As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Shooting At Holocaust Museum (DC)

11617182022

Posts

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    But the people at Fox arguably did have something to do with Tiller's murder, the cop-killer, and the Unitarian church shooter.

    And it is possible that Von Brumm was emboldened by these other three murderers. We'll never know for sure, and I'm certainly not arguing that Fox is directly responsible, but I think some blame can be laid at their feet for helping create this atmosphere and the possibility of copy-cats.

    Qingu on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    This discussion, this right here, where Evander provies categorically that the people on Fox had not a goddamn thing to do with Von Bruun's actions by citing the Huffington Post, and people still call him an idiot and insist that he's wrong? This is why I don't post in politics threads anymore.
    Evander has proven nothing of the sort. Demanding that one side of a debate shut up because dammit, you know they know they're wrong is stupid and insulting.

    there is ZERO evidence linking him to Fox News as an influence, and there is STRONG evidence showing that he did not like Fox News.



    No, I haven't proved anything. Unless he wakes up and states specifically what his motivation was, it won't be definitive proof (although, I doubt you'd even accept his words as true if they contradicted your beliefs on his motives)



    I've put the ball firmly in your court, though. I've presented proof that SEPERATES him from Fox News. If you want to keep insisting that Fox News was an influence on him, you're going to need to actually dig up some kind of evidence to counter what is already on the table. Pointing out a couple fo talking points that ORIGINATED in the fringe (where Von Brunn was) BEFORE reaching Fox News just doesn't cut it.

    Evander on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    I'm certainly not arguing that Fox is directly responsible


    STOP SAYING THAT FOX IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE!!!!!

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    So, evidently, no, we can't drop it, because Fox is eeeeeeeevil and why don't we understand?

    I've been wondering this for a while. I think you're being intentionally daft, but maybe you're trolling.

    at worst he's just being a little silly

    not as silly as you, though

    God forbid anyone disagree with you. And at worst, no, Salvation is not just being silly.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    So, evidently, no, we can't drop it, because Fox is eeeeeeeevil and why don't we understand?

    I've been wondering this for a while. I think you're being intentionally daft, but maybe you're trolling.

    at worst he's just being a little silly

    not as silly as you, though

    God forbid anyone disagree with you. And at worst, no, Salvation is not just being silly.

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

    Salvation122 on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    So, evidently, no, we can't drop it, because Fox is eeeeeeeevil and why don't we understand?

    I've been wondering this for a while. I think you're being intentionally daft, but maybe you're trolling.

    at worst he's just being a little silly

    not as silly as you, though

    God forbid anyone disagree with you. And at worst, no, Salvation is not just being silly.

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

    Maybe you should threaten to turn off his mic Sal.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Qingu wrote: »
    But the people at Fox arguably did have something to do with Tiller's murder, the cop-killer, and the Unitarian church shooter.

    And it is possible that Von Brumm was emboldened by these other three murderers. We'll never know for sure, and I'm certainly not arguing that Fox is directly responsible, but I think some blame can be laid at their feet for helping create this atmosphere and the possibility of copy-cats.

    Do you have any evidence to show that Von Brunn was emboldened by these murders?

    If not, it is PURE conjecture. There are an infinite number of things that he COULD have been motivated by. Rememebr, this was not a rational man. This was a man who HONESTLY believed that a secret cabal of Jews was pulling the strings behind everything.



    At this point, we have evidence showing a divide between Von Brunn and Fox, and NO evidence linking them. Unless something new comes up, I think it's time to drop that line. I don't disagree that Fox has a culpability in the Tiller murder, but this isn't a thread abou the Tiller murder.

    that thread is here: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=91622

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Guys, no one has shown any evidence of ANY link between Fox and Von Brunn, direct or indirect.

    But we have evidence that Von Brunn HATED Fox.



    Let's not be disingenuous here. We're BETTER than Fox News.

    Evander on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    So, evidently, no, we can't drop it, because Fox is eeeeeeeevil and why don't we understand?

    I've been wondering this for a while. I think you're being intentionally daft, but maybe you're trolling.

    at worst he's just being a little silly

    not as silly as you, though

    God forbid anyone disagree with you. And at worst, no, Salvation is not just being silly.

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

    Maybe you should threaten to turn off his mic Sal.

    ITT people who disagree with PotatoNinja or CaptainCarrot are trolling.

    Good to know.

    There's explicit evidence distancing Bruun from Fox. He's a conspiracy nut and white supremacist who had committed violent crimes before Fox News ever existed. Your entire argument rests on "But Glenn Beck makes people crazy!" You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. You'll also forgive me for viewing you with withering scorn when you instinctively accuse me of trolling when I point out that you're just circle-jerking in here.

    Salvation122 on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    So, evidently, no, we can't drop it, because Fox is eeeeeeeevil and why don't we understand?

    I've been wondering this for a while. I think you're being intentionally daft, but maybe you're trolling.

    at worst he's just being a little silly

    not as silly as you, though

    God forbid anyone disagree with you. And at worst, no, Salvation is not just being silly.

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

    Maybe you should threaten to turn off his mic Sal.

    ITT people who disagree with PotatoNinja or CaptainCarrot are trolling.

    Good to know.

    There's explicit evidence distancing Bruun from Fox. He's a conspiracy nut and white supremacist who had committed violent crimes before Fox News ever existed. Your entire argument rests on "But Glenn Beck makes people crazy!" You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical. You'll also forgive me for viewing you with withering scorn when you instinctively accuse me of trolling when I point out that you're just circle-jerking in here.

    I think it's more of a double-dutch rudder at this point

    Evander on
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    I don't disagree.

    But I think that Von Brunn was just as crazy on Wednesday as he was back in '81

    Evander on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Captain Carrot on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Except that guys like Von Brunn want to shoot him.

    So I doubt that they are listening to him.

    Evander on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Your entire argument rests on "But Glenn Beck makes people crazy!" You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

    Skeptical sure, retarded no.

    My argument doesn't rest on that. I'm not aware of any argument in the thread that rests on that.

    Aside from yours, of course.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Your entire argument rests on "But Glenn Beck makes people crazy!" You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

    Skeptical sure, retarded no.

    My argument doesn't rest on that. I'm not aware of any argument in the thread that rests on that.

    Aside from yours, of course.

    you're being silly again:
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Evander on
  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    @Evander: Would you think they'd have more of a point if they were arguing for FOX News sharing some responsibility in the Tiller murder? (You may have answered this before, in which case I apologise.)

    Thirith on
    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Except that guys like Von Brunn want to shoot him.

    So I doubt that they are listening to him.

    Right wingers have been threatening Shep Smith. I'm pretty sure they watch FOX News.

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Except that guys like Von Brunn want to shoot him.

    So I doubt that they are listening to him.

    Right wingers have been threatening Shep Smith. I'm pretty sure they watch FOX News.

    But probably not exactly taking Shep's opinions to heart, seeing as how they think he should die for them.

    Really, this isn't hard.

    Salvation122 on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Thirith wrote: »
    @Evander: Would you think they'd have more of a point if they were arguing for FOX News sharing some responsibility in the Tiller murder? (You may have answered this before, in which case I apologise.)

    Absolutely.

    Provided that they were arguing about it here, where it's relevant.



    I'm far from being a Fox apologist. I just don't like them being accused for something that other sinsiter groups, who recieve less press, are actually guilty of.



    Wednesday's shooting should be opening people's eyes to the white-power and antisemitic groups that STILL exist (despite the fact that many people insist that these groups are all but gone, and no longer a threat to anyone.)

    Von Brunn is a sympton of a REAL issue, and I think we should be focusing on that issue in regards to him, not playing with a Fox/GOP strawman that only obstructs the view of who was REALLY behind this attack.

    Evander on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    At this point, conjecture is pretty much all we have to really go with. Until Van Brunn wakes up (if he wakes up), all we have to really come to conclusions with is the information that we have to work with.

    Would this thread of discussion even be going where it is if Dr. Tiller hadn't been killed a week before this? Possibly. Would the two attacks be getting compared as much as they are if they hadn't happened to close to each other?

    Possibly not.

    But Dr. Tiller was murdered first, and then this shooting happened. Those things do seem to be slightly connected. But mostly because of the proximity of the crimes. Had Dr Tiller not been killed, Van Brunn would have just been written off as some crazy anti-semite and this would not be getting the attention that it has been.

    It's all getting linked together because of the timing. Van Brunn could have been planning this very thing for years, but since Tiller's murder, the impact of his attack got caught up with the whole 'right-wing extremists!' 'The Right is going to eat your babies!' thing.

    Sign of the times and all that.

    lonelyahava on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Your entire argument rests on "But Glenn Beck makes people crazy!" You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

    Skeptical sure, retarded no.

    My argument doesn't rest on that. I'm not aware of any argument in the thread that rests on that.

    Aside from yours, of course.

    you're being silly again:
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Given that he posted three minutes after I did, at the time he was writing he was probably right. Also, I oversimplified my argument above.

    Captain Carrot on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Your entire argument rests on "But Glenn Beck makes people crazy!" You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

    Skeptical sure, retarded no.

    My argument doesn't rest on that. I'm not aware of any argument in the thread that rests on that.

    Aside from yours, of course.

    you're being silly again:
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Given that he posted three minutes after I did, at the time he was writing he was probably right. Also, I oversimplified my argument above.

    A WHOLE THREE MINUTES

    IT'S CERTAINLY AS IF PEOPLE HAVE NEVER DREDGED UP THINGS FROM TWENTY PAGES AND A WEEK BACK AND USED THEM AGAINST THEIR AUTHOR

    WHAT IS THIS BLACK MAGIC, WITH THE QUOTING OF RECENT WORDS TO PROVE SOMEONE WRONG

    Salvation122 on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Also, I oversimplified my argument above.

    Are you taking back what you said, then?

    Evander on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Your entire argument rests on "But Glenn Beck makes people crazy!" You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical.

    Skeptical sure, retarded no.

    My argument doesn't rest on that. I'm not aware of any argument in the thread that rests on that.

    Aside from yours, of course.

    you're being silly again:
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Glenn Beck doesn't make people crazy. He makes crazy people crazier.

    He makes normal people a bit odd, odd people a little bonkers, and guys like von Brunn he pokes towards the edge lightly.

    Given that he posted three minutes after I did, at the time he was writing he was probably right. Also, I oversimplified my argument above.

    A WHOLE THREE MINUTES

    IT'S CERTAINLY AS IF PEOPLE HAVE NEVER DREDGED UP THINGS FROM TWENTY PAGES AND A WEEK BACK AND USED THEM AGAINST THEIR AUTHOR

    WHAT IS THIS BLACK MAGIC, WITH THE QUOTING OF RECENT WORDS TO PROVE SOMEONE WRONG
    My point was that when he was composing his post, I hadn't yet made that statement. But nice job being an asshole.

    Also, Judith Warner agrees with me.
    Evander wrote:
    Are you taking back what you said, then?
    People like Glenn Beck are making shit worse. If you can't see that, this debate is pointless.

    Captain Carrot on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I'm capable of seeing a nuance between "gives very crazy people a little nudge" and "makes people crazy."

    Then again I'm capable of seeing nuance. Also: capable of turning off my caps key.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Hey guys, how about this.

    I am perfectly happy to give you amnesty on ALL things that you have said previously. All you have to do is make a fresh post laying out exactly what your point CURRENTLY is in this thread, and then agree that none of us (who buy in to this deal) will bring up ANY posts made previously to this post (relevent sources posted earlier in this thread can be reposted in refference to their original sources, but NOT to the posts where they were earlier posted.)




    What do you say? I know that Potato Ninja has claimed that no one is making certain arguments anymore that were previously being made, so I think it's only fair to make a fresh start, so there is no confusion on where anyone is coming from.

    Evander on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    If Poster X makes claims about what other people have been arguing, he should damn well prove that people have been saying that, not get to run away,

    Captain Carrot on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I think the only poster who has actually addressed the complaint against Fox et al was Heartlash, and he said, essentially, "I disagree."

    Still, its good to know that if anyone shows up and argues that Glenn Beck used alien mind control beams to force Von Bruun to shoot a security guard, the D&D ACTION SQUAD is ready to argue with them!

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    If Poster X makes claims about what other people have been arguing, he should damn well prove that people have been saying that, not get to run away,

    And you've been making claims that Glenn Beck was an influence on Von Brunn, despite not having anything to back that up with either.



    So, are you willing to accept my deal, so that we can cut all of the crap and confusion, and get back to being on the same page?

    Evander on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited June 2009
    was anybody in this thread ever on the same page? Other than the first few posters who were all like "stupid fucker!" and "what a tragedy"

    it kinda fell off the rails after that.

    lonelyahava on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    which is why I think it's worthwhile for us to all get on the same page right now

    Evander on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Hey guys, how about this.

    I am perfectly happy to give you amnesty on ALL things that you have said previously. All you have to do is make a fresh post laying out exactly what your point CURRENTLY is in this thread, and then agree that none of us (who buy in to this deal) will bring up ANY posts made previously to this post (relevent sources posted earlier in this thread can be reposted in refference to their original sources, but NOT to the posts where they were earlier posted.)




    What do you say? I know that Potato Ninja has claimed that no one is making certain arguments anymore that were previously being made, so I think it's only fair to make a fresh start, so there is no confusion on where anyone is coming from.

    The rhetoric espoused by right wing media, the most prominent example of which is certain programs on Fox News but which exist in other mediums (specifically the radio and web) and often run to even more extreme examples, has increased the urgency and bolstered the legitimacy of the right wing fringe. By insisting that Obama is going to destroy the country, take away people's rights and guns and that immediate action is needed, the likelihood of violent action from that fringe is increased.

    James Von Brunn by most indications didn't like the neo-conservative right, blaming them for being sympathetic to "Jews." However, he did engage and associate with paleo-conservatives including elements of Ron Paul's campaign and FreeRepublic.com, and repeated talking points regarding the Fed and Obama's legitimacy that were often indistinguishable from what could be heard from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Even if one claimed that there isn't direct evidence that he personally was a follower of theirs, it is difficult to claim that those who he associated with were not emboldened by their rhetoric.

    Additionally, the timing of this act of political violence comes at a time when such acts have increased greatly in frequency. Each previous act could be directly linked to the increasing radical rhetoric put forth by the right wing media and/or conservative groups. As such, dismissing this act as unrelated because it also involved antisemitism seems to be a major stretch.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Points to 'off' Points to 'on'Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Additionally, the timing of this act of political violence comes at a time when such acts have increased greatly in frequency. Each previous act could be directly linked to the increasing radical rhetoric put forth by the right wing media and/or conservative groups. As such, dismissing this act as unrelated because it also involved antisemitism seems to be a major stretch.
    Or you could say he timed it this way due to the museum putting on a play about Anne Frank that day, as her birthday is (would've been) today, and he knew there would be a larger crowd. Until (if ever) he says what his motivation for attacking that location at that time is, it's all speculation, with plenty of possibilities.

    matt has a problem on
    nibXTE7.png
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited June 2009
    AS MY fellow Washingtonian notes, yesterday's Holocaust museum shooting, coming so close on the heels of the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, has brought that much-derided Department of Homeland Security report on "right wing extremism" back into the spotlight. The left claims vindication; the right is apoplectic at what they see as cheap political exploitation of tragedy. Neither side is covering itself in glory.

    The initial frenzied reaction to the DHS report was a classic case of princess-and-the-pea oversensitivity, but there was, at least, a pea: The report was absurdly vague and often clumsily worded, with passages that could be read as implying that persons concerned with illegal immigration or opposed to free trade agreements were, ipso facto, "rightwing extremists". This sort of relentless generality—in contrast to other such reports, specific violent groups are not named—often makes it seem as though views and concerns common among moderate, peaceful conservatives are themselves somehow suspect. This is not less true because there are genuine violent extremists on the right. Moreover, as Reason's Jesse Walker observes, if the great threat is indeed "lone wolf" attackers, it's not entirely clear what a federal agency is supposed to do about it—as opposed to, say, apolitical lunatics shooting people.

    Some complaints, however, amounted to little more than a conservative form of political correctness. To suggest that violent groups would have reason to seek recruits with military experience is no more than common sense. Nor, sadly, is it untrue that the trauma of prolonged and repeated tours of duty has exacted a profound mental health cost on a growing number of those troops, tragically manifested in record suicide rates. To some touchier conservatives, stating these alarming facts constitutes "anti-military bigotry". Also classed as anti-gun hate speech was the suggestion that some arms enthusiasts had become parlously obsessed with the prospect of an Obama administration "gun grab"—though at least one shooting spree already seems to have been inspired by such fears. And if you doubt whether there are people who have genuinely been driven around the bend by the election of a black president, you are not spending much time on the internet.

    That said, claims of "vindication" based on a couple of data points—none obviously related to economic conditions or newly-returned Iraq vets, as the DHS report stressed—sound uncannily similar to obtuse claims that global warming is refuted because we had a big snowstorm last week. Still more dubious are efforts to saddle the right as a whole with the crimes of a few madmen who seem to have lost it years ago. If you were forced to class museum shooter James von Brunn as either left or right, you'd put him on the right, but it's an uneasy fit: He seems to have directed much of his ire at neoconservatives, and indulged in conspiracy theories about George Bush's complicity in the 9/11 attacks. People this far out on the fringe are probably rather like the neighbour who turns out to have a powerful sexual attraction to goats: It is not helpful to inquire into the goats' gender in order to determine whether the fellow is "gay" or "straight"; his orientation is decidedly "other". The hypersensitivity of some on the right may be explained by the attempt to link the mainstream right with nuttery—thought that task would be rendered more difficult if the mainstream right had done a bit more over the past year to distance itself from nuttery rather than providing it with a platform.

    The great leveling power of the internet has a few downsides. One is that it can help reinforce delusions by allowing the easy formation of communities in which crankish ideas are not only validated, but expanded into elaborate paranoid worldviews. The online version of a shoddy mimeograph may not look all that much different from a respectable newspaper's site. The tribalist reactions of left and right to that lunatic fringe may unwittingly exacerbate this blurring of the line between the mad and the sane right. They are attacked together in one breath, and the response of the mainstream right may perversely signal to the fringe that they, too, are part of the community. Think of the Liberty Counsel's satirical cards, produced in the wake of that DHS report, declaring the bearer "proud to be a right wing extremist".

    In the fight between the relative moderates who actually exercise some modicum of political power, both sides seem to forget rather too quickly that the lunatic fringe is not just a rhetorical bludgeon for the left to use against the right: It actually exists, and is occasionally dangerous. Just as falsely crying "socialist" in the run-up to the election perversely increased socialism's poll numbers, attempts to leverage extremism to marginalise the right may be helping to mainstream extremism.
    Maybe this will teach right-wingers a lesson, but I doubt it.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    Maybe this will teach right-wingers a lesson, but I doubt it.

    Nope, right-wing pundits and bloggers are too busy trying to sell the idea that James Von Brunn was actually a big ol' lefty.

    Because, you know, he said bad things about Bush. And because liberals all hate Jews, and Nazi is short for National Socialist and you know who else endorses socialism doncha and he's anti-Christian!

    Lawndart on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Hey guys, how about this.

    I am perfectly happy to give you amnesty on ALL things that you have said previously. All you have to do is make a fresh post laying out exactly what your point CURRENTLY is in this thread, and then agree that none of us (who buy in to this deal) will bring up ANY posts made previously to this post (relevent sources posted earlier in this thread can be reposted in refference to their original sources, but NOT to the posts where they were earlier posted.)




    What do you say? I know that Potato Ninja has claimed that no one is making certain arguments anymore that were previously being made, so I think it's only fair to make a fresh start, so there is no confusion on where anyone is coming from.

    The rhetoric espoused by right wing media, the most prominent example of which is certain programs on Fox News but which exist in other mediums (specifically the radio and web) and often run to even more extreme examples, has increased the urgency and bolstered the legitimacy of the right wing fringe. By insisting that Obama is going to destroy the country, take away people's rights and guns and that immediate action is needed, the likelihood of violent action from that fringe is increased.

    James Von Brunn by most indications didn't like the neo-conservative right, blaming them for being sympathetic to "Jews." However, he did engage and associate with paleo-conservatives including elements of Ron Paul's campaign and FreeRepublic.com, and repeated talking points regarding the Fed and Obama's legitimacy that were often indistinguishable from what could be heard from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Even if one claimed that there isn't direct evidence that he personally was a follower of theirs, it is difficult to claim that those who he associated with were not emboldened by their rhetoric.

    Additionally, the timing of this act of political violence comes at a time when such acts have increased greatly in frequency. Each previous act could be directly linked to the increasing radical rhetoric put forth by the right wing media and/or conservative groups. As such, dismissing this act as unrelated because it also involved antisemitism seems to be a major stretch.

    What evidence is there to link him to the other acts, other than the fact that he leans right, politically?



    That is to say, there is definitely some correlation here in timing and talking points, but I've still seen absolutely nothing to link this shooting, directly OR indirectly, to anything else you've mentioned. Similarities don't automatically make two things the same.

    Add to that the fact that Von Brunn hated neo-cons and Christians, and considered attacking Fox News violently. With those, we actually have strong evidence suggesting that he WASN'T influenced by these same groups.

    So, we have no evidence linking his to the other shootings, beyond a couple of talking points that originated in the fringe to begin with. We DO, however, have evidence that shows a divide between him and the media that encouraged the other shootings.



    It seems to me to be a stretch to try to claim that Glenn Beck influenced Von Brunn, when there is nothing to connect them other than a talking point that chronologically actually came FROM Von Brunn's camp TO Beck's camp.

    Evander on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    AS MY fellow Washingtonian notes, yesterday's Holocaust museum shooting, coming so close on the heels of the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, has brought that much-derided Department of Homeland Security report on "right wing extremism" back into the spotlight. The left claims vindication; the right is apoplectic at what they see as cheap political exploitation of tragedy. Neither side is covering itself in glory.

    The initial frenzied reaction to the DHS report was a classic case of princess-and-the-pea oversensitivity, but there was, at least, a pea: The report was absurdly vague and often clumsily worded, with passages that could be read as implying that persons concerned with illegal immigration or opposed to free trade agreements were, ipso facto, "rightwing extremists". This sort of relentless generality—in contrast to other such reports, specific violent groups are not named—often makes it seem as though views and concerns common among moderate, peaceful conservatives are themselves somehow suspect. This is not less true because there are genuine violent extremists on the right. Moreover, as Reason's Jesse Walker observes, if the great threat is indeed "lone wolf" attackers, it's not entirely clear what a federal agency is supposed to do about it—as opposed to, say, apolitical lunatics shooting people.

    Some complaints, however, amounted to little more than a conservative form of political correctness. To suggest that violent groups would have reason to seek recruits with military experience is no more than common sense. Nor, sadly, is it untrue that the trauma of prolonged and repeated tours of duty has exacted a profound mental health cost on a growing number of those troops, tragically manifested in record suicide rates. To some touchier conservatives, stating these alarming facts constitutes "anti-military bigotry". Also classed as anti-gun hate speech was the suggestion that some arms enthusiasts had become parlously obsessed with the prospect of an Obama administration "gun grab"—though at least one shooting spree already seems to have been inspired by such fears. And if you doubt whether there are people who have genuinely been driven around the bend by the election of a black president, you are not spending much time on the internet.

    That said, claims of "vindication" based on a couple of data points—none obviously related to economic conditions or newly-returned Iraq vets, as the DHS report stressed—sound uncannily similar to obtuse claims that global warming is refuted because we had a big snowstorm last week. Still more dubious are efforts to saddle the right as a whole with the crimes of a few madmen who seem to have lost it years ago. If you were forced to class museum shooter James von Brunn as either left or right, you'd put him on the right, but it's an uneasy fit: He seems to have directed much of his ire at neoconservatives, and indulged in conspiracy theories about George Bush's complicity in the 9/11 attacks. People this far out on the fringe are probably rather like the neighbour who turns out to have a powerful sexual attraction to goats: It is not helpful to inquire into the goats' gender in order to determine whether the fellow is "gay" or "straight"; his orientation is decidedly "other". The hypersensitivity of some on the right may be explained by the attempt to link the mainstream right with nuttery—thought that task would be rendered more difficult if the mainstream right had done a bit more over the past year to distance itself from nuttery rather than providing it with a platform.

    The great leveling power of the internet has a few downsides. One is that it can help reinforce delusions by allowing the easy formation of communities in which crankish ideas are not only validated, but expanded into elaborate paranoid worldviews. The online version of a shoddy mimeograph may not look all that much different from a respectable newspaper's site. The tribalist reactions of left and right to that lunatic fringe may unwittingly exacerbate this blurring of the line between the mad and the sane right. They are attacked together in one breath, and the response of the mainstream right may perversely signal to the fringe that they, too, are part of the community. Think of the Liberty Counsel's satirical cards, produced in the wake of that DHS report, declaring the bearer "proud to be a right wing extremist".

    In the fight between the relative moderates who actually exercise some modicum of political power, both sides seem to forget rather too quickly that the lunatic fringe is not just a rhetorical bludgeon for the left to use against the right: It actually exists, and is occasionally dangerous. Just as falsely crying "socialist" in the run-up to the election perversely increased socialism's poll numbers, attempts to leverage extremism to marginalise the right may be helping to mainstream extremism.
    Maybe this will teach right-wingers a lesson, but I doubt it.

    For the record, I do think that teh right wing have been idiots in regard to the DHS report. I also think that they HAVE been providing a platform for extremeists.

    But Von Brunn is not one of those particular extremists that they have given a platform to, and I am concerned that if everyone focusses on Fox in the wake of Von Brunn, they are going to end up ignoring the REAL culprits here, who are the extremeists coming from BEYOND fox that we ALSO have to be concerned about.



    Shutting Fox up might have prevented Tiller, but there is no evidence that it would have prevented Von Brunn. My point, in this light, is that we can't get too focussed on ONLY Fox here, because if they are the ONLY thing we deal with, then we haven't dealt with the whole problem.

    Evander on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    His motivation is a moot point, there's no way to prove what fringe message did or did not push him over the edge or when he was pushed.

    A large portion of the right-wing media regularly engages in dialogue that is hateful, paranoid, and incendiary. They are not giving a message to Von Bruun, they are creating an environment in which Von Bruun's message can more easily endure.

    There will always be psychopaths, terrorists, nutballs, murderers, and extremists. But that there always will be does not mean there is no variance in their number or in their capacity for violence. By creating and encouraging a paranoid, warlike propaganda, these extremist pundits and speakers provide cover and confirmation for the worst of the fringe. Whether Von Bruun specifically was pushed to violence by Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter or anyone in that circle is a moot point; the media support these pundits give to the fringe encourages them. Von Bruun might have planned his attack after a vicious screed by Beck, he might have planned it on his 18th birthday (he is 88 now, which is an important number for insane white supremacists).

    There are other potentially violent, mostly insane fringe terrorist extremists out there. Thanks to Fox News, they have a major media outlet that, at least partially, validates their paranoia and call to arms. Whether a specific individual is pushed over the edge by Fox News is a moot point, there's no way to prove it. However, it is painfully obvious that encouraging and validating the extremists' paranoia is only going to make them bolder. "Hey man, Obama is secretly a muslim terrorist" might have mattered to Von Bruun, it might have not. There are more extremists out there than just Von Bruun, and that message could very well be enough for some of them.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Maybe this will teach right-wingers a lesson, but I doubt it.

    Nope, right-wing pundits and bloggers are too busy trying to sell the idea that James Von Brunn was actually a big ol' lefty.

    Because, you know, he said bad things about Bush. And because liberals all hate Jews, and Nazi is short for National Socialist and you know who else endorses socialism doncha and he's anti-Christian!

    the point that ACTUALLY need to be made is that this man was so much of an extremist and a nutball that he opposed BOTH the right AND the left.

    Evander on
Sign In or Register to comment.