Christchurch, NZ mosque shooting

[NWBuck 8570]

8 minutes ago, Colonel Sanders said:

I don't remember any popular first person shooter games in 1990.  

Yeah, Doom wasn't out until '93

(or so I've been told)

Edited March 15, 2019 by NWBuck

[El Diablo 4232]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

That's one phenomenon.

Another is that people are balkanized and think of "the other" as subhuman.  You've explained the problem with muslim terrorists. Now do it with this guy, and Anders Breivik, etc.

From a simple numbers view they would seem to be a very small percentage. Typically when addressing quality issues you want to address the items with the highest percentage of occurrence, i.e., 80% of your problems come from 20% of the causes. Statistical process control 101.

[Brian Fantana 6689]

14 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I think a small part of the problem is that we have several billion people who follow ancient religious texts that have been interpreted in such a way by some of their adherents that the hateful rhetoric is revered, Holy and a call to action for many. It's going to be a tough dialog to convince them otherwise.

Baptists?

I kid

[Brian Fantana 6689]

9 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Yeah, Doom wasn't out until '93

(or so I've been told)

Don't forget Wolfenstein 3D!

[ajax 2618]

So what's the solution?

[jdhorn92 1552]

3 hours ago, Lat22 said:

I understand why people don’t want to watch these videos, but I think you have to see it to fully comprehend it. 

I watched the 45 second clip on Twitter. Pure evil. Looked like an m-16

[XYZ 2154]

2 minutes ago, ajax said:

So what's the solution?

There is no solution.

[Spankytoes 1739]

37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The shooter is not insane.  He's evil.  This applies to this guy, Anders Breivik, the Paris shooters, and any number of others like them.

Every one of those people was radicalized.

First, the "other" (to that person) was demonized, then dehumanized.

Once you think of the entire class of the  "other" as evil and sub-human, then you've paved a smooth road for a violent response.

Many people are susceptible to being goaded to go down that road.  Sometimes, they shoot up Parisian nightclubs.  Other times, they shoot up mosques.  The human psychology involved is 100% identical.  It's not about the underlying politics, or religion.  It is how those are USED to radicalize.

Dehumanize, demonize.....then kill.

This is why people have been sounding the alarm when we see and read rhetoric - regularly, and in the mainstream -- that does just that.  One of the highest-rated shows on Fox News is hosted by a man who called iraqis "semiliterate primitive monkeys."  Dude.  That's dehumanization 101.  Our sitting president leads off with his reference to Mexicans as "murderers and rapists."  The "thought leaders" spewing their filth regularly say the same about anyone from the arab or muslim world, or anyone from latin america.  Dehumanization and demonization are tools of arson.  Eventually, they succeed in creating a fire that kills people.

There are plenty of ways to talk about immigration that don't have to devolve into dehumanization.  But very few people seem interested in having that conversation.  And those who have happily traded in dangerous rhetoric are now trying to run away from taking any responsibility for their recklessness.  Nope.  Own it.  Watch it.  If you are a muslim radical leader condemning the jews over and over again, you damned well have responsibility when someone watching all of your videos goes out and attacks an israeli bus, or a synagogue.  If you are spewing white nationalist demonization of the brown people, and about how their mere presence is an assault on our civilization, you damned well bear responsibility.

Sane, evil people do predictably horrible things when they are spurred on to do them by dangerous and hateful rhetoric.  We should stop the hateful rhetoric.

Tell me the difference between this argument and "Guns aren't the problem, people are the problem". There's only one: Which Amendment your side of the aisle clings to.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Spankytoes

[crash_davis 23113]

8 minutes ago, ajax said:

So what's the solution?

build a wall or thoughts and prayers.

 

[DDD Dad 14339]

There is no solution.

There is a final solution.




I’ll show myself out.

[El Diablo 4232]

21 minutes ago, ajax said:

So what's the solution?

Be nice to others.

[Fozzz 152]

13 minutes ago, ajax said:

So what's the solution?

imo, as long as the US is committed to empire we are never going to be able to meaningfully address these issues.  Our post-9/11 project in the  Greater Middle East is dependent on Islamophobia for its legitimacy - there's just no way you can plausibly sell it to ordinary people without the ideology of civilizational conflict between the West and Islam.  Think of the "safe haven" concept where we must fight them over there lest we deal with them here. 

Sheldon Wolin makes some interesting points regarding the above in his Inverted Totalitarianism book.  

[cabowabo 4487]

After the authorities debrief this animal, they need to dispatch him.   They can call it a suicide or whatever, but this motherfucker does not deserve the spectacle of a trial.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

48 minutes ago, ajax said:

So what's the solution?

Leadership and accountability, at least rhetorically.

 

[Macanudo 12979]

46 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

There is a final solution.




I’ll show myself out.

Dammir.   beat me too it.  

[Zepol87 9188]

Dammir.   beat me too it.  

Same. Damnit

[Spankytoes 1739]

17 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

imo, as long as the US is committed to empire we are never going to be able to meaningfully address these issues.  Our post-9/11 project in the  Greater Middle East is dependent on Islamophobia for its legitimacy - there's just no way you can plausibly sell it to ordinary people without the ideology of civilizational conflict between the West and Islam.  Think of the "safe haven" concept where we must fight them over there lest we deal with them here. 

Sheldon Wolin makes some interesting points regarding the above in his Inverted Totalitarianism book.  

Of course we can't. You can't limit free speech to only speech you agree with the same way you can't limit the amount of guns a citizen can own. This is why the conversation always devolves to "we'll just wait for the next one" for every mass shooting. You can't change a culture or way of thinking without taking care of the root issue(s) behind it. This is true whether we're talking about terrorism, race relations, freedom of/from religion or any issue du jour. In every scenario, you have to have an arbitrator of good taste and policies to set limits. If you're going to do that, you are essentially creating a "religion-free" Sharia Law, which wouldn't go over too well. People don't really care about changing the world if it means limiting their personal liberties because we are selfish. 

[Cajun 11705]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The shooter is not insane.  He's evil.  This applies to this guy, Anders Breivik, the Paris shooters, and any number of others like them.

Every one of those people was radicalized.

First, the "other" (to that person) was demonized, then dehumanized.

Once you think of the entire class of the  "other" as evil and sub-human, then you've paved a smooth road for a violent response.

Many people are susceptible to being goaded to go down that road.  Sometimes, they shoot up Parisian nightclubs.  Other times, they shoot up mosques.  The human psychology involved is 100% identical.  It's not about the underlying politics, or religion.  It is how those are USED to radicalize.

Dehumanize, demonize.....then kill.

This is why people have been sounding the alarm when we see and read rhetoric - regularly, and in the mainstream -- that does just that.  One of the highest-rated shows on Fox News is hosted by a man who called iraqis "semiliterate primitive monkeys."  Dude.  That's dehumanization 101.  Our sitting president leads off with his reference to Mexicans as "murderers and rapists."  The "thought leaders" spewing their filth regularly say the same about anyone from the arab or muslim world, or anyone from latin america.  Dehumanization and demonization are tools of arson.  Eventually, they succeed in creating a fire that kills people.

There are plenty of ways to talk about immigration that don't have to devolve into dehumanization.  But very few people seem interested in having that conversation.  And those who have happily traded in dangerous rhetoric are now trying to run away from taking any responsibility for their recklessness.  Nope.  Own it.  Watch it.  If you are a muslim radical leader condemning the jews over and over again, you damned well have responsibility when someone watching all of your videos goes out and attacks an israeli bus, or a synagogue.  If you are spewing white nationalist demonization of the brown people, and about how their mere presence is an assault on our civilization, you damned well bear responsibility.

Sane, evil people do predictably horrible things when they are spurred on to do them by dangerous and hateful rhetoric.  We should stop the hateful rhetoric.

The shooter is both insane and evil.  There's all sorts of insanity that abounds in this world.  Evil is all to happy to come along for the ride.

[Cajun 11705]

1 hour ago, Spankytoes said:

Tell me the difference between this argument and "Guns aren't the problem, people are the problem". There's only one: Which Amendment your side of the aisle clings to.

Dude drives a Uhaul truck into crowds of people killing shit tons of them.

It's gonna happen, just wait.  Oh, wait...

Uhaul ain't the problem.  That fact holds true irrespective of aisle side.  Neither is arguing over it.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Cajun

[Brisketexan 105151]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Of course we can't. You can't limit free speech to only speech you agree with the same way you can't limit the amount of guns a citizen can own. This is why the conversation always devolves to "we'll just wait for the next one" for every mass shooting. You can't change a culture or way of thinking without taking care of the root issue(s) behind it. This is true whether we're talking about terrorism, race relations, freedom of/from religion or any issue du jour. In every scenario, you have to have an arbitrator of good taste and policies to set limits. If you're going to do that, you are essentially creating a "religion-free" Sharia Law, which wouldn't go over too well. People don't really care about changing the world if it means limiting their personal liberties because we are selfish. 

Hugo said it already -- leadership and accountability.

No, it will never be perfect.  But the indulgence and dissemination of dehumanizing and demonizing rhetoric in current Western rhetoric is becoming just as problematic as islamofascist radicalization messaging.

The solution to both is better leadership and accountability.  

[Brisketexan 105151]

3 minutes ago, Cajun said:

The shooter is both insane and evil.  There's all sorts of insanity that abounds in this world.  Evil is all to happy to come along for the ride.

Calling him insane is a lazy way of avoiding any and all accountability.  It's bullshit.  He knew the difference between right and wrong.  He chose wrong.  And he did so in part because he was fed a diet of horrific rhetoric and propaganda that encouraged him to do so.

We are all accountable for the shit we put out there.  If you broadcast to the world "The jews are dogs, and should be treated like the dogs that they are," someone's going to be listening and will shoot Jews in the street....like dogs.  The same goes if you broadcast that muslims are "semiliterate primitive monkeys."  Come on, man, the history on this stuff isn't hard.  It's a playbook that's been run over, and over, and over, to similar results.  Dehumanize, then kill.

[Cajun 11705]

Naw, he's accountable.  I don't care whether he knew the difference between right and wrong, he did it.

He can know that diffence and still carry a level of insanity with him.  

It's just not that binary.  That's what's lazy.

sorry

The rest of that stuff that's broadcast, as you say, also carries with it a level of insanity.  Death to America, Death to Muslims, Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out, Kill Jews, you didn't make the drug delivery that I tasked you with, on and on...

Plenty of fucking crazy in all of that shit.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Cajun

[Spankytoes 1739]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Hugo said it already -- leadership and accountability.

No, it will never be perfect.  But the indulgence and dissemination of dehumanizing and demonizing rhetoric in current Western rhetoric is becoming just as problematic as islamofascist radicalization messaging.

The solution to both is better leadership and accountability.  

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I don’t think a potential mass shooter is held up from committing terrorism because of the legal consequence, especially because they have no intention of getting caught. I also don’t think they would say “Wait, what would Trump do in this situation?” I don’t think it would make much difference on a local level either. My parents warned me about pre-marital sex from both a religious and social construct. I didn’t heed their warnings, which didn’t even enter my thought process during the moment.

Liberties are beautiful when respectfully followed and a thorn in our side when they are abused. For some, it's like yelling at a child born with no legs about why he can't run. If what you are saying is true, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Affirmative Action should have solved that pesky race issue with black people. America is LESS racist than before. (In theory, and depending on who you ask) When you outlaw what causes the problem through government, changes occur.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Spankytoes

[Brisketexan 105151]

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I don’t think a potential mass shooter is held up from committing terrorism because of the legal consequence, especially because they have no intention of getting caught. I also don’t think they would say “Wait, what would Trump do in this situation?” I don’t think it would make much difference on a local level either. My parents warned me about pre-marital sex from both a religious and social construct. I didn’t heed their warnings, which didn’t even enter my thought process during the moment.
Liberties are beautiful when respectfully followed and a thorn in our side when they are abused.  

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not taking about how we punish bad actors, or make their actions illegal.

I’m talking about whether and how leadership and society as a whole sets a tone and agenda that has communal effects.

If your leaders repeatedly rant about how Jews and Americans are dogs and scum and their presence on earth is an affront to the society that Allah wants...folks are going to hear you, and go out and kill Jews and Americans.

If, on the other hand, you DON’T repeatedly rant and disseminate such things, the frequency of acts of violence by radicalized people will go down.

Our leadership and those with big platforms from which to speak should be responsible, and not disseminate cruel and dangerous rhetoric which demonizes and dehumanizes others. I’m not suggesting that we outlaw their speech. I’m suggesting that they should stop saying such crap, and we should stop rewarding them for saying such crap.

My platform is “don’t be a bunch of dicks, because being a dick is proven to be contagious.” Surely that’s not a controversial platform....right?

[hayden_horn 11362]

13 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I don’t think a potential mass shooter is held up from committing terrorism because of the legal consequence, especially because they have no intention of getting caught. I also don’t think they would say “Wait, what would Trump do in this situation?” I don’t think it would make much difference on a local level either. My parents warned me about pre-marital sex from both a religious and social construct. I didn’t heed their warnings, which didn’t even enter my thought process during the moment.

Liberties are beautiful when respectfully followed and a thorn in our side when they are abused. For some, it's like yelling at a child born with no legs about why he can't run. If what you are saying is true, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Affirmative Action should have solved that pesky race issue with black people. America is LESS racist than before. (In theory, and depending on who you ask) When you outlaw what causes the problem through government, changes occur.

What if your parents and leaders were urging you to partake generously of premarital sex though?

[Cajun 11705]

No it's not and that goes for a LOT of rhetoric and ACTIONS all over the fucking place.

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not taking about how we punish bad actors, or make their actions illegal.

I’m talking about whether and how leadership and society as a whole sets a tone and agenda that has communal effects.

If your leaders repeatedly rant about how Jews and Americans are dogs and scum and their presence on earth is an affront to the society that Allah wants...folks are going to hear you, and go out and kill Jews and Americans.

If, on the other hand, you DON’T repeatedly rant and disseminate such things, the frequency of acts of violence by radicalized people will go down.

Our leadership and those with big platforms from which to speak should be responsible, and not disseminate cruel and dangerous rhetoric which demonizes and dehumanizes others. I’m not suggesting that we outlaw their speech. I’m suggesting that they should stop saying such crap, and we should stop rewarding them for saying such crap.

My platform is “don’t be a bunch of dicks, because being a dick is proven to be contagious.” Surely that’s not a controversial platform....right?

I don't disagree, but you do know that this is exactly the stance of those who bemaon entities like Black Lives Matter, right?  Don't go the "they aren't leaders" route.  Yes, that organzation is a leader to many.  There are countless examples that cover the entire spectrum which can be thown in this gumbo.

This shit is not confined to one group or person.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Cajun

[Spankytoes 1739]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I think you misunderstand me. I’m not taking about how we punish bad actors, or make their actions illegal.

I’m talking about whether and how leadership and society as a whole sets a tone and agenda that has communal effects.

If your leaders repeatedly rant about how Jews and Americans are dogs and scum and their presence on earth is an affront to the society that Allah wants...folks are going to hear you, and go out and kill Jews and Americans.

If, on the other hand, you DON’T repeatedly rant and disseminate such things, the frequency of acts of violence by radicalized people will go down.

Our leadership and those with big platforms from which to speak should be responsible, and not disseminate cruel and dangerous rhetoric which demonizes and dehumanizes others. I’m not suggesting that we outlaw their speech. I’m suggesting that they should stop saying such crap, and we should stop rewarding them for saying such crap.

My platform is “don’t be a bunch of dicks, because being a dick is proven to be contagious.” Surely that’s not a controversial platform....right?

I edited my response while you were posting, so I touched on this a bit. How do we make people self-censor their protected free speech? 

But who decides what is, and is not, hate speech? Without going too CR on you, there are a lot of people that consider church hate speech masquerading as peace and love. The message that gays are not your equal certainly doesn't belong on the highlight reel. Then you have the more extremists that can justify segregation based on the Bible. While laughable in theory, it's certainly reflected in the manner in which congregations are formed. (Obviously, there are exceptions) But, the First Amendment protects religious freedom. So parsing how that freedom is expressed is completely arbitrary. Especially since the argument can be made that Christians themselves can't even agree how to interpret the same book, spawning 100 different denominations.

On a moral level, I agree with you.In practice, it's pretty hard to police unless you ratify the meaning of Freedom of Speech.

[Cajun 11705]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

What if your parents and leaders were urging you to partake generously of premarital sex though?

What if the premarital sex was with an 8th grade teacher?

[Spankytoes 1739]

5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

What if your parents and leaders were urging you to partake generously of premarital sex though?

Then there would not be a change in the behavior. I was going to do what I wanted regardless of the influences around me because I made a choice. (Well, lots of choices, if we're being technical) My parents and leaders wanted me to get good grades and become a doctor too. I think we would agree that this is a positive thing. It had zero bearing on my future plans because "I don't want...your life".

[Hate 20108]

Then I truly worry for your mental well being moving forward. Careful, because that's how these things start. You may be far from radicalization/ extremism/ whatever you want to call it but these things tend to be a slippery slope. 
Not trying to be a dick either. As stated, I'll continue to listen to people like you because I still think it's important to. 

You must be new here. Hugo has orders from his comrads back in the motherland to post as much verbal diarrhea as possible, and as we all know he is a good soldier.

[Brisketexan 105151]

2 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

I edited my response while you were posting, so I touched on this a bit. How do we make people self-censor their protected free speech? 

But who decides what is, and is not, hate speech? Without going too CR on you, there are a lot of people that consider church hate speech masquerading as peace and love. The message that gays are not your equal certainly doesn't belong on the highlight reel. Then you have the more extremists that can justify segregation based on the Bible. While laughable in theory, it's certainly reflected in the manner in which congregations are formed. (Obviously, there are exceptions) But, the First Amendment protects religious freedom. So parsing how that freedom is expressed is completely arbitrary. Especially since the argument can be made that Christians themselves can't even agree how to interpret the same book, spawning 100 different denominations.

On a moral level, I agree with you.In practice, it's pretty hard to police unless you ratify the meaning of Freedom of Speech.

How do we police it?  By social convention.

60 years ago, folks dropped the N-bomb in public, in polite company, and even in ordinary business discussions.

Today, the N-bomb is rarely heard in any of those contexts.  Nobody banned it, or made it illegal.  Instead, social convention managed to evolve to a point where the reception to an N-bomb was the equivalent of "dude....NOT COOL."

And even to go with your church metaphor.....50 years ago, 99% of self-identified Christians would have told you that homosexuality was wrong, and gay marriage was TOTALLY wrong.  Today.....among American Christians as a whole, support for gay marriage is over 50%.  And it follows, among those folks, calling gay people "fucking faggots" is not acceptable, and is shunned.

You may find this ironic coming from a lawyer, but for things like this, the law is NOT the most effective mechanism for change.  Social evolution and communal pressure is.  WE went from everyone saying the N-word to it becoming something totally shameful in 60 years.  We will one day (I hope) look back on this period with embarrassment over how casually we demonized middle easterners, latin americans, etc.  And today, we should start elevating leaders who speak of other human beings the right way, and stop rewarding leaders who call other folks "subliterate primitive monkeys."

[Cajun 11705]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How do we police it?  By social convention.

60 years ago, folks dropped the N-bomb in public, in polite company, and even in ordinary business discussions.

Today, the N-bomb is rarely heard in any of those contexts.  Nobody banned it, or made it illegal.  Instead, social convention managed to evolve to a point where the reception to an N-bomb was the equivalent of "dude....NOT COOL."

And even to go with your church metaphor.....50 years ago, 99% of self-identified Christians would have told you that homosexuality was wrong, and gay marriage was TOTALLY wrong.  Today.....among American Christians as a whole, support for gay marriage is over 50%.  And it follows, among those folks, calling gay people "fucking faggots" is not acceptable, and is shunned.

You may find this ironic coming from a lawyer, but for things like this, the law is NOT the most effective mechanism for change.  Social evolution and communal pressure is.  WE went from everyone saying the N-word to it becoming something totally shameful in 60 years.  We will one day (I hope) look back on this period with embarrassment over how casually we demonized middle easterners, latin americans, etc.  And today, we should start elevating leaders who speak of other human beings the right way, and stop rewarding leaders who call other folks "subliterate primitive monkeys."

A. Tucker Carlson is a complete waste of oxygen and always has been.

B. About the N-Word thing/Wanna know how I know you haven't been to Jackson MS lately?

C. The bolded part/I just rewatched Eddie Murphy Delerious on Netflix last weekend.  I would love to see him try to address your point here given that context.  Holy shit!  Eddie would be torn limb from limb for just his opening bit today.  Back then everyone thought it was funny (well, maybe not gays).  "My ass get hot when you stare at it!"

 SNL types, blacks, hispanics, you name it.  If you didn't own the casette you weren't hip.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Cajun

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Our “leaders” with the biggest platforms are also part of the problem.  They alter the perception of reality for their followers to absolve them of any social responsibility.  In a better world, these people would be shunned and mocked by our elected officials (on both sides) back to their barnyard meetings.  

In today’s America these grifters and charlatans are embraced as party thought leaders.  

[Spankytoes 1739]

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How do we police it?  By social convention.

60 years ago, folks dropped the N-bomb in public, in polite company, and even in ordinary business discussions.

Today, the N-bomb is rarely heard in any of those contexts.  Nobody banned it, or made it illegal.  Instead, social convention managed to evolve to a point where the reception to an N-bomb was the equivalent of "dude....NOT COOL."

And even to go with your church metaphor.....50 years ago, 99% of self-identified Christians would have told you that homosexuality was wrong, and gay marriage was TOTALLY wrong.  Today.....among American Christians as a whole, support for gay marriage is over 50%.  And it follows, among those folks, calling gay people "fucking faggots" is not acceptable, and is shunned.

You may find this ironic coming from a lawyer, but for things like this, the law is NOT the most effective mechanism for change.  Social evolution and communal pressure is.  WE went from everyone saying the N-word to it becoming something totally shameful in 60 years.  We will one day (I hope) look back on this period with embarrassment over how casually we demonized middle easterners, latin americans, etc.  And today, we should start elevating leaders who speak of other human beings the right way, and stop rewarding leaders who call other folks "subliterate primitive monkeys."

But you are failing to look at the other side of the coin. 

People's lives are being ruined because of a thought posted to a social media platform 10 years ago at a time where people weren't actively looking to get offended. (Or a yearbook photo 40 years ago) What passes for comedy today is pretty much devoid of the opportunity to laugh at and celebrate our differences through laughter. Racism, or at the least, accusations of racism, are more prominent now than even 20 years ago. There is a lot of good with social change, but there is a lot of bad aspects as well. I believe that you agree with this, but it is the #1 reason Trump is in the WH right now and will most likely account for why he wins again next year. A lot of people, myself included, are pretty damn sick of being told how we should feel like we are mindless idiots devoid of rationale thought. (For the record, Trump is a POS)

I can't let you get away with that cop out though. First, Tucker Carlson isn't a "leader", he is a newscaster/entertainer. Second, the media shifts the narrative in this country based on their agenda. Can you imagine the outcry of "reputable" mainstream news sources treating Michelle Obama the same way they treat Melania? Does the media have a responsibility to whitewash our societal problems despite the fact that they are a business in it to make money? CNN, Fox, MSNBC...take your pick. I guarantee that each one has a sensationalized headline based on their reader/viewer demos. These days you don't even need to be credible, you just need a social media account and a pack of gullible readers. Up until 1964, you had to be white to use a white restroom. Then it became law and it became illegal to deny black folks that right. That had nothing to do with social policy, which was resented at the time, and everything to do with changing the metric of what is acceptable. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Spankytoes

[Cajun 11705]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Our “leaders” with the biggest platforms are also part of the problem.  They alter the perception of reality for their followers to absolve them of any social responsibility.  In a better world, these people would be shunned and mocked by our elected officials (on both sides) back to their barnyard meetings.  

In today’s America these grifters and charlatans are embraced as party thought leaders.  

Not defending that guy at all, but it certainly isn't helpful that when you flip it that there's plenty of (admittedly not in the realm of mass shootings) falsified bullshit out there in order to achieve a murkier point.  Jussie wasn't the first nor will he be the last.  Those folk are just as much a part of that cauldron of doo doo as is Oxycontin Boy here is.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Cajun

[Brisketexan 105151]

Just now, Cajun said:

A. Tucker Carlson is a complete waste of oxygen and always has been.

B. About the N-Word thing/Wanna know how I know you haven't been to Jackson MS lately?

C. The bolded part/I just rewatched Eddie Murphy Delerious on Netflix last weekend.  I would love to see him try to address your point here given that context.  Holy shit!  Eddie would be torn limb from limb for just his opening bit today.  Back then everyone thought it was funny (well, maybe not gays).  SNL types, blacks, hispanics, you name it.  If you didn't own the casette you weren't hip.

A -- he's one of the highest-rated shows on TV these days.  He has millions of slavish followers.  

B -- Fair enough.  But my point remains -- the breadth and context of hearing the N-word has been reduced to places the rest of us make fun of, like Jackson, MS.  It's no longer used in polite company in a place of any level of sophistication.  Hell, you don't say it in polite company in Beaumont, for cryin' out loud.

C -- It really is amazing the changes we've seen just in our lifetimes.  Hell, we've had our kids watch movies we loved from the 80s, and stuff like that happens, and they look at us like "WTF???"  These are not sheltered kids, and they're not young -- 15 and 18 now.  How much we've evolved even since the 1980s is amazing.

[Cajun 11705]

Be careful Brisket, you almost sound hopeful in point C.

As for the Eddie Murphy thing, if I were him I'd pay just about any amount of money is took to deep 6 that Netflix revival.  I hate PC stuff and even given that it had me squirming in my LazyBoy.

Also, fuck Tucker, just fuck him.

Right in the goatass.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Cajun

[Brisketexan 105151]

6 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

What passes for comedy today is pretty much devoid of the opportunity to laugh at and celebrate our differences through laughter.

Oh bullshit.  We laugh our asses off about, for example, ultra-gay stuff, which is funny precisely BECAUSE it's ultra gay.  What's different is, gay people are part of mainstream society, and are in on the joke.  Holy crap, two of the bigger comedies on TV right now (Will and Grace and Blackish) get laughs out of culturally-specific subject matter.  The difference is that now gay people and black people are more integrated into society, and are IN ON THE JOKE, as opposed to just being the external butts of the joke.

 

9 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

First, Tucker Carlson isn't a "leader", he is a newscaster/entertainer.

Bullshit.  He is absolutely a thought leader, for millions of people.  Including, I remind you, our POTUS.

Look at the bullshit spewing from these assholes right now, in real-time.  Read the Limbaugh bullshit above.  These people influence how tens of millions of people think.  And they are selling hot garbage.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

8 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Not defending that guy at all, but it certainly isn't helpful that when you flip it that there's plenty of (admittedly not in the realm of mass shootings) falsified bullshit out there in order to achieve a murkier point.  Jussie wasn't the first nor will he be the last.  Those folk are just as much a part of that cauldron of doo doo as is Oxycontin Boy here is.

Except Jussie lost his job and could be going to jail.  CONSEQUENCES.

His professional career is over as it should be.

But Rush, Hannity, and Tucker spewed hatefilled bile, lies, and baseless conspiracy theories daily with ZERO consequences or accountability.  No, they get promoted and closer to real power. 

See the difference?

Edited March 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[NWBuck 8570]

8 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Also, fuck Tucker, just fuck him.

Right in the goatass.

Put another way:

 

[Cajun 11705]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Except Jussie lost his job and could be going to jail.  CONSEQUENCES.

His professional career is over as it should be.

But Rush, Hannity, and Tucker spewed hatefilled bile, lies, and baseless conspiracy theories daily with ZERO consequences or accountability.  No, they get promoted and closer to real power. 

See the difference?

There are plenty who haven't lost jobs or suffered any consequences in this category.

You know that.

I don't have to list them.  Jussie just crossed the line by a country mile while the others were able to get back on the other side and hide.  Kinda messes up your "see the diffence" line, so I'll just leave it there.

And just so we're clear, fuck Rush, Tucker, and most of all Hannity.  Also, fuck Lemon, Jake, Wolf, Cooper, and that dude Maddow.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Cajun

[Spankytoes 1739]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh bullshit.  We laugh our asses off about, for example, ultra-gay stuff, which is funny precisely BECAUSE it's ultra gay.  What's different is, gay people are part of mainstream society, and are in on the joke.  Holy crap, two of the bigger comedies on TV right now (Will and Grace and Blackish) get laughs out of culturally-specific subject matter.  The difference is that now gay people and black people are more integrated into society, and are IN ON THE JOKE, as opposed to just being the external butts of the joke.

 

Bullshit.  He is absolutely a thought leader, for millions of people.  Including, I remind you, our POTUS.

Look at the bullshit spewing from these assholes right now, in real-time.  Read the Limbaugh bullshit above.  These people influence how tens of millions of people think.  And they are selling hot garbage.

Bullshit right back at you. W&G gets away with it because the show revolves around 2 gay characters that own their gayness. (Not to mention, one of them is actually gay IRL) It's the same theory of using the "N-word" in your routine as a white comedian vs. being a black comedian. It's pretty rare. I'm not bitching that I don't get to say the "N-word", I'm bitching that comedy is safe. Bring up any MadTV sketch from the 90's and tell me if you could run it today without fear of fat-shaming, being racist, being sexist, being homophobic, etc. That was at a time where you couldn't have a show like "All in the Family" on the air either.

No, he isn't. The fact that you think he inserts thoughts into people's heads rather than furthers their own thought process in manner in which they are incapable of expressing effectively is precisely the problem. Clinton porking Monica in the WH didn't give rise to adulterous Democrats either. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by Spankytoes

[Spankytoes 1739]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Except Jussie lost his job and could be going to jail.  CONSEQUENCES.

His professional career is over as it should be.

But Rush, Hannity, and Tucker spewed hatefilled bile, lies, and baseless conspiracy theories daily with ZERO consequences or accountability.  No, they get promoted and closer to real power. 

See the difference?

Only because he got caught. What was the narrative BEFORE his hoax was discovered? 

That's power too.

[usmc0331horn 953]

White terrorism needs to be addressed worldwide. So much bloodshed over the spread of hate and then performing for your internet idiot white supremacist community.

[Brisketexan 105151]

3 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Bullshit right back at you. W&G gets away with it because the show revolves around 2 gay characters that own their gayness. (Not to mention, one of them is actually gay IRL) It's the same theory of using the "N-word" in your routine as a white comedian vs. being a black comedian. It's pretty rare. I'm not bitching that I don't get to say the "N-word", I'm bitching that comedy is safe. Bring up any MadTV sketch from the 90's and tell me if you could run it today without fear of fat-shaming, being racist, being sexist, being homophobic, etc. That was at a time where you couldn't have a show like "All in the Family" on the air either.

No, he isn't. The fact that you think he inserts thoughts into people's heads rather than furthers their own thought process in manner in which they are incapable is precisely the problem. Clinton porking Monica in the WH didn't give rise to adulterous Democrats either. 

Nope -- seriously, watch an episode of either show (granted, I've probably seen a total of 2-3 episodes of either one).  Non-gay characters get to make jokes about their gayness, too.  And, yes, they ARE the ones making most of the jokes, because they get to be IN ON THE JOKE.

Yes, to some degree, mainstream comedy is sometimes overly "safe."  But it's not a crisis, for crying out loud.  Sorry we no longer tell N-word jokes in the office kitchen -- comedy is cultural, and our culture is now one where it's not cool or acceptable to be racist.  And all in all, I'm okay with that.  We lose a funny Eddie Murphy joke about "faggot ass faggots."  But in exchange, we get to live and work with talented gay people who are good folks and make our work and personal lives better.  I'll take that trade.

And if you don't think that pundits and thought leaders influence cultural thinking and activities, then I've got nothing for you.  There's truly no point in discussing this.  They don't CREATE the thoughts.  It's not like there's someone out there who says "you know, I never had a racist thought in my life before.  But hearing that Tucker fella, I think I might try out being racist!"  Instead, by mainstreaming hate, and making it not only safe and acceptable, but actually an OBLIGATION if you're a REAL AMERICAN PATRIOT, they turn a spark into a wildfire.  It's been that way for the history of humanity.  Tucker isn't just wasting his time.  He's getting an audience who loves what he has to say, and loves it more and more each day, in a feedback loop.

Someone who was uneasy about muslims 20 years ago now openly despises them, wants them kicked out of our country, and in some cases, supports violence against them, because what started as their uneasy feeling has been fanned into open demonization and dehumanization. 

We no longer get to say the N-word, or espouse "sending 'em all back ta Africa."  But it's cool -- we get to hate on muslims now, and we get to want to "ban 'em all!"  So don't worry -- society still gets to hate plenty.

[ajax 2618]

This might have been mentioned earlier in the thread but I'm not wading through the CR bullshit to look for it. There are 4 suspects?

That seems really out of the norm. Usually it's a lone shooter.

[Cajun 11705]

In the video, after he left the scene, it shows him driving like a madman through town all the while talking about what just happened (it truly sounded like a kid recapping a video game session).  I couldn't tell if that was for the benfit of the camera audience or if someone was in the car with him out of lense range.

It sure seemed like someone was in there with him.

[sidis 9828]

36 minutes ago, Cajun said:

There are plenty who haven't lost jobs or suffered any consequences in this category.

You know that.

I don't have to list them.  Jussie just crossed the line by a country mile while the others were able to get back on the other side and hide.  Kinda messes up your "see the diffence" line, so I'll just leave it there.

And just so we're clear, fuck Rush, Tucker, and most of all Hannity.  Also, fuck Lemon, Jake, Wolf, Cooper, and that dude Maddow.

for example, jacob wohl?

[Loco 3752]

 

[sidis 9828]

man, i just spent more time than i care to ever admit following down the 8chan hole of fuckery...that is really something else.  

our species has a real problem on its hands.  i didn't think i could ever be more completely ambivalent to the continuation of our population than i was after reading a couple of pages of the texags qanon thread...but that is just a fucking starter kit.  speaking of texags, there were some real choice quotes from over there from that collection of trash...

The NZ shooting registered zero emotional response from me. Not even fake outrage. "Meh" would be my response. I was literally more upset about not putting my can out and missing trash day.
But I completely agree with you, the media will use the timing as a talking point to preach their their viewpoints against Trump.

I'm not in mourning, are you? Tragedies happen every day all over the planet. Only when an event fits a narrative are we bombarded by it. It's dumb.

Well this one incident definitely bucks the 1,000 year trend for sure.

Do you remember all the extra security around the Houston Christian churches after the all the Muslim attacks on churches around the world?

Nobody cares much if Christians get shot. Unless they're black Christians shot by a white guy.

Make no mistake, this is the massacre that the leftwing has been waiting for since 911. It took 20 years, but they finally got it.

The problem is how Islam functions in a civilized society.

No one has ever made a logical case for multiculturalism. It certainly hasn't taught us how to live in harmony, that's for sure. Look at Africa. They are more divided in some regions than we are, not because of race but because of tribalism. Men will always be divided. If they are magically able to overlook race, they will find something else. 

Now that the minorities in this country have more power than ever before, to the point of twice electing a black man president, the cries of bigotry and racism are louder than ever. It's like the diversity push in companies now. It's better because it's just better, a lot of times at the expense of excellence and competency.