Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Shooting At Holocaust Museum (DC)
Posts
There is no evidence linking him to Fox news, though, and strong evidence suggesting that he wasn't a fan.
It's hard to suggest that an episode of Beck pushing him over the edge is an "equal possibility" when he wanted to shoot up Fox News.
I don't disagree that Fox is validating SOME extremists, but I don't want Von Brunn to get swept in to that pile and forgotten, because there are other, deeper issues that are apparent in Von Brunn's hate speech.
It's not a question of whether Fox is good or bad. It's a question of whether they had anything to do with this incident, and there simply isn't any good evidence saying that they did.
also, as far as Fox "creating an environment" for Von Brunn, Von Brunn was shooting up the Fed before Fox news existed. Framing him as a product of Fox's environment just doesn't pan out.
Except that trying to paint Von Brunn as opposing both the right and the left equally is disingenuous at best.
While white supremacist groups usually dislike mainstream conservatives for not being conservative enough (or not framing their conservative views in racial terms), they're still an example of right-wing extremism. The ideology espoused by Von Brunn and other white supremacists is still a right-wing ideology.
It's like saying that the various American communist groups oppose both the right and the left because they criticize mainstream politicians who are both conservative and liberal.
I'm not denying that Von Brunn lies on the far right end of the spectrum.
The point, howevere, is that he is SO FAR on the fringe that he really cannot be associated with other peole just because they also happen to lean right. He himself CLEARLY has beefs with much of what you and I would consider moderate, or even far right wing politics.
Condemning the entire right because of Brunn would be akin to, well, calling Obama a socialist because Socialists are ALSO left-wing.
I agree that the entire right shouldn't get lumped in with people like Von Brunn, but I don't think there's a firewall between the white supremacist fringe and far-right American politics, just as there isn't one between Socialists and far-left American politics.
For example, the Ron Paul campaign attracted some pretty unsavory "racialist" support based on his opposition to the federal government, the Federal Reserve, and some of his (disputed) mid-90s writings about racial issues. When it comes to the "pro-life" movement, that dividing line is much muddier.
Speaking of Fox News, it's not like Glenn Beck and his apocalyptic "we surround them" rhetoric about fascism and looming violence is that out of sync with how the folks on the far, far, right fringe see the world, especially now that Obama is President. To me, there's not that many dots between Beck's rantings and the Turner Diaries.
I think the area where I feel like you and I are discontecting is over the direction that this sort of propaganda disseminates from.
Fox News doesn't fabricate these talking points about Obama wanting to ban all guns, or not having an American birth certificate. These talking points actually ORIGINATE on the fringes, next to other points about the Jews and lizardmen pulling all the strings, and Bush being a tool fo the libeals because he is supporting big government. As these points trickled down from the fringes, some of them get filtered out, but a few (like bithcertificates) hit the airwaves.
The fringe isn't getting these ideas because they heard them on Fox. Fox is airing these ideas in an attempt to court the fringe. This is ABSOLUTELY dispicable behavior, which Fox deserves to be held accountable for.
Oddly enough, though, likely thanks to all of his other paranoia, Von Brunn saw through Fox's atempts to court him, and they were actually one of his potential targets. Fox's behavior definitely needs to be held up and criticised in light of the Tiller murder, but in regards to Von Brunn, Fox is oddly uninvolved.
It's important not to lump Von Brunn in with Tiller's killer, as well, because it makes it that much easier for assholes like Limbaugh and Beck to brush it all off. The evidence is there to distance Von Brunn from Fox, so if you lump him in with everyone else, the are going to COMPLETELY ignore all of the otheracts of violence, and ONLY work to defend themselves from accusations of encouraging Von Brunn, which ultimately they'll be validated on, and they will use that as "proof" that they are innocent on all charges (which they are absolutely not.)
What I'm getting at here is that by trying to blame Fox in some regard for Von Brunn's actions, or the environment surrounding them, you are both obscuring the ACTUAL forces that pushed Von Brunn to do what he did, and ALSO giving Fox an easy out on the accusations that they have moral culpability for the OTHER recent killings.
Fox isn't just trying to court the fringe, they're also disseminating the information to create new fringe members.
You're giving them too much credit.
Fox doesn't care what folks believe, as long as they are getting ratings.
The reason that they air extremeist views is because they want to get the ratings from those extremists.
The creation of NEW extremists IS a byproduct of this whole tactic, and Fox SHOULD be held accountable for that, but it isn't their goal. They are perfectly happy with some one being a moderate instead of an extremist, as long as that person is watching Fox.
You contradict yourself. By creating new fringe members, they increase their viewership and ratings.
You're getting cyclical.
Fox can't create fringe members out of people who aren't already watching them.
He didn't say Beck makes people crazy, though, he said that he makes people more crazy. Seriously, you're more wrong than your predictions of Obama losing.
There are extensive links between Richard Poplawski and his rhetoric and James Van Brunn. They both frequented Stormfront, both were or had strong white supremacist and antisemitic leanings, and both were spurred to violence because they were afraid Obama was going to take their guns. In the former case, we know that Poplawski was directly influenced by both Beck and Ron Paul and his rhetoric, not simply as a source of ideas but as a as someone who reinforced those ideas as in some way legitimate.
So we have two cases within a few months of each other. Both shooters shot cops. Both shooters were antisemitic, white supremacists. Both were attributed the motivation that Obama was going to take their guns. Both frequented the same websites. Both supported Ron Paul. One we know factually was a big fan and was influenced by Glenn Beck, a conservative media member on Fox News. The other repeated the specific talking points that were invented by the right wing media - that is that Obama lacked a birth certificate to prove his citizenship.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Advertising, dude. How do you think they get new viewers in the first place? Then they hook them with the crazysauce.
Do I need to pull up a list of all the similarities between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassiniations?
You can draw similarities between these two en, but the one thing that you CAN'T do is find anything linking Fox itself to Von Brunn, nor can you find anything suggesting a CAUSITORY link between any of this stuff.
Meanwhile, to try to blame Fox in any regard, you are having to completely overlook the fact that Von Brunn wanted to SHOOT them.
As for the origin of the claim that Obama lacked an American birth certificate, I'm researching the origin of the rumor right now (if you have any links that would hel there, I'd appreciate them) but as most of this stuff is originated in the fringe, and only POPULARIZED by Fox, not fabricated outright, I'm assuming that this one took that path too. I DO rememebr that the accusations came about during the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES, which suggests sources other than Fox News, who was far more concerned with Hillary at the time.
That just doesn't make sense.
For these people to be willing to buy in to Fox enough for Fox to turn them extremist, they would ALREADY have to be believers in the fox line.
People don't just walk down the street, see a billboard, and say to themselves "I never thought of that before, but now I think I should take up arms against the government."
Also, what do you believe Fox's motivation for creating all of these extremists would be?
absolutely
Fox starts TONS of idiotic buzzwords
How does advertising work period? You get them to tune into your channel/show in some manner, and then hook them with providing crazy material. Obviously, these are people who are easily manipulated with flashy colors and slogans like "War on Christmas", but the point still stands that there will be something drawing them to the channel.
As for the other question: $$$
Why do you keep saying Fox? Are you under the impression that its the only right wing media outlet?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm not sure this is relevant. There is probably some sort of curve / break point where a very limited number of people "go off the deep end" after exposure to Fox News, but there's also some sort of break point in reverse where people say "what the fuck am I listening to?" and then back out.
Exposure to Fox News doesn't make you crazy. Well, outside of Clockwork Orange torture scenarios. If you're already crazy, however, exposure to Fox News validates your paranoia, and might add a little bit of flair to it. I seriously doubt any reasonable individual changed from "moderate" to "psychopath" just because Glenn Beck doused himself in gasoline (*edit* I realize this isn't an accurate description of what happened but GOD A MAN CAN DREAM). I find it much easier to believe that an already insane, potentially dangerous individual watched Glenn Beck and said "See? I was right! They are coming for my guns! The liberal media is out to destroy us!"
This is exactly what I am saying.
Besides that, he doesn't even need to have watched it himself, all he needs is for one of his buddies on Free Republic or Redstate to say "see? If that RINO Beck said it, it must be true."
Supposedly his personal financial situation may have been a trigger for this guy.
Does not compute.
If they have some perfectly good moderates who are already loyal to Fox, how do they make money by turning them in to extremists?
Except that this man A) was already off the deep end BEFORE Fox News existed, and B) did not appear to be a guy who sat around watching Fox News and being influenced by it (he wanted to SHOOT them.)
I'm not saying that this doesn't happen for other extremists, but there is nothing to tie this stuff in to Von Brunn spoecifically, and in fact, there is evidence to refute it.
And, as I said earlier, it is actually DETRIMENTAL to keep trying to force Fox in to the list of causes here, because it allows the REAL culprits to avoid attention, AND it gives Fox an easy strawman for them to use to defnedn themselves, so that they don't even have to touch things like Tiller where they ARE responsible.
Places like Stormfront is where this shit is at. That's not even the deep fringes, as I imagine most of the severely out-there motherfuckers don't communicate much over the internet.
That's not exactly true. I mean, back in 81 he tried to rob a bank. Lots of people do that without being fringe loonies.
This latest escapade was nothing but murder-suicide. Which says to me that between 1981 and today, his crazy rose exponentially.
I never said anything about Von Brunn.
do you not understand what the Fed is?
we wasn't trying to "rob a bank" he was using a fake bomb in order to attempt to kidnap members of the FEDERAL RESERVE.
Then you're in the wrong thread
You did interpret what I said wrong. What I'm saying is that people who have public spotlight are listened to - whackos included. Those same whackos will feel they have some sort of public support and take action.
Public figures have a moral responsibility to choose their words more carefully. You made a sarcastic remark about arresting those public figures in response to me, when I never so much as implied they should be arrested.
Edit - And sorry for dragging this up so many pages but I'm not going to let someone skew my viewpoints to their bullshit.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
Yeah. Four boxes of ammo most likely.
That was some pretty good fear mongering, though.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
"I am so tired of zealots, primarily on the left, putting their insane personal agendas above the safety of fellow Americans."
And many other historians believe that the muslim culture is running BEHIND the west, and that right now the rise in violent muslim extremists is akin to the christian crusades, or the Judaic conquest of the middle east (three thousand hears ago, or so)
there's far from any consensus on this sort of stuff
Except that this actually does kind of apply here.
Too many people want to talk about Fox news in reaction to Von Brunn, when it's pretty clear that he WASN'T a fan.
What we have, with Von Brunn, is a threat coming from a different direction. Yes, he is right-wing, but he is NOT the rightwing mainstream. He hates christians and neo-cons, so he clearly isn't just one of Fox's sheep.
That is NOT to say that Fox isn't ALSO a threat, but we shouldn't ignore NEW threats, and instead only focus on old ones.
We should be staring at Fox in light of Tiller, but in light of Von Brunn, we should be placing a close eye on those fringes that go well beyond Fox, because even if Fox likes to pretend that they encompass all of the right, they don't, and there are certain crazies who need to be dealt with who would not be stopped even if Fox suddenly endorsed Obama.
because he is such a dead-shot that every single bullet will hit it's mark?
the word stockpiling is an exaggeration. The thing was written with an agenda to try to tie all of these instances together as though they are all being perpetrated by some cohesive group, when the truth is that what we have is a GENERAL threat from right-wing extremists right now. There's no specific "Rush-Qaeda" group that is orchestrating all of these attacks.