. Confusion maybe, but no outrage. The term is pretty simple: Those who be worshiping on the day known as Easter.
|
i don’t understand why anyone would be outraged, is the claim that we are denying their christiandom by calling them easter worshippers? do other religions celebrate easter?
this seems on the level of getting outraged by ‘happy holidays,’ which imo can be disregarded. sounds like they found Trump’s playbook!
On April 23 2019 03:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 03:40 youngjiddle wrote:On April 23 2019 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Is this the next phase in the outrage machine? People who worship on the day of Easter must be referred to by the religious sect and given a full and detailed reason why they are worshiping. No short hand will be used. If it is, it disrespectful to Christians. Or something?
On the list of things that don’t matter, what short hand people/political parties use on twitter is up there.
It's more that they all call it that, when no one else does or ever has called Christians "Easter worshipers". Imagine if Trump called Muslim people "Eid al-Fitr worshippers" after an attack on Eid al-Fitr. Imagine the outrage. I’m having a hard time imagining any outrage at all. Confusion maybe, but no outrage. The term is pretty simple: Those who be worshiping on the day known as Easter.
yea i’m plenty confused myself 
|
The reporting on the Sri Lanka attack the killed hundreds is a pretty minor one. Quite a lot was made in the news about the identity of the worshipers in the New Zealand killings. It fed into the loudest people here, as elsewhere, talking about white supremacy and anti-Muslim bigotry. That's the antecedent and should be understood.
The reason why people got confused or outraged was that prominent people made no reference to the religious identity of the victims in their expressions of sympathy. It's not that they absolutely knew the writers intended to leave the religious identity out. It's that awkward phrasing was used and the question was why on earth would someone not use Christians in the reporting.
As long as you're willing to talk about the ideology of the killers and the religion of the victims, I don't really care enough to argue with people that say it's no big deal. I see enough outrage in the world to not waste too much time on questions like "Maybe some comms people wanted to soften the religious context involved."
|
It reads more like an attempt to write "church worshippers" and "christians" but without insulting either of those who count themselves as such, but that would not attend Easter services, which are attributed to be pagan rituals. Most who count themselves of being in a church, or would call themselves Christians do not attend Easter services at all.
It is strange phrasing, but when the President of USA writes that 138 million Sri Lankans were killed by a terrorist attack, that's much more worthy to focus on. That is far more interesting words for youngjiddle to point out instead.
In any case, no group has claimed ownership of the attack, which is somewhat strange to be honest. That too is far more interesting.
|
Northern Ireland26044 Posts
I mean it’s stupid, some folks are stupid, some actively try to find these things to manipulate outrage over nonsense
|
The war on Christmas was never real. The only problems people have with Christmas are related to it being a holiday about consuming in support of capitalism.
|
|
|
On April 23 2019 04:18 Danglars wrote:
The reporting on the Sri Lanka attack the killed hundreds is a pretty minor one. Quite a lot was made in the news about the identity of the worshipers in the New Zealand killings. It fed into the loudest people here, as elsewhere, talking about white supremacy and anti-Muslim bigotry. That's the antecedent and should be understood.
The reason why people got confused or outraged was that prominent people made no reference to the religious identity of the victims in their expressions of sympathy. It's not that they absolutely knew the writers intended to leave the religious identity out. It's that awkward phrasing was used and the question was why on earth would someone not use Christians in the reporting.
As long as you're willing to talk about the ideology of the killers and the religion of the victims, I don't really care enough to argue with people that say it's no big deal. I see enough outrage in the world to not waste too much time on questions like "Maybe some comms people wanted to soften the religious context involved."
so the (expected?) outrage is because nobody said christians with regards to the *easter* bombings?
you’d have to assume an incredible amount of stupidity into a mass of people to have that make sense as a specific argument against outright identifying all the victims as christian, insofar as that’s at all required because your claim on the identity of the victims in the christchurch bombing is the first i’ve seen as characterized. so perhaps it suffices to say i must not understand the antecedent, again at least as described. i don’t think much of those that need to fuel religious division, but this seems still a bridge too far.
as far as a reason for stoking outrage, that alone also seems to fall a bit short of even the absurdly short fuse for the public at large. still seems to me like they just ripped it out of the Trump playbook. say something that can be taken out of context as weird to ruffle someone’s jimmies and have them looking foolish for it. a classic to be sure.
|
On April 23 2019 04:18 Danglars wrote:
The reporting on the Sri Lanka attack the killed hundreds is a pretty minor one. Quite a lot was made in the news about the identity of the worshipers in the New Zealand killings. It fed into the loudest people here, as elsewhere, talking about white supremacy and anti-Muslim bigotry. That's the antecedent and should be understood.
The reason why people got confused or outraged was that prominent people made no reference to the religious identity of the victims in their expressions of sympathy. It's not that they absolutely knew the writers intended to leave the religious identity out. It's that awkward phrasing was used and the question was why on earth would someone not use Christians in the reporting.
As long as you're willing to talk about the ideology of the killers and the religion of the victims, I don't really care enough to argue with people that say it's no big deal. I see enough outrage in the world to not waste too much time on questions like "Maybe some comms people wanted to soften the religious context involved."
I can see your argument. I don't agree with it, but I can see where it's coming from. I think the rationale is that people who are talking about it are afraid that people watching/listening/reading might take "attack on Christians" and run with it. Perhaps start claiming it's an epidemic or that "omg Christianphobia is a thing"! Kind of like when you hear about cops killing a lot of black folks but people don't bother to point out that so-and-so killed by an officer was white. Christians being specifically targeted by Muslims seems to be in that same vein. Not exactly the way I want to explain it but it's close enough.
|
On April 23 2019 04:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 04:18 Danglars wrote:
The reporting on the Sri Lanka attack the killed hundreds is a pretty minor one. Quite a lot was made in the news about the identity of the worshipers in the New Zealand killings. It fed into the loudest people here, as elsewhere, talking about white supremacy and anti-Muslim bigotry. That's the antecedent and should be understood.
The reason why people got confused or outraged was that prominent people made no reference to the religious identity of the victims in their expressions of sympathy. It's not that they absolutely knew the writers intended to leave the religious identity out. It's that awkward phrasing was used and the question was why on earth would someone not use Christians in the reporting.
As long as you're willing to talk about the ideology of the killers and the religion of the victims, I don't really care enough to argue with people that say it's no big deal. I see enough outrage in the world to not waste too much time on questions like "Maybe some comms people wanted to soften the religious context involved." How was the reporting about Sri Lanka killings small? It was the lead story on every site and news broadcast I saw? Is this some odd form of concern trolling? How could have they reported it bigger? You disagreed with their font choice? I'm confused.
The reporting is "small" because the attacks happened in a third world country. I don't think it's fair to blame the media for covering it like they did instead of giving it the same attention the 2015 Paris attacks received.
|
On April 23 2019 04:18 Danglars wrote:
The reporting on the Sri Lanka attack the killed hundreds is a pretty minor one. Quite a lot was made in the news about the identity of the worshipers in the New Zealand killings. It fed into the loudest people here, as elsewhere, talking about white supremacy and anti-Muslim bigotry. That's the antecedent and should be understood.
The reason why people got confused or outraged was that prominent people made no reference to the religious identity of the victims in their expressions of sympathy. It's not that they absolutely knew the writers intended to leave the religious identity out. It's that awkward phrasing was used and the question was why on earth would someone not use Christians in the reporting.
As long as you're willing to talk about the ideology of the killers and the religion of the victims, I don't really care enough to argue with people that say it's no big deal. I see enough outrage in the world to not waste too much time on questions like "Maybe some comms people wanted to soften the religious context involved."
The NZ attacks happened in a western country and was livestreamed on social media. For being an attack in a 3rd world country with a history of widespread violence, I think the reporting has been as should be expected.
What is really interresting is that it was apparently a small fractional muslim group who carried out the attacks. They did have tight bonds to Saudi-Arabia and maybe also IS, and probably got help to carry out the attacks. How does this go with Trump recently vetoing to keep supporting SA? Are there limits to what SA can do, or are they immune as long as they are "allies" like Israel?
|
Canada11370 Posts
On April 23 2019 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Is this the next phase in the outrage machine? People who worship on the day of Easter must be referred to by the religious sect and given a full and detailed reason why they are worshiping. No short hand will be used. If it is, it disrespectful to Christians. Or something?
On the list of things that don’t matter, what short hand people/political parties use on twitter is up there.
There need not be outrage to say 'that is an incorrect term'. Easter worshipers sounds like someone who worships Easter. It's a term of obfuscation whether intentionally or not that is longer than the actual term. It's not disrespectful; it's just an invented term that's wrong. The term certainly doesn't need defenders. Can we not say 'it's wrong' and then let it pass? No outrage required on either side?
|
On April 23 2019 05:10 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Is this the next phase in the outrage machine? People who worship on the day of Easter must be referred to by the religious sect and given a full and detailed reason why they are worshiping. No short hand will be used. If it is, it disrespectful to Christians. Or something?
On the list of things that don’t matter, what short hand people/political parties use on twitter is up there.
There need not be outrage to say 'that is an incorrect term'. Easter worshipers sounds like someone who worships Easter. It's a term of obfuscation whether intentionally or not that is longer than the actual term. It's not disrespectful; it's just an invented term that's wrong. The term certainly doesn't need defenders. Can we not say 'it's wrong' and then let it pass? No outrage required on either side?
Its not a term. It is two words put side by side to describe people who worship on a specific day. You can say “Good Friday worshipers” or “Sabbath worshipers” too. Its not common , but it can be done. It just the English language.
|
So it looks like our buddy who was advocating a bible-based war is at it again. It's remarkable, but not surprising, that right-wing violence (actual or planned) keeps trending up. What is remarkable and surprising is that despite this unassailable fact, bringing it up leads to "hey, that one guy shot up a baseball game. Goddamned violent libs". We have a President obviously guilty of what is called "stochastic terrorism", yet there still exists this fantasy world where the lefties are the violent ones...
"Stochastic terrorism is a recent term describing speech that can be expected to incite terrorism as an act of stochastic terrorism, with the word "stochastic" describing the random nature of the targets."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_wolf_(terrorism)
"Shea, a six-term legislator and military veteran, came to international attention in 2018 after a document he authored surfaced laying out a “biblical basis for war”, which appeared to be a plan for an apocalyptic battle with people who practiced “same sex marriage” and “abortion”, and instructed: “If they do not yield, kill all males.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/20/matt-shea-rightwing-messages-chat-records
EDIT for facts sake: "On Wednesday, the Anti-Defamation League released a report finding that attackers with ties to right-wing extremist movements killed at least 50 people in 2018. That was close to the total number of Americans killed by domestic extremists, meaning that the far right had an almost absolute monopoly on lethal terrorism in the United States last year. That monopoly would be total if, in one case, the perpetrator had not “switched from white supremacist to radical Islamist beliefs prior to committing the murder.”
The number of fatalities is 35 percent higher than the previous year, and it marks the fourth-deadliest year for such attacks since 1970. In fact, according to the ADL, white supremacists are responsible for the majority of such attacks “almost every year.” The 2018 attacks include the one at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue by a man who blamed Jews for the migrant caravan, the mass shooting at a yoga studio by an “incel” obsessed with interracial dating, and the school massacre in Parkland, Florida, carried out by a student who wished that “all the Jews were dead.”
From 2009 through 2018, right-wing extremists accounted for 73 percent of such killings, according to the ADL, compared with 23 percent for Islamists and 3 percent for left-wing extremists. In other words, most terrorist attacks in the United States, and most deaths from terrorist attacks, are caused by white extremists. But they do not cause the sort of nationwide panic that helped Trump win the 2016 election and helped the GOP expand its Senate majority in the midterms."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/homegrown-terrorists-2018-were-almost-all-right-wing/581284/
|
Northern Ireland26044 Posts
On April 23 2019 05:10 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2019 03:33 Plansix wrote:
Is this the next phase in the outrage machine? People who worship on the day of Easter must be referred to by the religious sect and given a full and detailed reason why they are worshiping. No short hand will be used. If it is, it disrespectful to Christians. Or something?
On the list of things that don’t matter, what short hand people/political parties use on twitter is up there.
There need not be outrage to say 'that is an incorrect term'. Easter worshipers sounds like someone who worships Easter. It's a term of obfuscation whether intentionally or not that is longer than the actual term. It's not disrespectful; it's just an invented term that's wrong. The term certainly doesn't need defenders. Can we not say 'it's wrong' and then let it pass? No outrage required on either side?
It’s just, odd. If there was more of a range of ‘people worshipping/celebrating Easter’ or variants thereof, having a bunch of statements with the same phrase, that is technically and grammatically sound but I must say I haven’t really heard before, odd.
I mean such things don’t matter, until they end up mattering I’m some shape or form. I certainly don’t care at all, don’t think people should really, doesn’t mean people won’t though.
|
On April 23 2019 04:18 Danglars wrote:
The reporting on the Sri Lanka attack the killed hundreds is a pretty minor one. Quite a lot was made in the news about the identity of the worshipers in the New Zealand killings. It fed into the loudest people here, as elsewhere, talking about white supremacy and anti-Muslim bigotry. That's the antecedent and should be understood.
The reason why people got confused or outraged was that prominent people made no reference to the religious identity of the victims in their expressions of sympathy. It's not that they absolutely knew the writers intended to leave the religious identity out. It's that awkward phrasing was used and the question was why on earth would someone not use Christians in the reporting.
As long as you're willing to talk about the ideology of the killers and the religion of the victims, I don't really care enough to argue with people that say it's no big deal. I see enough outrage in the world to not waste too much time on questions like "Maybe some comms people wanted to soften the religious context involved."
Literally the first story on NPR, NYT, BBC, and the New Yorker are about the bombings in Sri Lanka. "Pretty minor reporting" is a load of crap.
Also, it wasn't just churches that were bombed, but luxury hotels as well. This wasn't an attack targeting Christians exclusively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
