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.
The point is that there is far more going on here than just "see what the right wing media is doing to our country?"
The threads that motivated this guy can be traced back to ancient Egypt, not to Rush Limbaugh.
Evander, we're never ever going to know his specific motivations.
A vocal antisemite shot at the Holocaust Museum.
Do you want to take a wild swing at primary motivations?
OK I lied.
No a vocal right wing extremist whose views include anti-semitism shot at the Holocaust museum and wrote as his justification that Obama was going to come take his guns. edit- And who had previous acted on his right wing ideology independent of his antisemitic views
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.
The point is that there is far more going on here than just "see what the right wing media is doing to our country?"
The threads that motivated this guy can be traced back to ancient Egypt, not to Rush Limbaugh.
And the thread that motivates Osama Bin Laden can be traced to the Crusades and before. That doesn't mean we can't discuss other factors!
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.
You're still failing to define a line that equates to encouraging in an unacceptable manner, ESPECIALLY in this particular case (violence at the Holocaust Museum).
For instance, when do 9/11 truthers become morally culpable for violence against the government? When do all sports fans that engage in trash talking become responsible for a specific instance of a sports riot? When does the vegan with the "meat is murder" sign become responsible for a seperate instance of environmental terrorism? When does someone who is pro-life become responsible for the Tiller murder? When does an anti-war activist become morally culpable for a man murdering a soldier?
When do right wing pundits become morally culpable for a shooting at a museum?
Evander, we're never ever going to know his specific motivations.
A vocal antisemite shot at the Holocaust Museum.
Do you want to take a wild swing at primary motivations?
OK I lied.
No a vocal right wing extremist whose views include anti-semitism shot at the Holocaust museum and wrote as his justification that Obama was going to come take his guns.
You left out a key part of that statement.
Namely that the JEWS WERE SENDING Obama to take away his guns.
The Jews were still the primary focus of the statement that you're talking about (and, just because I missed it, where did it come from that that particular statement was the reason behind this specific attack, as opposed to just one of many7 things that he wrote.)
Evander, we're never ever going to know his specific motivations.
A vocal antisemite shot at the Holocaust Museum.
Do you want to take a wild swing at primary motivations?
As I said, "anti-Semite" does not encompass the totality of his neuroses. It doesn't explain why he felt the need to act now.
His anti-Semitism is obviously the primary motivation for his action, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's foolish and simplistic to pretend that it does.
Evander, we're never ever going to know his specific motivations.
A vocal antisemite shot at the Holocaust Museum.
Do you want to take a wild swing at primary motivations?
As I said, "anti-Semite" does not encompass the totality of his neuroses. It doesn't explain why he felt the need to act now.
His anti-Semitism is obviously the primary motivation for his action, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's foolish and simplistic to pretend that it does.
And yet other posters keep citing the guns statement as if it were his primary motivation. E.g:
...wrote as his justification that Obama was going to come take his guns.
The note doesn't even say Obama is taking his guns. It uses an abstract "you" (which could equate to just general rage at liberal gun positions) following by two BLATANTLY anti-Semitic statements.
Evander, we're never ever going to know his specific motivations.
A vocal antisemite shot at the Holocaust Museum.
Do you want to take a wild swing at primary motivations?
As I said, "anti-Semite" does not encompass the totality of his neuroses. It doesn't explain why he felt the need to act now.
His anti-Semitism is obviously the primary motivation for his action, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's foolish and simplistic to pretend that it does.
his need to act now could just as easily be explained by the fact that he's an old man with a bad heart, and doesn't have much longer to act.
It may also have to do with him being 88 years old (H is the 8th letter of the alphabet, and many neo-nazis used the number 88 as code for "Heil Hitler")
The threads that motivated this guy can be traced back to ancient Egypt, not to Rush Limbaugh.
This is just stupid, Evander.
You continue to show that you have this black and white understanding of the world where only single things can cause single effects. That is simply not how the world works. Tracing a straight line from Rush Limbaugh to the shooter is stupid, but tracing a straight line to Ramses II is even stupider.
The threads that motivated this guy can be traced back to ancient Egypt, not to Rush Limbaugh.
This is just stupid, Evander.
You continue to show that you have this black and white understanding of the world where only single things can cause single effects. That is simply not how the world works. Tracing a straight line from Rush Limbaugh to the shooter is stupid, but tracing a straight line to Ramses II is even stupider.
But you're the one who LOVES to bring up ancient history as a reason to attack religions (what was your reason for refusing to celebrate Passover with your family again?"
The point is that this man subscribes to a philosophy that is thousands of years old, and THAT appears to be his motivation here (you can't pretend that his target was non-significant). Trying to blame his actions on GOP or Fox, when the motivations run much deeper, is absurd.
Yes, Fox may have influenced some of his specific rhetoric. He may not have had the guns line without them. Ultimately, though, the guns line doesn't seem to be the REASON for the attack, just a bit of rhetoric that he through at there (what do guns have to do with the Holocaust museum?)
The threads that motivated this guy can be traced back to ancient Egypt, not to Rush Limbaugh.
This is just stupid, Evander.
You continue to show that you have this black and white understanding of the world where only single things can cause single effects. That is simply not how the world works. Tracing a straight line from Rush Limbaugh to the shooter is stupid, but tracing a straight line to Ramses II is even stupider.
You have to consider, though, that laying a murder and general action of this variety at someone's feet and calling them morally culpable is a big deal. Especially when the connection is as loose as what you guys have defined ("The mainstream right wing says Obama and those that follow him are scary, therefore this man was encouraged to shoot up the Holocaust museum").
It's far more justifiable to lay this at the doorstep of someone like, say, David Dukes than at the doorstep of Bill O'Reilly.
his need to act now could just as easily be explained by the fact that he's an old man with a bad heart, and doesn't have much longer to act.
It may also have to do with him being 88 years old (H is the 8th letter of the alphabet, and many neo-nazis used the number 88 as code for "Heil Hitler")
I don't know, Evander. It's certainly possible. And as I said, I'm sure anti-Semitism was the primary motivation for his action.
My point, again, is that people don't exist in vacuums. People's actions don't exist in vacuums. This man was not some sad, crazy loner. He had a popular web site that was frequented and supported, apparently, by more mainstream types of right-wing lunatics. "Anti-Semitism" dominates his worldview, but doesn't define it. It's a worldview that is propped up by other ideas—paranoia about the money supply, about guns, about the government—and when we talk about moral culpability, I think it's fair to look at some of the people who supply oxygen to these supporting ideas to this man's delusions.
I really, really don't understand why this is such a controversial issue with you, Evander.
Heartlash, is moral culpability a binary quality or one with varying degrees?
Varying degrees. In my opinion, mainstream right wing pundits are barely even a little bit of a degree here. Like of the similar degree that violent media is responsible for violent youth.
You have to consider, though, that laying a murder and general action of this variety at someone's feet and calling them morally culpable is a big deal.
THE STRAWMAN THAT WOULD NOT DIE!
Seriously, that strawman has been burnt in effigy like fifty times this thread alone. Nobody is saying "FOX NEWS = MURDARARS!"
I really, really don't understand why this is such a controversial issue with you, Evander.
Because you're blaming the wrong guy.
And when you focus on blaming the wrong guy, the right guys get away with it.
Please explain what you mean here, Evander. I honestly don't know what the fuck you're talking about and I'm getting pretty pissed off at your constant strawmanning of my position and who I'm "blaming."
The Palestinians have closer ties to Al Qaeda than Von Brunn does to the GOP.
The kind of logic being applied in this thread is scarily similar to the "logic" I had to put up with coming out of right-wing nutballs during the early 2000s.
The Palestinians have closer ties to Al Qaeda than Von Brunn does to the GOP.
The kind of logic being applied in this thread is scarily similar to the "logic" I had to put up with coming out of right-wing nutballs during the early 2000s.
Heartlash, is moral culpability a binary quality or one with varying degrees?
Varying degrees. In my opinion, mainstream right wing pundits are barely even a little bit of a degree here. Like of the similar degree that violent media is responsible for violent youth.
I think this is a fair position, and we can agree to disagree. I'd personally put their culpability level a little higher, like I said, around where I'd put gangster rappers. But there's obviously no objective way to measure these things.
Would you agree that, in light of the now four killings tangentally related to some of the shit they're saying, that right-wing commentators should tone down the rhetoric?
Jesus fuck, NOBODY IS SAYING FOX MADE HIM DO IT. But the rhetoric that Fox and other right-wing organizations and people have been spouting has undeniably led to attacks like this.
You have to consider, though, that laying a murder and general action of this variety at someone's feet and calling them morally culpable is a big deal.
THE STRAWMAN THAT WOULD NOT DIE!
Seriously, that strawman has been burnt in effigy like fifty times this thread alone. Nobody is saying "FOX NEWS = MURDARARS!"
Heartlash, is moral culpability a binary quality or one with varying degrees?
Varying degrees. In my opinion, mainstream right wing pundits are barely even a little bit of a degree here. Like of the similar degree that violent media is responsible for violent youth.
I think this is a fair position, and we can agree to disagree. I'd personally put their culpability level a little higher, like I said, around where I'd put gangster rappers. But there's obviously no objective way to measure these things.
Would you agree that, in light of the now four killings tangentally related to some of the shit they're saying, that right-wing commentators should tone down the rhetoric?
I think they should have toned it down to begin with.
The issue I see here is that, while Von Brunn may have repeated one of their talking points, there's no evidence to show that they encouraged him to perform his action.
To me, it seems most likely that he would have pulled off the same behavior, with different talking points, if those talking points had not existed.
We;re talking about an unstable man who is full of hate. He was essentially a bomb waiting to go off. At most Fox/GOP added a bit more shrapnel to him, but the fuse was lit long before they arrived on the scene.
What bothers me are the folks who want to focus on Fox's involvement, because what they are doing is taking this tragedy, and trying to push their anti-conservative agenda with it, rather than focusing on what the DIRECT causes of this incident.
Heartlash, is moral culpability a binary quality or one with varying degrees?
Varying degrees. In my opinion, mainstream right wing pundits are barely even a little bit of a degree here. Like of the similar degree that violent media is responsible for violent youth.
I think this is a fair position, and we can agree to disagree. I'd personally put their culpability level a little higher, like I said, around where I'd put gangster rappers. But there's obviously no objective way to measure these things.
Would you agree that, in light of the now four killings tangentally related to some of the shit they're saying, that right-wing commentators should tone down the rhetoric?
In the case of Tiller, yes. I do think the rhetoric there was highly suspect.
In terms of this relating to what would have to be 2nd amendment rhetoric, I don't think that should be toned down for any reason other than its own inherent flaws.
I think right wing pundits should stop saying Obama is out to take people's guns because it's false and full of cognitive dissonance, not because of this incident.
Evander, we're never ever going to know his specific motivations.
A vocal antisemite shot at the Holocaust Museum.
Do you want to take a wild swing at primary motivations?
I don't know why I am still reading this thread, but you seem to be having some problems seeing the bigger picture here. There's more to this than just the primary motivations of the nut.
One thing in particular to this case: what was the trigger? What made him do this now instead of some other time? He's been antisemitic for a long time by all indications, and has acted out before, specifically against the Fed. It's probably hard to say what directly caused him to boil over, but some of the less far right stuff we've seen elsewhere was clearly part of the stew given his writings.
Blaming the GOP directly for this guy is fairly silly, since his extremism goes beyond their confines. However, it's undeniable that the GOP has provided cover for nutcases like this, and arguable that they've been egging them on or dog-whistling them. The undeniable part is how they went to great lengths to quash and discredit the DHS report that warned about the threats of far-right domestic terrorism. That report specifically, and unfortunately accurately, warned of the huge threat of far-right extremists acting as "lone wolfs", and engaging in terrorism individually rather than organizing it directly within their extremist circles. At the very least, the GOP has often been trying to brush under the carpet the derangement and overwhelming hatred coming from the far right.
What bothers me are the folks who want to focus on Fox's involvement, because what they are doing is taking this tragedy, and trying to push their anti-conservative agenda with it, rather than focusing on what the DIRECT causes of this incident.
I'd still like you to clarify what you meant when you suggesting I wasn't "blaming the right person."
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot. I'm reminded of how any discussion about American foreign policy remotely contributing to 9/11 means we don't blame the terrorists for their actions. Fucking nonsense.
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot.
Except that there is already another thread for that discussion, isn't there?
So by using this thread as a platform to attack conservatives who had nothing to do with this specific incident DOES dilute the discussion.
In the case of Tiller, yes. I do think the rhetoric there was highly suspect.
In terms of this relating to what would have to be 2nd amendment rhetoric, I don't think that should be toned down for any reason other than its own inherent flaws.
I think right wing pundits should stop saying Obama is out to take people's guns because it's false and full of cognitive dissonance, not because of this incident.
My problem with this is that I don't think you can cleanly separate the incidents (or the other two incidents). I think there is an entirely rational fear that more crazy people are going to crawl out of the woodwork and shoot people based on their crazy ideology because they've now seen four people do it on national TV. So I think anything that contributes to this general atmosphere should be toned down simply for that reason alone. (Obviously they shouldn't be saying this shit in the first place, because it's wrong).
Also, in the case of the cop-shooter (the one before Tiller), I believe 2nd amendment crap was the prime motivator for the killings.
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot.
Except that there is already another thread for that discussion, isn't there?
So by using this thread as a platform to attack conservatives who had nothing to do with this specific incident DOES dilute the discussion.
What are you talking about? There's a thread for how much we hate white supremacist anti-Semites?
I wasn't aware there was anything to discuss on that issue. In the same way there isn't much discussion on here about whether or not al-Qaeda has the right idea or if the Holocaust happened.
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot.
Except that there is already another thread for that discussion, isn't there?
So by using this thread as a platform to attack conservatives who had nothing to do with this specific incident DOES dilute the discussion.
What are you talking about? There's a thread for how much we hate white supremacist anti-Semites?
I wasn't aware there was anything to discuss on that issue. In the same way there isn't much discussion on here about whether or not al-Qaeda has the right idea or if the Holocaust happened.
If you really hate nazis so much, why didn't you mention it earlier, hmmmm? HMMMMM?
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot.
Except that there is already another thread for that discussion, isn't there?
So by using this thread as a platform to attack conservatives who had nothing to do with this specific incident DOES dilute the discussion.
What are you talking about? There's a thread for how much we hate white supremacist anti-Semites?
I wasn't aware there was anything to discuss on that issue. In the same way there isn't much discussion on here about whether or not al-Qaeda has the right idea or if the Holocaust happened.
Well, you could have read my OP, which attempted to open a discussion on where the roots of violence are.
Which,m yes, right-wing rhetoric fits in to, but it is far from the END of that topic.
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot.
Except that there is already another thread for that discussion, isn't there?
So by using this thread as a platform to attack conservatives who had nothing to do with this specific incident DOES dilute the discussion.
What are you talking about? There's a thread for how much we hate white supremacist anti-Semites?
I wasn't aware there was anything to discuss on that issue. In the same way there isn't much discussion on here about whether or not al-Qaeda has the right idea or if the Holocaust happened.
If you really hate nazis so much, why didn't you mention it earlier, hmmmm? HMMMMM?
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot.
Except that there is already another thread for that discussion, isn't there?
So by using this thread as a platform to attack conservatives who had nothing to do with this specific incident DOES dilute the discussion.
You ignored the issue of the DHS report that I mentioned earlier. They tried to discredit the report about far-right extremism being a threat for terrorism, which as we have seen has been increasingly the case with the recent killings. This guy is another in those string of wackos, even though he's farther on the right-wing fringe than the GOP reaches.
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot.
Except that there is already another thread for that discussion, isn't there?
So by using this thread as a platform to attack conservatives who had nothing to do with this specific incident DOES dilute the discussion.
You ignored the issue of the DHS report that I mentioned earlier. They tried to discredit the report about far-right extremism being a threat for terrorism, which as we have seen has been increasingly the case with the recent killings. This guy is another in those string of wackos, even though he's farther on the right-wing fringe than the GOP reaches.
Okay.
I'm not sure what you want me to say to that.
I'm a pretty out-spoken liberal myself, so if you're looking for me to defend some right-wing viewpoint, then you're SOL here.
I've also stated that I agree that the right fringe holds more threat than the left fringe, at this particular moment in time, but I think that has more to do with the left feeling that they can work within our existing political machine, whereas the right, right now, feel that they need serious change that can only be brought about by violence before they will be listened to. Before everyone had equal rights and representation, violence was a lot more popular on the left, because their options for having a voice were much slimmer. Etcetera.
Posts
A vocal antisemite shot at the Holocaust Museum.
Do you want to take a wild swing at primary motivations?
The point is that there is far more going on here than just "see what the right wing media is doing to our country?"
The threads that motivated this guy can be traced back to ancient Egypt, not to Rush Limbaugh.
No a vocal right wing extremist whose views include anti-semitism shot at the Holocaust museum and wrote as his justification that Obama was going to come take his guns. edit- And who had previous acted on his right wing ideology independent of his antisemitic views
And the thread that motivates Osama Bin Laden can be traced to the Crusades and before. That doesn't mean we can't discuss other factors!
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You're still failing to define a line that equates to encouraging in an unacceptable manner, ESPECIALLY in this particular case (violence at the Holocaust Museum).
For instance, when do 9/11 truthers become morally culpable for violence against the government? When do all sports fans that engage in trash talking become responsible for a specific instance of a sports riot? When does the vegan with the "meat is murder" sign become responsible for a seperate instance of environmental terrorism? When does someone who is pro-life become responsible for the Tiller murder? When does an anti-war activist become morally culpable for a man murdering a soldier?
When do right wing pundits become morally culpable for a shooting at a museum?
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
You left out a key part of that statement.
Namely that the JEWS WERE SENDING Obama to take away his guns.
The Jews were still the primary focus of the statement that you're talking about (and, just because I missed it, where did it come from that that particular statement was the reason behind this specific attack, as opposed to just one of many7 things that he wrote.)
His anti-Semitism is obviously the primary motivation for his action, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's foolish and simplistic to pretend that it does.
And yet other posters keep citing the guns statement as if it were his primary motivation. E.g:
The note doesn't even say Obama is taking his guns. It uses an abstract "you" (which could equate to just general rage at liberal gun positions) following by two BLATANTLY anti-Semitic statements.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
his need to act now could just as easily be explained by the fact that he's an old man with a bad heart, and doesn't have much longer to act.
It may also have to do with him being 88 years old (H is the 8th letter of the alphabet, and many neo-nazis used the number 88 as code for "Heil Hitler")
You continue to show that you have this black and white understanding of the world where only single things can cause single effects. That is simply not how the world works. Tracing a straight line from Rush Limbaugh to the shooter is stupid, but tracing a straight line to Ramses II is even stupider.
But you're the one who LOVES to bring up ancient history as a reason to attack religions (what was your reason for refusing to celebrate Passover with your family again?"
The point is that this man subscribes to a philosophy that is thousands of years old, and THAT appears to be his motivation here (you can't pretend that his target was non-significant). Trying to blame his actions on GOP or Fox, when the motivations run much deeper, is absurd.
Yes, Fox may have influenced some of his specific rhetoric. He may not have had the guns line without them. Ultimately, though, the guns line doesn't seem to be the REASON for the attack, just a bit of rhetoric that he through at there (what do guns have to do with the Holocaust museum?)
You have to consider, though, that laying a murder and general action of this variety at someone's feet and calling them morally culpable is a big deal. Especially when the connection is as loose as what you guys have defined ("The mainstream right wing says Obama and those that follow him are scary, therefore this man was encouraged to shoot up the Holocaust museum").
It's far more justifiable to lay this at the doorstep of someone like, say, David Dukes than at the doorstep of Bill O'Reilly.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
My point, again, is that people don't exist in vacuums. People's actions don't exist in vacuums. This man was not some sad, crazy loner. He had a popular web site that was frequented and supported, apparently, by more mainstream types of right-wing lunatics. "Anti-Semitism" dominates his worldview, but doesn't define it. It's a worldview that is propped up by other ideas—paranoia about the money supply, about guns, about the government—and when we talk about moral culpability, I think it's fair to look at some of the people who supply oxygen to these supporting ideas to this man's delusions.
I really, really don't understand why this is such a controversial issue with you, Evander.
Varying degrees. In my opinion, mainstream right wing pundits are barely even a little bit of a degree here. Like of the similar degree that violent media is responsible for violent youth.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Because you're blaming the wrong guy.
And when you focus on blaming the wrong guy, the right guys get away with it.
edit: we shouldn't be blaming Glen Beck in here. We should be wondering why some one close to Ron Paul was also close to Von Brunn.
That and it characterizes a lot of people who watch Fox News as much more prone to violence than they actually are.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
THE STRAWMAN THAT WOULD NOT DIE!
Seriously, that strawman has been burnt in effigy like fifty times this thread alone. Nobody is saying "FOX NEWS = MURDARARS!"
Well nobody here at least.
The kind of logic being applied in this thread is scarily similar to the "logic" I had to put up with coming out of right-wing nutballs during the early 2000s.
I'm sorry, you're trolling or daft. I don't think there's anything else useful that can come of this conversation.
Would you agree that, in light of the now four killings tangentally related to some of the shit they're saying, that right-wing commentators should tone down the rhetoric?
That's why I chose to use the phrase "morally culpable". I don't think it's fair to say that Fox News is morally culpable for this specific incident.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I think they should have toned it down to begin with.
The issue I see here is that, while Von Brunn may have repeated one of their talking points, there's no evidence to show that they encouraged him to perform his action.
To me, it seems most likely that he would have pulled off the same behavior, with different talking points, if those talking points had not existed.
We;re talking about an unstable man who is full of hate. He was essentially a bomb waiting to go off. At most Fox/GOP added a bit more shrapnel to him, but the fuse was lit long before they arrived on the scene.
What bothers me are the folks who want to focus on Fox's involvement, because what they are doing is taking this tragedy, and trying to push their anti-conservative agenda with it, rather than focusing on what the DIRECT causes of this incident.
Is THIS attack one of those? If so, show me. If not, then that is entirely irrelevant.
In the case of Tiller, yes. I do think the rhetoric there was highly suspect.
In terms of this relating to what would have to be 2nd amendment rhetoric, I don't think that should be toned down for any reason other than its own inherent flaws.
I think right wing pundits should stop saying Obama is out to take people's guns because it's false and full of cognitive dissonance, not because of this incident.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I don't know why I am still reading this thread, but you seem to be having some problems seeing the bigger picture here. There's more to this than just the primary motivations of the nut.
One thing in particular to this case: what was the trigger? What made him do this now instead of some other time? He's been antisemitic for a long time by all indications, and has acted out before, specifically against the Fed. It's probably hard to say what directly caused him to boil over, but some of the less far right stuff we've seen elsewhere was clearly part of the stew given his writings.
Blaming the GOP directly for this guy is fairly silly, since his extremism goes beyond their confines. However, it's undeniable that the GOP has provided cover for nutcases like this, and arguable that they've been egging them on or dog-whistling them. The undeniable part is how they went to great lengths to quash and discredit the DHS report that warned about the threats of far-right domestic terrorism. That report specifically, and unfortunately accurately, warned of the huge threat of far-right extremists acting as "lone wolfs", and engaging in terrorism individually rather than organizing it directly within their extremist circles. At the very least, the GOP has often been trying to brush under the carpet the derangement and overwhelming hatred coming from the far right.
what was it?
If you believe that, by discussing how Fox's reporting has created an atmosphere that may have contributed to these attacks, I am somehow shifting or diluting the blame from the actual murderer and the actual network of white supremacist anti-Semites who directly support him, you are an idiot. I'm reminded of how any discussion about American foreign policy remotely contributing to 9/11 means we don't blame the terrorists for their actions. Fucking nonsense.
Except that there is already another thread for that discussion, isn't there?
So by using this thread as a platform to attack conservatives who had nothing to do with this specific incident DOES dilute the discussion.
Also, in the case of the cop-shooter (the one before Tiller), I believe 2nd amendment crap was the prime motivator for the killings.
I wasn't aware there was anything to discuss on that issue. In the same way there isn't much discussion on here about whether or not al-Qaeda has the right idea or if the Holocaust happened.
If you really hate nazis so much, why didn't you mention it earlier, hmmmm? HMMMMM?
Well, you could have read my OP, which attempted to open a discussion on where the roots of violence are.
Which,m yes, right-wing rhetoric fits in to, but it is far from the END of that topic.
you're being silly again
You ignored the issue of the DHS report that I mentioned earlier. They tried to discredit the report about far-right extremism being a threat for terrorism, which as we have seen has been increasingly the case with the recent killings. This guy is another in those string of wackos, even though he's farther on the right-wing fringe than the GOP reaches.
Okay.
I'm not sure what you want me to say to that.
I'm a pretty out-spoken liberal myself, so if you're looking for me to defend some right-wing viewpoint, then you're SOL here.
I've also stated that I agree that the right fringe holds more threat than the left fringe, at this particular moment in time, but I think that has more to do with the left feeling that they can work within our existing political machine, whereas the right, right now, feel that they need serious change that can only be brought about by violence before they will be listened to. Before everyone had equal rights and representation, violence was a lot more popular on the left, because their options for having a voice were much slimmer. Etcetera.
I think he'd have gotten the same amount of shrapnel from elsewhere if he hadn't had that gun line to cling to, though.