It's already known the shooter who wasn't white had been watching videos by a high-ranking al-Qaeda official. Association with terrorists = terrorism.
Meanwhilst, it's more difficult to prove that Roof, et al had ties to any group that's actually classified as a terrorist organization, rather than just being immersed in a culture of hate and fear. It should still be called terrorism, but when you can't actually tie them to a terrorist organization...
This is the kind of wormy logic that gets used to justify the "lone wolf" rhetoric.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
It's already known the shooter who wasn't white had been watching videos by a high-ranking al-Qaeda official. Association with terrorists = terrorism.
Meanwhilst, it's more difficult to prove that Roof, et al had ties to any group that's actually classified as a terrorist organization, rather than just being immersed in a culture of hate and fear. It should still be called terrorism, but when you can't actually tie them to a terrorist organization...
This is the kind of wormy logic that gets used to justify the "lone wolf" rhetoric.
So then they should both be classified as terrorism, right?
The issue is that Roof's ties to the white supremacist community should be considered ties to terrorists. THATS WHAT THOSE FUCKERS ARE! We have no problem calling any kind of brown person group terrorists, or a gang or whatever, but we have people in this country advocating for its overthrow and genocide and Oh no they are just like minded hobbyists!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The issue is that Roof's ties to the white supremacist community should be considered ties to terrorists. THATS WHAT THOSE FUCKERS ARE! We have no problem calling any kind of brown person group terrorists, or a gang or whatever, but we have people in this country advocating for its overthrow and genocide and Oh no they are just like minded hobbyists!
The left (and this forum in general) does
Which is where the disconnect comes from and why I get so frustrated with this forum sometimes. Its this really weird double standard coming from people yelling about unfair double standards.
Yeah, Roof is a terrorist. White Supremacists are a hate/terrorist group and are horrible human beings.
I feel like I am hijacking the thread discussing the disconnect and I'm retroactively sorry because I'm pretty sure this thread isnt the place to discuss it.
The issue is that Roof's ties to the white supremacist community should be considered ties to terrorists. THATS WHAT THOSE FUCKERS ARE! We have no problem calling any kind of brown person group terrorists, or a gang or whatever, but we have people in this country advocating for its overthrow and genocide and Oh no they are just like minded hobbyists!
The left (and this forum in general) does
Which is where the disconnect comes from and why I get so frustrated with this forum sometimes. Its this really weird double standard coming from people yelling about unfair double standards.
Obi I meant in general we the country, and I didn't mean that in a positive way. This country has a habit of calling a lot of groups terrorists and gangs based on skin color.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The issue is that Roof's ties to the white supremacist community should be considered ties to terrorists. THATS WHAT THOSE FUCKERS ARE! We have no problem calling any kind of brown person group terrorists, or a gang or whatever, but we have people in this country advocating for its overthrow and genocide and Oh no they are just like minded hobbyists!
The left (and this forum in general) does
Which is where the disconnect comes from and why I get so frustrated with this forum sometimes. Its this really weird double standard coming from people yelling about unfair double standards.
Yeah, Roof is a terrorist. White Supremacists are a hate/terrorist group and are horrible human beings.
I feel like I am hijacking the thread discussing the disconnect and I'm retroactively sorry because I'm pretty sure this thread isnt the place to discuss it.
Sure, yeah, it is a double standard in a way. But despite my middle eastern background making me technically "white," I'm a brown skinned man named Mohammad, and the vast differences in the default news rhetoric have put me massively on edge because holy shit, there's a ton of people eating this stuff up and going "RAH RAH BOMB THE MIDDLE EAST MURICA FUCK YEAH." I mean I don't have an accent, I was born and raised in this country, I love living in the US. But I've reached a point where I have to actively assume that people will be hostile to me when I first meet them purely because of my name and skin color, and it's fucking exhausting.
So yes, I'm going to push for the opposite standard a little bit because it's already way lopsided in the wrong direction and it'll take a hell of a lot more than my complaining to even start to move it toward even footing.
If a 'brown' person shoots a bunch of people, they are almost always immediately labelled a Terrorist.
If a white person shoots a bunch of people, they are almost always immediately labelled a 'lone wolf'.
We've seen this play out more times than I think any of us would care to discuss, especially in the last few years.
This isn't about saying 'omg don't call the non-white assholes who shoot a bunch of people terrorists!'. It's about how a very similar outcome (a bunch of people shot) is very regularly labelled differently based on the colour of the shooter's skin.
It's really simple pattern recognition at this point, not some 'left wing forum push to downgrade 'brown' terrorists', but simply noting the hypocrisy in how the shooters race plays into the media narrative.
We watched people go through olympic level mental gymnastics to avoid calling a guy who shot 9 people in a church 'a terrorist', despite his own proclamations of desiring to start a race war.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yes, we do have trouble differentiating between people with hateful ideas and people who enact these hateful ideas in a destructive manner. But if we're gonna get the racists, I'd rather do it in a manner that doesn't exacerbate the problem we already have regarding people of arabic descent who may not feel the hypest about america but haven't done anything.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
The issue is that Roof's ties to the white supremacist community should be considered ties to terrorists. THATS WHAT THOSE FUCKERS ARE! We have no problem calling any kind of brown person group terrorists, or a gang or whatever, but we have people in this country advocating for its overthrow and genocide and Oh no they are just like minded hobbyists!
The left (and this forum in general) does
Which is where the disconnect comes from and why I get so frustrated with this forum sometimes. Its this really weird double standard coming from people yelling about unfair double standards.
Yeah, Roof is a terrorist. White Supremacists are a hate/terrorist group and are horrible human beings.
I feel like I am hijacking the thread discussing the disconnect and I'm retroactively sorry because I'm pretty sure this thread isnt the place to discuss it.
Sure, yeah, it is a double standard in a way. But despite my middle eastern background making me technically "white," I'm a brown skinned man named Mohammad, and the vast differences in the default news rhetoric have put me massively on edge because holy shit, there's a ton of people eating this stuff up and going "RAH RAH BOMB THE MIDDLE EAST MURICA FUCK YEAH." I mean I don't have an accent, I was born and raised in this country, I love living in the US. But I've reached a point where I have to actively assume that people will be hostile to me when I first meet them purely because of my name and skin color, and it's fucking exhausting.
So yes, I'm going to push for the opposite standard a little bit because it's already way lopsided in the wrong direction and it'll take a hell of a lot more than my complaining to even start to move it toward even footing.
Default "News" rhetoric doesn't exist because nearly all news does massive mental gymnastics in order to appeal to their left or right leaning viewership depending on the station and their location in the country. Ratings!
I guess I don't feel like its lopsided because the left is just as loud as the right on this.
You've got the left going: "Not all Brown people" and "All white people"
While the right is going: "All Brown people" and "Not all white people"
And it's not like Democrats are immune to that bullshit, since Wes Clark stopped about three words short of calling for concentration camps last week.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The thing about Benedict Arnold is a)He actually was an accomplished military commander, and was actually key in several American victories, and b) most of his memorials are damnatio memoriae, that don't actually have his name on them.
When the GermanWings flight went down, the first thing going across the CNN news ticker on the TV in our lunchroom at work was "POSSIBLE TERRORISM?" Then it turned out the guy was white and oh nevermind must be a lone wolf thing.
Whenever the default stops being to jump to terrorism, I'll start thinking the scales are even again.
The issue is that Roof's ties to the white supremacist community should be considered ties to terrorists. THATS WHAT THOSE FUCKERS ARE! We have no problem calling any kind of brown person group terrorists, or a gang or whatever, but we have people in this country advocating for its overthrow and genocide and Oh no they are just like minded hobbyists!
The left (and this forum in general) does
Which is where the disconnect comes from and why I get so frustrated with this forum sometimes. Its this really weird double standard coming from people yelling about unfair double standards.
Yeah, Roof is a terrorist. White Supremacists are a hate/terrorist group and are horrible human beings.
I feel like I am hijacking the thread discussing the disconnect and I'm retroactively sorry because I'm pretty sure this thread isnt the place to discuss it.
Sure, yeah, it is a double standard in a way. But despite my middle eastern background making me technically "white," I'm a brown skinned man named Mohammad, and the vast differences in the default news rhetoric have put me massively on edge because holy shit, there's a ton of people eating this stuff up and going "RAH RAH BOMB THE MIDDLE EAST MURICA FUCK YEAH." I mean I don't have an accent, I was born and raised in this country, I love living in the US. But I've reached a point where I have to actively assume that people will be hostile to me when I first meet them purely because of my name and skin color, and it's fucking exhausting.
So yes, I'm going to push for the opposite standard a little bit because it's already way lopsided in the wrong direction and it'll take a hell of a lot more than my complaining to even start to move it toward even footing.
Default "News" rhetoric doesn't exist because nearly all news does massive mental gymnastics in order to appeal to their left or right leaning viewership depending on the station and their location in the country. Ratings!
I guess I don't feel like its lopsided because the left is just as loud as the right on this.
You've got the left going: "Not all Brown people" and "All white people"
While the right is going: "All Brown people" and "Not all white people"
Both are starting to drive me insane
Only because you're ignoring the concept of time, and treating this like one of those situations where, Well A punched B and B punched A, so therefore they're equivalent! And no, there's no broader context about who started it or a pattern of abuse or nothing like that! Nope!
Default "News" rhetoric doesn't exist because nearly all news does massive mental gymnastics in order to appeal to their left or right leaning viewership depending on the station and their location in the country. Ratings!
That's discounting how MSNBC isn't just about left shows, it has a few right leaning ones too. Morning Joe for instance, and Chuck Todd got his own show.
I guess I don't feel like its lopsided because the left is just as loud as the right on this.
You've got the left going: "Not all Brown people" and "All white people"
While the right is going: "All Brown people" and "Not all white people"
Both are starting to drive me insane
Haven't seen it on left news networks, like MSNBC. CNN isn't leftist, btw.
The recent shooter was lone wolf in that he acted alone when he shot up the theater. But he was not alone in that he's a pattern of crazy right wing white people who continue to attack america and we keep calling them "isolated incidents" indeed any news outlet that talks about this guys right wing views will probably get assailed from Fox news for vilifying the right.
Calling it an isolated incident is incorrect, right.
And of course the right wing is going to push back when people characterize their entire base by the very very very few crazy people who are using twisted versions of their ideologies to commit murder and atrocities. I find it hilariously ironic that in order to properly defend themselves they have to also concede that the "crazy Islam brown people" (to modify your quote) also do not properly represent the majority of Muslims.
:Thinks about Donald Trump's poll numbers:
:whistles:
I'll admit I'm not following his numbers but if he polling well among the Right then I don't even know anymore
He's leading the GOP field right now. ~20%. He has yet to crack the Crazification Factor, which I suspect is his ceiling.
The recent shooter was lone wolf in that he acted alone when he shot up the theater. But he was not alone in that he's a pattern of crazy right wing white people who continue to attack america and we keep calling them "isolated incidents" indeed any news outlet that talks about this guys right wing views will probably get assailed from Fox news for vilifying the right.
Calling it an isolated incident is incorrect, right.
And of course the right wing is going to push back when people characterize their entire base by the very very very few crazy people who are using twisted versions of their ideologies to commit murder and atrocities. I find it hilariously ironic that in order to properly defend themselves they have to also concede that the "crazy Islam brown people" (to modify your quote) also do not properly represent the majority of Muslims.
:Thinks about Donald Trump's poll numbers:
:whistles:
I'll admit I'm not following his numbers but if he polling well among the Right then I don't even know anymore
I'm pretty sure he's way out in front
Dude is insane. I want to think he's out in front because no one else is really campaigning as hard right now. No way does he actually win the nomination.
edit: this is really really off topic though and i'm done talking about trump, sorry
edit2: oh and totp, nice
It's not that ridic to believe. The rest aren't that far off with their politics, they just prefer to dog-whistle more. And it's easy to tell that they're dog-whistling to the crazy base.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Default "News" rhetoric doesn't exist because nearly all news does massive mental gymnastics in order to appeal to their left or right leaning viewership depending on the station and their location in the country. Ratings!
That's discounting how MSNBC isn't just about left shows, it has a few right leaning ones too. Morning Joe for instance, and Chuck Todd got his own show.
I guess I don't feel like its lopsided because the left is just as loud as the right on this.
You've got the left going: "Not all Brown people" and "All white people"
While the right is going: "All Brown people" and "Not all white people"
Both are starting to drive me insane
Haven't seen it on left news networks, like MSNBC. CNN isn't leftist, btw.
Neither is MSNBC from what i can see.
Ofcourse, i say this from scandinavian perspective, so take that with a grain of salt.
Whatever monuments to at exist to Benedict Arnold on US territory, I can't imagine they'd be that to remove either.
As near as I can tell none of them are 70 feet high and carved into a mountain so that would make it a fair bit easier.
So magnitude makes a difference not the cause behind it. Arnold was a great commander and won the us some key victories but if he had been a few minutes off on his time we would most likely still be a british colony in most areas. But since his monuments do not have his name on it, even though they are monuments to him, it is lesser. What he did is about as treasonous as you can get. There is no difference in magnitude to me because they represent the same thing. Anyways it is getting off topic so I will just leave it there. The reason I brought it up has shown in the replies.
It's really starting to look like the motive behind last night's shooting was misogynistic in nature, with the shooter having really strong opinions about how women shouldn't be in the work place, and a really difficult relationship with his ex-wife.
This is so fucked up and so frustrating and I'm so tired of it. And fuck everyone who continues to insist that we don't need feminism and that women already do have access equal rights and representation.
It's really starting to look like the motive behind last night's shooting was misogynistic in nature, with the shooter having really strong opinions about how women shouldn't be in the work place, and a really difficult relationship with his ex-wife.
This is so fucked up and so frustrating and I'm so tired of it. And fuck everyone who continues to insist that we don't need feminism and that women already do have access equal rights and representation.
What stands out to me is that he got committed for psychiatric treatment and then ...?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Was able to either legally buy or still legally allowed to own firearms. Wait shit that's not the part we focus on here. Uhh better mental healthcare!
He'd been previously convicted of arson which last I checked was a felony. No fucking way he should have been allowed to own a gun.
Of course, we'll find out how the system failed and soon after will be folks explaining that it's really too bad but the system could not possibly be changed to correct whatever went wrong.
It's really starting to look like the motive behind last night's shooting was misogynistic in nature, with the shooter having really strong opinions about how women shouldn't be in the work place, and a really difficult relationship with his ex-wife.
This is so fucked up and so frustrating and I'm so tired of it. And fuck everyone who continues to insist that we don't need feminism and that women already do have access equal rights and representation.
Yeah well, all the feminism in the world isn't going to get rid of hate.
Hate is a learned behavior, sometimes from very valid sources, sometimes from petty stupid and worthless solutions. You can change the culture of a society, but you'll never get rid of petty and stupid individuals.
Default "News" rhetoric doesn't exist because nearly all news does massive mental gymnastics in order to appeal to their left or right leaning viewership depending on the station and their location in the country. Ratings!
That's discounting how MSNBC isn't just about left shows, it has a few right leaning ones too. Morning Joe for instance, and Chuck Todd got his own show.
I guess I don't feel like its lopsided because the left is just as loud as the right on this.
You've got the left going: "Not all Brown people" and "All white people"
While the right is going: "All Brown people" and "Not all white people"
Both are starting to drive me insane
Haven't seen it on left news networks, like MSNBC. CNN isn't leftist, btw.
Neither is MSNBC from what i can see.
Ofcourse, i say this from scandinavian perspective, so take that with a grain of salt.
From the American political spectrum, MSNBC is definitely left-leaning and pro-Democrat. They're the less popular, less amusing, Democrat answer to FOX News.
Speaking of which... I noticed in FOX's most recent articles they never, ever touch on John Houser's Tea Party connections or right wing views. Then the comment section is filled with "I BET HE'S A LIBERAL!!!". Which, if you ever want to lose faith in humanity? Just scroll down to the comments section of any article on foxnews.com.
One can understand their perspective, certainly. Japan committed many war crimes in a period that coincided with the apex of Colonial Taiwan under Japan (we even had two Taiwanese representatives elected to Japan's parliament), and Taiwan's own participation in their aggression is an uncomfortable, even shameful point from some perspectives. It's the sort of thing that gets racist drivel hurled at the first Taiwanese president, Lee Teng-Hui, since he served in the Imperial military during the war (as an air-defense officer). But if those political interests tried to get the President's Residence, a very overtly Imperial Japanese building, demolished (as the South Koreans did with their own Japanese-built presidential residence in 1995), I have no doubt people in Taipei, and maybe throughout the country, would destroy their political careers. Overtly Japanese or not, people like that building. I think it's undeniably one of the better looking old buildings in the city.
The destruction of the old General Government Building in Seoul was controversial at the time as well, for similar reasons. Speaking as an outsider, I personally would have liked it to remain. It had more historical significance than the frankly generic reconstruction of Gyeongbok Palace that they're putting lots of effort into.
But one distinction I would make between these and Stone Mountain is that the old Japanese imperial buildings are actual pieces of history while Stone Mountain is a fairly modern and much after-the-fact commemoration. I wouldn't mind Stone Mountain going away (though I'm not entirely sure that it would be worth the no doubt significant effort/expense to do away with the carving) but wouldn't support the removal of some actual 150-year-old statue, etc., from the old Confederacy.
cckerberos on
+2
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
One can understand their perspective, certainly. Japan committed many war crimes in a period that coincided with the apex of Colonial Taiwan under Japan (we even had two Taiwanese representatives elected to Japan's parliament), and Taiwan's own participation in their aggression is an uncomfortable, even shameful point from some perspectives. It's the sort of thing that gets racist drivel hurled at the first Taiwanese president, Lee Teng-Hui, since he served in the Imperial military during the war (as an air-defense officer). But if those political interests tried to get the President's Residence, a very overtly Imperial Japanese building, demolished (as the South Koreans did with their own Japanese-built presidential residence in 1995), I have no doubt people in Taipei, and maybe throughout the country, would destroy their political careers. Overtly Japanese or not, people like that building. I think it's undeniably one of the better looking old buildings in the city.
The destruction of the old General Government Building in Seoul was controversial at the time as well, for similar reasons. Speaking as an outsider, I personally would have liked it to remain. It had more historical significance than the frankly generic reconstruction of Gyeongbok Palace that they're putting lots of effort into.
But one distinction I would make between these and Stone Mountain is that the old Japanese imperial buildings are that the latter are actual pieces of history while Stone Mountain is a fairly modern and much after-the-fact commemoration. I wouldn't mind Stone Mountain going away (though I'm not entirely sure that it would be worth the no doubt significant effort/expense to do away with the carving) but wouldn't support the removal of some actual 150-year-old statue, etc., from the old Confederacy.
I am hesitant to advocate for the destruction of art, even *shudder* ugly or *double shudder* new art. Move it somewhere else if possible, or make bigger/better/more prolific art to counter it.
The thing about Benedict Arnold is a)He actually was an accomplished military commander, and was actually key in several American victories, and b) most of his memorials are damnatio memoriae, that don't actually have his name on them.
Also, they're about the things he did for the future US. Not against it.
Arnold's status as a traitor is more complicated than simply turning his back on his former allies. The end result was more or less the same, but he didn't quit to start a war against the rebels. His history is much more tragic than, say, Lee's.
One can understand their perspective, certainly. Japan committed many war crimes in a period that coincided with the apex of Colonial Taiwan under Japan (we even had two Taiwanese representatives elected to Japan's parliament), and Taiwan's own participation in their aggression is an uncomfortable, even shameful point from some perspectives. It's the sort of thing that gets racist drivel hurled at the first Taiwanese president, Lee Teng-Hui, since he served in the Imperial military during the war (as an air-defense officer). But if those political interests tried to get the President's Residence, a very overtly Imperial Japanese building, demolished (as the South Koreans did with their own Japanese-built presidential residence in 1995), I have no doubt people in Taipei, and maybe throughout the country, would destroy their political careers. Overtly Japanese or not, people like that building. I think it's undeniably one of the better looking old buildings in the city.
The destruction of the old General Government Building in Seoul was controversial at the time as well, for similar reasons. Speaking as an outsider, I personally would have liked it to remain. It had more historical significance than the frankly generic reconstruction of Gyeongbok Palace that they're putting lots of effort into.
But one distinction I would make between these and Stone Mountain is that the old Japanese imperial buildings are actual pieces of history while Stone Mountain is a fairly modern and much after-the-fact commemoration. I wouldn't mind Stone Mountain going away (though I'm not entirely sure that it would be worth the no doubt significant effort/expense to do away with the carving) but wouldn't support the removal of some actual 150-year-old statue, etc., from the old Confederacy.
Thanks for your perspective. I never got to see the General Government Building, since by the time I (very briefly) lived in South Korea, it was already demolished (only by a few years at that). It's actually resembles the Taihoku Governor General's Residence, albeit more austere, with less vegetation and painted white, and arguably, less "alive" and active looking (though again, the Governor General's building got constantly remodeled, also a huge portion of the right half of the building was destroyed by Allied bombing in '44 and '45--I don't think the same thing happened in Seoul).
It's hard to argue that a building created, at least in part if not primarily to wipe out the architectural symbol of the Joseon Dynasty and the Korean Empire, should not in turn be wiped away and the original architecture restored (it's also literally the reasoning given by the modern Russian government when they demolished the largest open-air pool in the world and restored the Cathedral of Christ the Savior). That's simply not something that existed in Taiwan--there was no Taiwanese Empire, no dynasty that the Japanese tried to erase, just an unpopular Qing government replaced by an (over time) less-unpopular Japanese government. Not hard to do when the Qing couldn't even be bothered to build schools.
Of course, transporting a building that big off-site for preservation elsewhere isn't necessarily a realistic option (the actual building, as with the one in Taipei, is larger than the historic portion of the White House), though it's interesting to hear that the decision was more controversial than I assumed it was (I guess it's easy to forget after the fact). The Soviets had the same issue--multiple churches most closely associated with the Tsarist Autocracy were deemed unacceptable right next to offices of the new government, and moving them wasn't feasible either, so things of "value" were taken from the inside and the buildings themselves stricken. It's a building, not a statue or even a room. In an ideal world, buildings could be preserved, but again, not realistic.
I'd agree that the age of the buildings does put more value on them, inherently, than a younger monument, even one carved into a mountain (which is even less viable for relocation, though that's not the issue). The worth of British castles, after all, is because royalty and more did reside and operate in them. Physically, the mountain could literally be "unfixable"--what are you going to do, carve it out and leave a giant gash that everyone can point at and jeer?
The main problem with Stone Mountain is that it's tax neutral. People who liked it aren't going to vote to change it for lots of obvious reasons, and people who don't like it may hesitate to spend a significant amount of money on that rock where the KKK keeps hanging out
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I wish people would just leave mountains alone. Couldn't we just have a nice mountain without (racist) stuff carved into it?
It's not even a well done carving.
Posts
Meanwhilst, it's more difficult to prove that Roof, et al had ties to any group that's actually classified as a terrorist organization, rather than just being immersed in a culture of hate and fear. It should still be called terrorism, but when you can't actually tie them to a terrorist organization...
This is the kind of wormy logic that gets used to justify the "lone wolf" rhetoric.
So then they should both be classified as terrorism, right?
pleasepaypreacher.net
The left (and this forum in general) does
Which is where the disconnect comes from and why I get so frustrated with this forum sometimes. Its this really weird double standard coming from people yelling about unfair double standards.
Yeah, Roof is a terrorist. White Supremacists are a hate/terrorist group and are horrible human beings.
I feel like I am hijacking the thread discussing the disconnect and I'm retroactively sorry because I'm pretty sure this thread isnt the place to discuss it.
what the fuck are you talking about
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sure, yeah, it is a double standard in a way. But despite my middle eastern background making me technically "white," I'm a brown skinned man named Mohammad, and the vast differences in the default news rhetoric have put me massively on edge because holy shit, there's a ton of people eating this stuff up and going "RAH RAH BOMB THE MIDDLE EAST MURICA FUCK YEAH." I mean I don't have an accent, I was born and raised in this country, I love living in the US. But I've reached a point where I have to actively assume that people will be hostile to me when I first meet them purely because of my name and skin color, and it's fucking exhausting.
So yes, I'm going to push for the opposite standard a little bit because it's already way lopsided in the wrong direction and it'll take a hell of a lot more than my complaining to even start to move it toward even footing.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
To lay it out as clearly an succinctly as I can;
If a 'brown' person shoots a bunch of people, they are almost always immediately labelled a Terrorist.
If a white person shoots a bunch of people, they are almost always immediately labelled a 'lone wolf'.
We've seen this play out more times than I think any of us would care to discuss, especially in the last few years.
This isn't about saying 'omg don't call the non-white assholes who shoot a bunch of people terrorists!'. It's about how a very similar outcome (a bunch of people shot) is very regularly labelled differently based on the colour of the shooter's skin.
It's really simple pattern recognition at this point, not some 'left wing forum push to downgrade 'brown' terrorists', but simply noting the hypocrisy in how the shooters race plays into the media narrative.
We watched people go through olympic level mental gymnastics to avoid calling a guy who shot 9 people in a church 'a terrorist', despite his own proclamations of desiring to start a race war.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Default "News" rhetoric doesn't exist because nearly all news does massive mental gymnastics in order to appeal to their left or right leaning viewership depending on the station and their location in the country. Ratings!
I guess I don't feel like its lopsided because the left is just as loud as the right on this.
You've got the left going: "Not all Brown people" and "All white people"
While the right is going: "All Brown people" and "Not all white people"
Both are starting to drive me insane
Whenever the default stops being to jump to terrorism, I'll start thinking the scales are even again.
You can't give someone a pirate ship in one game, and then take it back in the next game. It's rude.
Only because you're ignoring the concept of time, and treating this like one of those situations where, Well A punched B and B punched A, so therefore they're equivalent! And no, there's no broader context about who started it or a pattern of abuse or nothing like that! Nope!
That's discounting how MSNBC isn't just about left shows, it has a few right leaning ones too. Morning Joe for instance, and Chuck Todd got his own show.
Haven't seen it on left news networks, like MSNBC. CNN isn't leftist, btw.
It's not that ridic to believe. The rest aren't that far off with their politics, they just prefer to dog-whistle more. And it's easy to tell that they're dog-whistling to the crazy base.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Neither is MSNBC from what i can see.
Ofcourse, i say this from scandinavian perspective, so take that with a grain of salt.
So magnitude makes a difference not the cause behind it. Arnold was a great commander and won the us some key victories but if he had been a few minutes off on his time we would most likely still be a british colony in most areas. But since his monuments do not have his name on it, even though they are monuments to him, it is lesser. What he did is about as treasonous as you can get. There is no difference in magnitude to me because they represent the same thing. Anyways it is getting off topic so I will just leave it there. The reason I brought it up has shown in the replies.
This is so fucked up and so frustrating and I'm so tired of it. And fuck everyone who continues to insist that we don't need feminism and that women already do have access equal rights and representation.
What stands out to me is that he got committed for psychiatric treatment and then ...?
pleasepaypreacher.net
As he should be if he was deemed not dangerous anymore.
He'd been previously convicted of arson which last I checked was a felony. No fucking way he should have been allowed to own a gun.
Of course, we'll find out how the system failed and soon after will be folks explaining that it's really too bad but the system could not possibly be changed to correct whatever went wrong.
Yeah because going to prison you can lose your right to vote and no one cares, but losing your primary right to a fire arm is the real tragedy.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah well, all the feminism in the world isn't going to get rid of hate.
Hate is a learned behavior, sometimes from very valid sources, sometimes from petty stupid and worthless solutions. You can change the culture of a society, but you'll never get rid of petty and stupid individuals.
I don't agree with taking the vote from felons so nice strawman there.
pleasepaypreacher.net
From the American political spectrum, MSNBC is definitely left-leaning and pro-Democrat. They're the less popular, less amusing, Democrat answer to FOX News.
Speaking of which... I noticed in FOX's most recent articles they never, ever touch on John Houser's Tea Party connections or right wing views. Then the comment section is filled with "I BET HE'S A LIBERAL!!!". Which, if you ever want to lose faith in humanity? Just scroll down to the comments section of any article on foxnews.com.
So I mean, not really. It's liberal for exactly two hours a day, between 8 and 10.
pleasepaypreacher.net
the ugliest mural playing the worst song on the ugliest guitar
The destruction of the old General Government Building in Seoul was controversial at the time as well, for similar reasons. Speaking as an outsider, I personally would have liked it to remain. It had more historical significance than the frankly generic reconstruction of Gyeongbok Palace that they're putting lots of effort into.
But one distinction I would make between these and Stone Mountain is that the old Japanese imperial buildings are actual pieces of history while Stone Mountain is a fairly modern and much after-the-fact commemoration. I wouldn't mind Stone Mountain going away (though I'm not entirely sure that it would be worth the no doubt significant effort/expense to do away with the carving) but wouldn't support the removal of some actual 150-year-old statue, etc., from the old Confederacy.
In time it will be seen in its proper context.
Also, they're about the things he did for the future US. Not against it.
Arnold's status as a traitor is more complicated than simply turning his back on his former allies. The end result was more or less the same, but he didn't quit to start a war against the rebels. His history is much more tragic than, say, Lee's.
Thanks for your perspective. I never got to see the General Government Building, since by the time I (very briefly) lived in South Korea, it was already demolished (only by a few years at that). It's actually resembles the Taihoku Governor General's Residence, albeit more austere, with less vegetation and painted white, and arguably, less "alive" and active looking (though again, the Governor General's building got constantly remodeled, also a huge portion of the right half of the building was destroyed by Allied bombing in '44 and '45--I don't think the same thing happened in Seoul).
It's hard to argue that a building created, at least in part if not primarily to wipe out the architectural symbol of the Joseon Dynasty and the Korean Empire, should not in turn be wiped away and the original architecture restored (it's also literally the reasoning given by the modern Russian government when they demolished the largest open-air pool in the world and restored the Cathedral of Christ the Savior). That's simply not something that existed in Taiwan--there was no Taiwanese Empire, no dynasty that the Japanese tried to erase, just an unpopular Qing government replaced by an (over time) less-unpopular Japanese government. Not hard to do when the Qing couldn't even be bothered to build schools.
Of course, transporting a building that big off-site for preservation elsewhere isn't necessarily a realistic option (the actual building, as with the one in Taipei, is larger than the historic portion of the White House), though it's interesting to hear that the decision was more controversial than I assumed it was (I guess it's easy to forget after the fact). The Soviets had the same issue--multiple churches most closely associated with the Tsarist Autocracy were deemed unacceptable right next to offices of the new government, and moving them wasn't feasible either, so things of "value" were taken from the inside and the buildings themselves stricken. It's a building, not a statue or even a room. In an ideal world, buildings could be preserved, but again, not realistic.
I'd agree that the age of the buildings does put more value on them, inherently, than a younger monument, even one carved into a mountain (which is even less viable for relocation, though that's not the issue). The worth of British castles, after all, is because royalty and more did reside and operate in them. Physically, the mountain could literally be "unfixable"--what are you going to do, carve it out and leave a giant gash that everyone can point at and jeer?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's not even a well done carving.