It's still a long time ago compared to anti-abortion violence etc. but yeah, I was amazed at some Americans here claiming that the last left-wing terrorist acts took place in the 60s. The 70s were the fucking heyday of left-wing terrorism.
I don't really know what this is in response to, except maybe a strawman of the basic idea put forth on here that "left-wing" loosely defined does not lead to violence in the same way that "right wing" ideology does. I don't think anyone has claimed that there has never been left-wing violence, just that there hasn't been any recently, and furthermore any Venn diagrams you draw with those groups don't overlap mainstream left-wing talking points anyway.
o_O
Uh, it's a response to people on this thread specifically claiming that the last time left-wing terrorism took place was in the 60s or even earlier (I never saw the latter claim but I havn't read all the thread yet). That's it. That's what it refers to. Not "a strawman of a basic idea".
I don't think anyone has claimed that there has never been left-wing violence
If I prove you wrong, do I get a prize?
Okay, except for that one dude on page 3.
And frankly, the 70's was a different era. Most of us were not alive. It was before the Reagan re-alignment of politics. In a sense, the political spectrum was simply not the same then as it is now. Just a decade before, Democrats courted Southern racists, not Republicans.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there has never been left-wing violence
If I prove you wrong, do I get a prize?
Okay, except for that one dude on page 3.
And frankly, the 70's was a different era. Most of us were not alive. It was before the Reagan re-alignment of politics. In a sense, the political spectrum was simply not the same then as it is now. Just a decade before, Democrats courted Southern racists, not Republicans.
and that is the era that Von Brunn also came out of
The right wing is not synonymous with the GOP. The right wing media is not synonymous with the GOP media. The GOP as a whole is by and large not hostile to Jews. The right wing can often be hostile to Jews. The rhetoric propagated on right wing media often has more in common with the right wing than the GOP. So while you're right that the neoconservative movement is not hostile to Jews, that is almost irrelevant when there is a paleo conservative movement which generally is and that has been exerting itself both in media and in political action like the "tea parties" or Ron Paul's campaign.
Someone really should draw a venn diagram. Srsrsrly. It would be interesting.
It's still a long time ago compared to anti-abortion violence etc. but yeah, I was amazed at some Americans here claiming that the last left-wing terrorist acts took place in the 60s. The 70s were the fucking heyday of left-wing terrorism.
I don't really know what this is in response to, except maybe a strawman of the basic idea put forth on here that "left-wing" loosely defined does not lead to violence in the same way that "right wing" ideology does. I don't think anyone has claimed that there has never been left-wing violence, just that there hasn't been any recently, and furthermore any Venn diagrams you draw with those groups don't overlap mainstream left-wing talking points anyway.
o_O
Uh, it's a response to people on this thread specifically claiming that the last time left-wing terrorism took place was in the 60s or even earlier (I never saw the latter claim but I havn't read all the thread yet). That's it. That's what it refers to. Not "a strawman of a basic idea".
I don't think anyone has claimed that there has never been left-wing violence
If I prove you wrong, do I get a prize?
Okay, except for that one dude on page 3.
And frankly, the 70's was a different era. Most of us were not alive. It was before the Reagan re-alignment of politics. In a sense, the political spectrum was simply not the same then as it is now. Just a decade before, Democrats courted Southern racists, not Republicans.
Reagan may have won big with the Southern Strategy, but Nixon began it in earnest. Republicans courted racists then.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
I don't think anyone has claimed that there has never been left-wing violence
If I prove you wrong, do I get a prize?
Okay, except for that one dude on page 3.
And frankly, the 70's was a different era. Most of us were not alive. It was before the Reagan re-alignment of politics. In a sense, the political spectrum was simply not the same then as it is now. Just a decade before, Democrats courted Southern racists, not Republicans.
Reagan may have won big with the Southern Strategy, but Nixon began it in earnest. Republicans courted racists then.
Are you making the claim that Von Brunn was not a racist until Nixon came along?
also, are you trying to draw connections between Nixon and the current GOP? Nixon would be considered a liberal by the current crop.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
I believe the claim is that FOX and the GOP stoke the fires, not that they start them.
and I'm asking to see them stoking this man's particular fires.
One little talking point about Obama hating guns isn't enough to consider them an accomplice here any more than you can blame the Palestinians for 9/11 because of Bin Laden's statements about Palestine..
Evander, the totality of Von Brumm's fucked-up-ness is not expressed by the neat and tidy word "anti-Semitism."
Yes. Anti-Semites exist independently of Fox News. But there are associated neuroses, some of which appeared to motivate his action as well—notably (judging from the note left in his care) paranoia about gun control.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
What does that have to do with Antisemitism?
Because the right wing is characterized by the creations of divisions, especially racial, nationalistic and/or xenophobic ones. The creation of "the Enemy" is important.
The left wing is much more likely to be overly inclusive and if anything want to eliminate preexisting divisions, such as your favorite example PETA's desire to extend rights to animals.
Both historically and conceptually, antisemitism fits one much more readily.
Evander, the totality of Von Brumm's fucked-up-ness is not expressed by the neat and tidy word "anti-Semitism."
Yes. Anti-Semites exist independently of Fox News. But there are associated neuroses, some of which appeared to motivate his action as well—notably (judging from the note left in his care) paranoia about gun control.
Somehow I think his choice of targets implies more about his motivation than one part of a multi-part crazy note. Not to mention the vast body of his previous work seems to suggest more anti-Semitism than "THEYR TAKIN MY GUNS, BETTER KILL SOMON!"
I believe the claim is that FOX and the GOP stoke the fires, not that they start them.
and I'm asking to see them stoking this man's particular fires.
No, no you're not. We've already established that you're looking for evidence that isn't feasibly going to exist. What you're doing is asking for evidence that you know can't exist in order to muddy an otherwise clear link between a right-wing extremist and right-wing extremism.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
What does that have to do with Antisemitism?
Because the right wing is characterized by the creations of divisions, especially racial, nationalistic and/or xenophobic ones. The creation of "the Enemy" is important.
The left wing is much more likely to be overly inclusive and if anything want to eliminate preexisting divisions, such as your favorite example PETA's desire to extend rights to animals.
Both historically and conceptually, antisemitism fits one much more readily.
But these days the left is also much more likely to condemn Israel, whereas the right is more readily likely to support them.
Anti-Semitism is not an issue that can be placed on either end of the current political spectrum. It exists on both and isn't an overreaching part of either.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
What does that have to do with Antisemitism?
Because the right wing is characterized by the creations of divisions, especially racial, nationalistic and/or xenophobic ones. The creation of "the Enemy" is important.
The left wing is much more likely to be overly inclusive and if anything want to eliminate preexisting divisions, such as your favorite example PETA's desire to extend rights to animals.
Both historically and conceptually, antisemitism fits one much more readily.
But these days the left is also much more likely to condemn Israel, whereas the right is more readily likely to support them.
Anti-Semitism is not an issue that can be placed on either end of the current political spectrum. It exists on both and isn't an overreaching part of either.
only an idiot equates condemning Israel's policies with being anti-semetic. Seriously, the two shouldn't have anything to do with each other.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Somehow I think his choice of targets implies more about his motivation than one part of a multi-part crazy note. Not to mention the vast body of his previous work seems to suggest more anti-Semitism than "THEYR TAKIN MY GUNS, BETTER KILL SOMON!"
But this ignores his "citizen's arrest" of the Fed. I mean, shooting up the Holocaust Museum is not the only thing this man has done.
Certainly, it's the worst, and his ideology is supremely motivated by anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. But there's other shit he believed, that shit is also important to his character and skewed worldview, and that shit happens to coincide with a lot of the shit that comes out of mainstream GOP talking points.
And, you know, there's really not much more to say than that. A lot of the debate in here probably reduces to semantics over what we mean by words like "blame" and "stoking the fires."
I believe the claim is that FOX and the GOP stoke the fires, not that they start them.
and I'm asking to see them stoking this man's particular fires.
No, no you're not. We've already established that you're looking for evidence that isn't feasibly going to exist. What you're doing is asking for evidence that you know can't exist in order to muddy an otherwise clear link between a right-wing extremist and right-wing extremism.
Still failing to see when, in this particular case, any right wing mainstream pundit has come EVEN CLOSE to advocating this type of violence. Nothing Glenn Beck has said seems to link to shooting up a Holocaust museum, unless you can find a quote that suggests otherwise.
And Jews vote Democratic far more often than they Republican.
It is possible for someone to be associated with a political group and also have crazy beliefs that don't match with that group's platform. There are pro-life Democrats, gay Republicans, wealthy Socialists and Sane Libertarians. Sometimes people have qualities or beliefs that don't match their party or don't match any party.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
What does that have to do with Antisemitism?
Because the right wing is characterized by the creations of divisions, especially racial, nationalistic and/or xenophobic ones. The creation of "the Enemy" is important.
The left wing is much more likely to be overly inclusive and if anything want to eliminate preexisting divisions, such as your favorite example PETA's desire to extend rights to animals.
Both historically and conceptually, antisemitism fits one much more readily.
But these days the left is also much more likely to condemn Israel, whereas the right is more readily likely to support them.
Anti-Semitism is not an issue that can be placed on either end of the current political spectrum. It exists on both and isn't an overreaching part of either.
only an idiot equates condemning Israel's policies with being anti-semetic. Seriously, the two shouldn't have anything to do with each other.
It's more important to note the right wing's support for Israel. I'm stating it makes it hard to say that the Right Wing is more likely to breed anti-Semitism. Likewise I wasn't suggesting that the left wing's view on Israel is anti-Semitic, I was trying to show that the stupidity of that belief system is rooted outside the current scope of what defines right and left.
And Jews vote Democratic far more often than they Republican.
It is possible for someone to be associated with a political group and also have crazy beliefs that don't match with that group's platform. There are pro-life Democrats, gay Republicans, wealthy Socialists and Sane Libertarians. Sometimes people have qualities or beliefs that don't match their party or don't match any party.
And Jews vote Democratic far more often than they Republican.
It is possible for someone to be associated with a political group and also have crazy beliefs that don't match with that group's platform. There are pro-life Democrats, gay Republicans, wealthy Socialists and Sane Libertarians. Sometimes people have qualities or beliefs that don't match their party or don't match any party.
Right, I think anti-Semitism is one of those.
Yes. Posting on redstate, screaming about Obama stealing your guns, and demanding to see the President's "REAL" birth certificate, however, are kind of easily defined as "crazy-Republican."
Anti-Semitism seems more prevalent among individuals who associate with a style of white supremacy that finds their home in the fringes of the Republican party. It is not, however, exclusive to that party, group or fringe.
Still failing to see when, in this particular case, any right wing mainstream pundit has come EVEN CLOSE to advocating this type of violence. Nothing Glenn Beck has said seems to link to shooting up a Holocaust museum, unless you can find a quote that suggests otherwise.
Glenn Beck has not advocated violence.
What he has done, repeatedly, was characterize reality as an us-vs-them affair, with "them" as this shadowy liberal government conspiracy aiming to steal your money, steal your guns, and brainwash you in FEMA camps. He worries about "being surrounded" and then gladly realizes that no, "we surround them." This is paranoid, delusional nonsense. And if it takes root in the mind of a violent person, it's not really hard to see what this person's logical conclusion may well lead him to do.
Now, I'm not even willing to draw that straight of a line between Beck and this guy. But I also think it's naive to view Brum's actions in a vacuum. This is the fourth kamikaze-style right-wing attack since Obama took office (after the guy shooting up the Unitarians, the guy killing police officers, and Tiller's murder). There is a trend now where crazy people with guns see themselves as "fighting back." In the same way we were worried about "copycats" after Columbine, we should clearly be worried about copycats now. And when newscasters contribute to this us-vs-them paranoid worldview shared by all four attackers in some form, I think they are morally culpable, at least to some extent. In the same way that, for example, gangster rappers are morally culpable for contributing to the violence in their respective fringe culture worldview.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
What does that have to do with Antisemitism?
Because the right wing is characterized by the creations of divisions, especially racial, nationalistic and/or xenophobic ones. The creation of "the Enemy" is important.
The left wing is much more likely to be overly inclusive and if anything want to eliminate preexisting divisions, such as your favorite example PETA's desire to extend rights to animals.
Both historically and conceptually, antisemitism fits one much more readily.
Again, you're just playing correlation, instead of finding actual threads.
Antisemitism is much older that conservatism. It's arguably older than modern Judaism itself.
Antisemitism has it's roots in ancient Egyptian Judeophobia, which then spread to Greece and Rome, and with the advent of Christianity, spread across the modern world.
Trying to pin antisemitism to conservatives is absurd, especially considering how much antisemitic rhetoric frame the Jews as being the "man" who is keeping everyone down, which is a traditionally liberal stance.
Antisemitism is MUCH bigger than US partisan squabbles.
Still failing to see when, in this particular case, any right wing mainstream pundit has come EVEN CLOSE to advocating this type of violence. Nothing Glenn Beck has said seems to link to shooting up a Holocaust museum, unless you can find a quote that suggests otherwise.
Glenn Beck has not advocated violence.
What he has done, repeatedly, was characterize reality as an us-vs-them affair, with "them" as this shadowy liberal government conspiracy aiming to steal your money, steal your guns, and brainwash you in FEMA camps. He worries about "being surrounded" and then gladly realizes that no, "we surround them." This is paranoid, delusional nonsense. And if it takes root in the mind of a violent person, it's not really hard to see what this person's logical conclusion may well lead him to do.
Now, I'm not even willing to draw that straight of a line between Beck and this guy. But I also think it's naive to view Brum's actions in a vacuum. This is the fourth kamikaze-style right-wing attack since Obama took office (after the guy shooting up the Unitarians, the guy killing police officers, and Tiller's murder). There is a trend now where crazy people with guns see themselves as "fighting back." In the same way we were worried about "copycats" after Columbine, we should clearly be worried about copycats now. And when newscasters contribute to this us-vs-them paranoid worldview shared by all four attackers in some form, I think they are morally culpable, at least to some extent. In the same way that, for example, gangster rappers are morally culpable for contributing to the violence in their respective fringe culture worldview.
Perhaps in the same way that hardcore Islamic preachers who decry "America the land of Infidels" are maybe a little responsible / connected to anti-American terrorism.
Or "Israel is a false nation and the holocaust is a myth" is maybe a little responsible / connected to anti-semetic violence.
especially considering how much antisemitic rhetoric frame the Jews as being the "man" who is keeping everyone down, which is a traditionally liberal stance.
Still failing to see when, in this particular case, any right wing mainstream pundit has come EVEN CLOSE to advocating this type of violence. Nothing Glenn Beck has said seems to link to shooting up a Holocaust museum, unless you can find a quote that suggests otherwise.
Glenn Beck has not advocated violence.
What he has done, repeatedly, was characterize reality as an us-vs-them affair, with "them" as this shadowy liberal government conspiracy aiming to steal your money, steal your guns, and brainwash you in FEMA camps. He worries about "being surrounded" and then gladly realizes that no, "we surround them." This is paranoid, delusional nonsense. And if it takes root in the mind of a violent person, it's not really hard to see what this person's logical conclusion may well lead him to do.
Now, I'm not even willing to draw that straight of a line between Beck and this guy. But I also think it's naive to view Brum's actions in a vacuum. This is the fourth kamikaze-style right-wing attack since Obama took office (after the guy shooting up the Unitarians, the guy killing police officers, and Tiller's murder). There is a trend now where crazy people with guns see themselves as "fighting back." In the same way we were worried about "copycats" after Columbine, we should clearly be worried about copycats now. And when newscasters contribute to this us-vs-them paranoid worldview shared by all four attackers in some form, I think they are morally culpable, at least to some extent. In the same way that, for example, gangster rappers are morally culpable for contributing to the violence in their respective fringe culture worldview.
Are violent video games morally culpable for crimes committed by people who play violent video games? Because the logic you're using is mighty similar.
Likewise, when a violent man killed a soldier outside a base in Arkansas earlier this month because he felt that the US presence in the middle east justified him doing so, was Keith Olbermann to blame since he constantly discusses his belief that US foreign policy decisions under Bush were morally outrageous and criminal?
I hate defending pundits, I really do. I'm just having a hard time pinning this one on Fox News and not on other authors similar to the shooter.
The right AND left wings can BOTH be hostile to the Jews.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
What does that have to do with Antisemitism?
Because the right wing is characterized by the creations of divisions, especially racial, nationalistic and/or xenophobic ones. The creation of "the Enemy" is important.
The left wing is much more likely to be overly inclusive and if anything want to eliminate preexisting divisions, such as your favorite example PETA's desire to extend rights to animals.
Both historically and conceptually, antisemitism fits one much more readily.
But these days the left is also much more likely to condemn Israel, whereas the right is more readily likely to support them.
Anti-Semitism is not an issue that can be placed on either end of the current political spectrum. It exists on both and isn't an overreaching part of either.
only an idiot equates condemning Israel's policies with being anti-semetic. Seriously, the two shouldn't have anything to do with each other.
what do you mean byu "Israel's Policies"?
Do you mean specific policies on an individual basis? Because NO ONE is calling those people anti-semites. Hell, I'm a proud Zionist, and I CONTINUALLY call out Israel on specific actions that I believe are wrong (like refusal to disband settlements.)
Or do you mean on larger points, like accusing Israel of apartheid, or saying that Israel is an illegal racist state. Because it THAT is what you mean, then you're calling Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. an idiot.
So, which is it? Are you going with the imaginary strawman, or do you think MLK is an idiot?
Perhaps in the same way that hardcore Islamic preachers who decry "America the land of Infidels" are maybe a little responsible / connected to anti-American terrorism.
Or "Israel is a false nation and the holocaust is a myth" is maybe a little responsible / connected to anti-semetic violence.
Maybe a little like that.
Well, shades and degrees, but basically yes. When you present a certain worldview and people susceptible to what you're saying take that worldview to its logical conclusion of violence, I think you are morally responsible, in some way, for what happens.
I'm not really sure in what way—I don't think in a legal way, I mean—but I know I would have trouble looking at myself in the mirror if someone murdered a bunch of Christians or something based even tangentally on some anti-religious rant of mine he read on Penny Arcade. Words cause behavior.
Still failing to see when, in this particular case, any right wing mainstream pundit has come EVEN CLOSE to advocating this type of violence. Nothing Glenn Beck has said seems to link to shooting up a Holocaust museum, unless you can find a quote that suggests otherwise.
Glenn Beck has not advocated violence.
What he has done, repeatedly, was characterize reality as an us-vs-them affair, with "them" as this shadowy liberal government conspiracy aiming to steal your money, steal your guns, and brainwash you in FEMA camps. He worries about "being surrounded" and then gladly realizes that no, "we surround them." This is paranoid, delusional nonsense. And if it takes root in the mind of a violent person, it's not really hard to see what this person's logical conclusion may well lead him to do.
Now, I'm not even willing to draw that straight of a line between Beck and this guy. But I also think it's naive to view Brum's actions in a vacuum. This is the fourth kamikaze-style right-wing attack since Obama took office (after the guy shooting up the Unitarians, the guy killing police officers, and Tiller's murder). There is a trend now where crazy people with guns see themselves as "fighting back." In the same way we were worried about "copycats" after Columbine, we should clearly be worried about copycats now. And when newscasters contribute to this us-vs-them paranoid worldview shared by all four attackers in some form, I think they are morally culpable, at least to some extent. In the same way that, for example, gangster rappers are morally culpable for contributing to the violence in their respective fringe culture worldview.
Perhaps in the same way that hardcore Islamic preachers who decry "America the land of Infidels" are maybe a little responsible / connected to anti-American terrorism.
Or "Israel is a false nation and the holocaust is a myth" is maybe a little responsible / connected to anti-semetic violence.
Maybe a little like that.
The difference is that many of those preachers OPENLY ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, much like extremist white supremacist groups. Right wing mainstream pundits are not at that point regarding anything except for, arguably, abortion doctors. In this case that analogy doesn't hold.
Evander, the totality of Von Brumm's fucked-up-ness is not expressed by the neat and tidy word "anti-Semitism."
Yes. Anti-Semites exist independently of Fox News. But there are associated neuroses, some of which appeared to motivate his action as well—notably (judging from the note left in his care) paranoia about gun control.
Somehow I think his choice of targets implies more about his motivation than one part of a multi-part crazy note. Not to mention the vast body of his previous work seems to suggest more anti-Semitism than "THEYR TAKIN MY GUNS, BETTER KILL SOMON!"
Exactly.
I'm not denying that he is right-wing.
What I'm saying is that the SPECIFIC MOTIVATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SHOOTING does not appear to be anything coming from the mainstream right.
Or do you mean on larger points, like accusing Israel of apartheid, or saying that Israel is an illegal racist state. Because it THAT is what you mean, then you're calling Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. an idiot.
So, which is it? Are you going with the imaginary strawman, or do you think MLK is an idiot?
If MLK equated "accusing Israel of aparteid" and "saying that Israel is an illegal racist state" with "anti-Semitism," then MLK is indeed an idiot.
Because that's an idiotic thing to say.
And Christ, what a telegraphed rhetorical move. Also, why the hell do you put your paragraphs five lines apart from each other?
Can you not see the connection between encouraging a paranoid, us-vs.-them worldview and a violent response founded in a paranoid, us-vs.-them worldview? Nobody is claiming they are directly causing this behavoir (if anyone did really early in this thread let's just say they're dumb and be done with it), but these extremist speakers are creating an environment that helps to foster and encourage violent extremism.
these extremist speakers are creating an environment that helps to foster and encourage violent extremism.
except that violent extremeism existed before these speakers came along
If you can accuse Fox and the GOP of anything here, it is the fact that they didn't do more to promote peace. To make that relevant, though, you have to show that it was their responsibility to do it in the first place.
Evander, the totality of Von Brumm's fucked-up-ness is not expressed by the neat and tidy word "anti-Semitism."
Yes. Anti-Semites exist independently of Fox News. But there are associated neuroses, some of which appeared to motivate his action as well—notably (judging from the note left in his care) paranoia about gun control.
Somehow I think his choice of targets implies more about his motivation than one part of a multi-part crazy note. Not to mention the vast body of his previous work seems to suggest more anti-Semitism than "THEYR TAKIN MY GUNS, BETTER KILL SOMON!"
Exactly.
I'm not denying that he is right-wing.
What I'm saying is that the SPECIFIC MOTIVATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SHOOTING does not appear to be anything coming from the mainstream right.
Evander, we're never ever going to know his specific motivations. Maybe he's been planning this all his life. Maybe he got riled up on some webforum. Maybe Netflix didn't deliver his DVD on time so he snapped. We can see what he wrote, what he believed in, and who he associated with and draw conclusions from that.
Paranoid rhetoric like "the President is a fake / libruls are TAKING OUR GUNS AWAY! / it's us vs. them and they're un-American traitors" encourages, well, duh, paranoia and an extremist us vs. them mentality. Nobody knows who created this monster, but he sure as fuck know who winked and nodded and told him his paranoid delusions were ok.
these extremist speakers are creating an environment that helps to foster and encourage violent extremism.
except that violent extremeism existed before these speakers came along
Silly again. Violent extremism existed before explosives, does that mean abortion clinic bombings aren't violent extremism? Are we trying to go back in this guy's past to find the specific event that turned him into a psycho and declare any and all events irrelevant?
Delusional hate-mongers have existed for, well, for as long as we can tell. There was a time that they had a pulpit or a microphone or a pamphlet and now they have a T.V. station.
I honestly have no idea what Evander is even trying to argue in this thread. And I'm like 75% positive he doesn't either. So I'm going to stop responding.
I mean honest to god. Pre-historical antisemitism.
Posts
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=10465841#post10465841
And frankly, the 70's was a different era. Most of us were not alive. It was before the Reagan re-alignment of politics. In a sense, the political spectrum was simply not the same then as it is now. Just a decade before, Democrats courted Southern racists, not Republicans.
and that is the era that Von Brunn also came out of
I stand corrected. There was an even stupider claim.
Reagan may have won big with the Southern Strategy, but Nixon began it in earnest. Republicans courted racists then.
Yeah see that's bullshit. The two are not mirror images of each other. That seems to be what you've been claiming, but its just not true. Perhaps you could make the claim that at one time it was, but despite the continued obsession of the Baby Boomers, the politics of the 60s and 70s is about as relevant as the policies of Calvin Coolidge were in the 80s.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Are you making the claim that Von Brunn was not a racist until Nixon came along?
also, are you trying to draw connections between Nixon and the current GOP? Nixon would be considered a liberal by the current crop.
What does that have to do with Antisemitism?
and I'm asking to see them stoking this man's particular fires.
One little talking point about Obama hating guns isn't enough to consider them an accomplice here any more than you can blame the Palestinians for 9/11 because of Bin Laden's statements about Palestine..
Yes. Anti-Semites exist independently of Fox News. But there are associated neuroses, some of which appeared to motivate his action as well—notably (judging from the note left in his care) paranoia about gun control.
Because the right wing is characterized by the creations of divisions, especially racial, nationalistic and/or xenophobic ones. The creation of "the Enemy" is important.
The left wing is much more likely to be overly inclusive and if anything want to eliminate preexisting divisions, such as your favorite example PETA's desire to extend rights to animals.
Both historically and conceptually, antisemitism fits one much more readily.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Somehow I think his choice of targets implies more about his motivation than one part of a multi-part crazy note. Not to mention the vast body of his previous work seems to suggest more anti-Semitism than "THEYR TAKIN MY GUNS, BETTER KILL SOMON!"
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
No, no you're not. We've already established that you're looking for evidence that isn't feasibly going to exist. What you're doing is asking for evidence that you know can't exist in order to muddy an otherwise clear link between a right-wing extremist and right-wing extremism.
But these days the left is also much more likely to condemn Israel, whereas the right is more readily likely to support them.
Anti-Semitism is not an issue that can be placed on either end of the current political spectrum. It exists on both and isn't an overreaching part of either.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
only an idiot equates condemning Israel's policies with being anti-semetic. Seriously, the two shouldn't have anything to do with each other.
Certainly, it's the worst, and his ideology is supremely motivated by anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. But there's other shit he believed, that shit is also important to his character and skewed worldview, and that shit happens to coincide with a lot of the shit that comes out of mainstream GOP talking points.
And, you know, there's really not much more to say than that. A lot of the debate in here probably reduces to semantics over what we mean by words like "blame" and "stoking the fires."
Still failing to see when, in this particular case, any right wing mainstream pundit has come EVEN CLOSE to advocating this type of violence. Nothing Glenn Beck has said seems to link to shooting up a Holocaust museum, unless you can find a quote that suggests otherwise.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
It is possible for someone to be associated with a political group and also have crazy beliefs that don't match with that group's platform. There are pro-life Democrats, gay Republicans, wealthy Socialists and Sane Libertarians. Sometimes people have qualities or beliefs that don't match their party or don't match any party.
It's more important to note the right wing's support for Israel. I'm stating it makes it hard to say that the Right Wing is more likely to breed anti-Semitism. Likewise I wasn't suggesting that the left wing's view on Israel is anti-Semitic, I was trying to show that the stupidity of that belief system is rooted outside the current scope of what defines right and left.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Right, I think anti-Semitism is one of those.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Yes. Posting on redstate, screaming about Obama stealing your guns, and demanding to see the President's "REAL" birth certificate, however, are kind of easily defined as "crazy-Republican."
Anti-Semitism seems more prevalent among individuals who associate with a style of white supremacy that finds their home in the fringes of the Republican party. It is not, however, exclusive to that party, group or fringe.
What he has done, repeatedly, was characterize reality as an us-vs-them affair, with "them" as this shadowy liberal government conspiracy aiming to steal your money, steal your guns, and brainwash you in FEMA camps. He worries about "being surrounded" and then gladly realizes that no, "we surround them." This is paranoid, delusional nonsense. And if it takes root in the mind of a violent person, it's not really hard to see what this person's logical conclusion may well lead him to do.
Now, I'm not even willing to draw that straight of a line between Beck and this guy. But I also think it's naive to view Brum's actions in a vacuum. This is the fourth kamikaze-style right-wing attack since Obama took office (after the guy shooting up the Unitarians, the guy killing police officers, and Tiller's murder). There is a trend now where crazy people with guns see themselves as "fighting back." In the same way we were worried about "copycats" after Columbine, we should clearly be worried about copycats now. And when newscasters contribute to this us-vs-them paranoid worldview shared by all four attackers in some form, I think they are morally culpable, at least to some extent. In the same way that, for example, gangster rappers are morally culpable for contributing to the violence in their respective fringe culture worldview.
Again, you're just playing correlation, instead of finding actual threads.
Antisemitism is much older that conservatism. It's arguably older than modern Judaism itself.
Antisemitism has it's roots in ancient Egyptian Judeophobia, which then spread to Greece and Rome, and with the advent of Christianity, spread across the modern world.
Trying to pin antisemitism to conservatives is absurd, especially considering how much antisemitic rhetoric frame the Jews as being the "man" who is keeping everyone down, which is a traditionally liberal stance.
Antisemitism is MUCH bigger than US partisan squabbles.
Perhaps in the same way that hardcore Islamic preachers who decry "America the land of Infidels" are maybe a little responsible / connected to anti-American terrorism.
Or "Israel is a false nation and the holocaust is a myth" is maybe a little responsible / connected to anti-semetic violence.
Maybe a little like that.
You're being silly again.
Are violent video games morally culpable for crimes committed by people who play violent video games? Because the logic you're using is mighty similar.
Likewise, when a violent man killed a soldier outside a base in Arkansas earlier this month because he felt that the US presence in the middle east justified him doing so, was Keith Olbermann to blame since he constantly discusses his belief that US foreign policy decisions under Bush were morally outrageous and criminal?
I hate defending pundits, I really do. I'm just having a hard time pinning this one on Fox News and not on other authors similar to the shooter.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
what do you mean byu "Israel's Policies"?
Do you mean specific policies on an individual basis? Because NO ONE is calling those people anti-semites. Hell, I'm a proud Zionist, and I CONTINUALLY call out Israel on specific actions that I believe are wrong (like refusal to disband settlements.)
Or do you mean on larger points, like accusing Israel of apartheid, or saying that Israel is an illegal racist state. Because it THAT is what you mean, then you're calling Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. an idiot.
So, which is it? Are you going with the imaginary strawman, or do you think MLK is an idiot?
I'm not really sure in what way—I don't think in a legal way, I mean—but I know I would have trouble looking at myself in the mirror if someone murdered a bunch of Christians or something based even tangentally on some anti-religious rant of mine he read on Penny Arcade. Words cause behavior.
The difference is that many of those preachers OPENLY ADVOCATE VIOLENCE, much like extremist white supremacist groups. Right wing mainstream pundits are not at that point regarding anything except for, arguably, abortion doctors. In this case that analogy doesn't hold.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Exactly.
I'm not denying that he is right-wing.
What I'm saying is that the SPECIFIC MOTIVATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SHOOTING does not appear to be anything coming from the mainstream right.
Because that's an idiotic thing to say.
And Christ, what a telegraphed rhetorical move. Also, why the hell do you put your paragraphs five lines apart from each other?
There is a DIFFERENCE between attacking Israeli policy and attacking ISRAEL.
except that violent extremeism existed before these speakers came along
If you can accuse Fox and the GOP of anything here, it is the fact that they didn't do more to promote peace. To make that relevant, though, you have to show that it was their responsibility to do it in the first place.
Evander, we're never ever going to know his specific motivations. Maybe he's been planning this all his life. Maybe he got riled up on some webforum. Maybe Netflix didn't deliver his DVD on time so he snapped. We can see what he wrote, what he believed in, and who he associated with and draw conclusions from that.
Paranoid rhetoric like "the President is a fake / libruls are TAKING OUR GUNS AWAY! / it's us vs. them and they're un-American traitors" encourages, well, duh, paranoia and an extremist us vs. them mentality. Nobody knows who created this monster, but he sure as fuck know who winked and nodded and told him his paranoid delusions were ok.
Silly again. Violent extremism existed before explosives, does that mean abortion clinic bombings aren't violent extremism? Are we trying to go back in this guy's past to find the specific event that turned him into a psycho and declare any and all events irrelevant?
Delusional hate-mongers have existed for, well, for as long as we can tell. There was a time that they had a pulpit or a microphone or a pamphlet and now they have a T.V. station.
I mean honest to god. Pre-historical antisemitism.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+