Author Topic: Pittsburgh Shooter  (Read 7103 times)

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: October 31, 2018, 10:00:22 PM »
The gunman who killed 11 people in a synagogue in Pittsburgh posted this at 9:49 AM on Saturday:

Quote
“HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people.  I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered.”

At 9:54, the first call came in to 9-1-1.

We have seen these posts as well:

Quote
They don't care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country

Quote
Stop the onslaught of illegal aliens from crossing our Southern Border

Quote
This is an invasion of our Country

Quote
Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States. Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in. This is a National Emergency

Quote
They want to open America’s borders and turn our country into a friendly sanctuary for murderous thugs from other countries who will kill us all

There are certainly problems with our immigration system.  But none of these baseless, hateful posts are beneficial.  They incite fear, and to a receptive audience, violence.

These posts should be condemned unequivocally.

And yes, the last five are from the President of the United States.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2018, 10:46:52 PM »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2018, 10:51:48 PM »
Quote
Mexico’s Police and Military are unable to stop the Caravan heading to the Southern Border of the United States. Criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in. This is a National Emergency

Velcro, I hope you recognize that Trump's panic and hate rhetoric caused less actual damage than Hillary's backing of a right-wing femicidal coup d'etat in Honduras ... the main factor for the size of the factor in the first place.

In fact, I'd say that it's even less damaging than Obama's assistance to Mexico to build, yes, a wall, along Mexico's border with Honduras and Guatemala.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2018, 09:27:30 AM »
Thank God that makes it all ok

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2018, 11:30:46 AM »
Thank God that makes it all ok

He seems to be saying that people get outraged over things that sound terrible, but are seemingly uninterested about things that actually are horrible. Big press events get notice; but an atrocity that doesn't sell copy isn't worth getting upset about.

Now to be fair to Pete's reasonable comment, Hillary was involved in a number of events where her involvement wasn't widely publicized and where she certainly didn't gloat about it (except in the case of Gaddafi); in these cases one would generally have to do digging to discover her activities. This can be contrasted with Trump, who not only publicizes everything but gloats about things he hasn't even done yet or maybe never will. So it his case it's easier to be outraged because he's feeding it to you with a spoon, whereas with Hillary you have to search out the things to be outraged about, and why would someone do that who didn't already suspect her. That's not to say your point, Pete, is invalid, however it's completely understandable why people bitch about Trump but were seemingly silent about Hillary's silent projects.

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2018, 12:45:41 PM »
Regarding Clinton - whataboutism.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2018, 01:10:21 PM »
Regarding Clinton - whataboutism.

I think we're getting confused a bit here about what "whataboutism" should refer to. As far as I understand it, it's mean to connote when someone justified what a party is doing because another party has done something similar. But calling a position hypocritical is not the same as whataboutism; it's not saying "this is ok because you thought that was ok", it's saying "I don't believe your opposition to this is in good faith (or well-reasoned), because you didn't oppose the same thing before when there was no gain for you to oppose it." Now, I won't put words in Pete's mouth, but it didn't sound to me like he was justifying anything Trump was saying.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2018, 01:18:00 PM »
Quote
Velcro, I hope you recognize that Trump's panic and hate rhetoric caused less actual damage than Hillary's backing of a right-wing femicidal coup d'etat in Honduras ... the main factor for the size of the factor in the first place.

To me, there's no other way to interpret that response as deflecting and minimizing the degree to which Trump is having a bad effect, by saying other people had worse effects. Why not just say that Hitler was worse and therefore we shouldn't worry about Trump?

Let's remember that Hillary and Obama don't hold public office any more. What they have done is history. What Trump is doing is shaping our world right now. As far as I know, nobody acted out violently because of what Hillary and Obama did on the sly.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2018, 02:29:49 PM »
I'll come out of inactivity to be on hand to answer any questions that someone might have about local perspectives or separation of fact from fiction as best I can. (My church, only a few blocks away from the Tree of Life, has already had the pleasure of having one of our members slimed as a "crisis actor" for being picked off the street for an interview.)

(Keeping it limited to this thread, because there are already enough things that keep me from being able to focus on the paying work I should be doing instead of wading into debates, no matter how much more enjoyable that may be.)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2018, 03:16:50 PM »
Quote
Velcro, I hope you recognize that Trump's panic and hate rhetoric caused less actual damage than Hillary's backing of a right-wing femicidal coup d'etat in Honduras ... the main factor for the size of the factor in the first place.

To me, there's no other way to interpret that response as deflecting and minimizing the degree to which Trump is having a bad effect, by saying other people had worse effects. Why not just say that Hitler was worse and therefore we shouldn't worry about Trump?

That’s an amazingly stupid reading of what I said. And completely obfuscates my point that anti trumpets are as fracking ignorant as Trumpers when it comes to Honduras and Guatemala. Trump and his minions set out to be cruel but thet do less damage than you do in your ignorant attempts to do good without getting a fracking clue about the people you talk about.

The message is, if you spent half the time you spend griping about trump actually informing yourself, you might help make a better world.

Not saying whine less about trump. Saying spend more time thinking and informing on other things.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2018, 03:22:48 PM »
 The only reason that what Trump is doing with the trained of migrants is completely inhumane , worse than FDR turning the boats of Jews back to Nazi hands, was that FDR’s flotilla of Jewish refugees wasn’t in their situation BECAUSE of US policies. Hondurans are on the road because of Secretary Clinton’s acts in Central America. What I’m saying is the exact opposite of what Drake said I said. In order to understand why what Trump is doing is terribly wrong, you have to understand what Secretary Clinton did to those people and why America owes them

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2018, 03:37:13 PM »
Quote
Not saying whine less about trump. Saying spend more time thinking and informing on other things.

Unfortunately, we all must manage our time as best we can, and so cannot be fully informed about everything.  If you have information that we don't possess or haven't considered, please inform us (preferably with links so that we can get your specific perspective) so that we can be informed.

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2018, 03:38:03 PM »
To be fair Pete very few news sources on either side report on anything outside of the US, Europe, and the Middle East.  You may get some African news on BBC but unless it is a very slow news week or it is an epic level disaster it won't be covered.  Unfortunately the only times our bad behavior gets reported is if it can be used for political gain.  Unless you have direct connections most individuals are not going to search for that level of regional news.

Based on our history of manipulation, human rights abuses, and every other bit of nastiness promoted directly and indirectly against the governments and people of Central America  allowing them to request asylum seems like the least we should be doing.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2018, 03:54:42 PM »
Hello Pyrtolin! I don't really have a question for you on this, but good to see you around. And hello also Mynnion.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2018, 04:02:40 PM »
Quote
Not saying whine less about trump. Saying spend more time thinking and informing on other things.

Unfortunately, we all must manage our time as best we can, and so cannot be fully informed about everything.  If you have information that we don't possess or haven't considered, please inform us (preferably with links so that we can get your specific perspective) so that we can be informed.

All very true and I promise to tread more lightly in the face of pure ignorance. It’s just when I bring information to the table and rather than seeing it evaluated, am subjected to motive inferences of defending trump, that I start throwing food and booing.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2018, 04:08:39 PM »
To be fair Pete very few news sources on either side report on anything outside of the US, Europe, and the Middle East.  You may get some African news on BBC but unless it is a very slow news week or it is an epic level disaster it won't be covered.  Unfortunately the only times our bad behavior gets reported is if it can be used for political gain.  Unless you have direct connections most individuals are not going to search for that level of regional news.

Based on our history of manipulation, human rights abuses, and every other bit of nastiness promoted directly and indirectly against the governments and people of Central America  allowing them to request asylum seems like the least we should be doing.

Mostly agreed.  I think that the least we can do is inform ourselves.   Please see a bunch of families and Travellers on the road begging for help, The first reason. Should be find out who they are and how they got into that situation.

For a source on what Hillary Clinton did in Honduras, I recommend Hillary Clinton’s on hardback book entitled “hard choices “.  Unfortunately publishers removed the pertinent information on Honduras in the Ukraine in subsequent softback pubs

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2018, 04:20:34 PM »
All very true and I promise to tread more lightly in the face of pure ignorance. It’s just when I bring information to the table and rather than seeing it evaluated, am subjected to motive inferences of defending trump, that I start throwing food and booing.

You'll have better luck if you bring that information up in it's own discussion. It becomes whataboutism and derailment when you bring it up in a way that makes it look like you're trying to divert an existing conversation about something else to other topics.

Unless the topic is initially advanced as a comparative discussion, it's counterproductive to disrupt it by injecting other things into the mix, even those that would be good to talk about on their own, and people will resist, not because they don't find them interesting, but because it's clear that it's an attempt to divert the conversation away from the current topic.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2018, 04:48:24 PM »
I guess I understand now, Pete. I may have had myopia because I don't particularly care if some refugees had their origin in some policy decisions by the US, like refugees from Cuba have been in part along with lots of others.

Even if we had not known Honduras existed, what Trump is doing is equally wrong as if we had bombed them and forced them to flee. That's my view, though I recognize other people might think you need to "owe" something to refugees before you worry about fomenting hatred against them.

To communicate that idea from the start, one might say, "What Trump is doing is especially bad, since American policy put them on that road."

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2018, 05:10:39 PM »
All very true and I promise to tread more lightly in the face of pure ignorance. It’s just when I bring information to the table and rather than seeing it evaluated, am subjected to motive inferences of defending trump, that I start throwing food and booing.

You'll have better luck if you bring that information up in it's own discussion. It becomes whataboutism and derailment when you bring it up in a way that makes it look like you're trying to divert an existing conversation about something else to other topics.

Pyr’s last bit of acrobatics re “whataboutism” is a fairly doctrinaire left this position or you tell me that my motives don’t matter for discussion of my motives.

It would be convenient for you to objectify the Hondurans like all marxis and mother materialists dehumanize the folks they pretend to defend. But to understand what is happening to the Hondurans now, you have to understand what happened under Clinton to put them on this road.

Obama helped Mexico build a wall.

I deplore your rules set that requires us to break topics up by political group rather than simply telling the whole story.  If this thread was Trump’s trial, then your leftspeak objection that only Trump’s sins should me recounted here might have some merit. But we’re talking about the caravan, and your resort to leftspeak rules of silencing inconvenient facts have no place here.

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #19 on: November 04, 2018, 12:09:04 PM »
Quote
But we’re talking about the caravan,

The OP was about how Trump's words are virtually indistinguishable from the shooter's words in tone, style, and content.

Clearly, the shooter took violent action, when Trump in no way has done that. And in other posts, the shooter voiced unequivocal anti-Semitism, where Trump merely reinforces anti-Semitic tropes.

But the words...

The words in those posts are the same.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #20 on: November 04, 2018, 06:02:46 PM »
 ::)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2018, 04:43:26 AM »
Quote
But we’re talking about the caravan,

The OP was about how Trump's words are virtually indistinguishable from the shooter's words in tone, style, and content.

Clearly, the shooter took violent action, when Trump in no way has done that. And in other posts, the shooter voiced unequivocal anti-Semitism, where Trump merely reinforces anti-Semitic tropes.

I never thought that I would ever agree with Crunch against velcro, but ... it's laughable to say that Trump reinforces antisemitic tropes, when Trump's words are directed at Mexican nationals.

Velcro, if you'd said that Trump's tone, style, and content manifests identical emotions against Mexicans that the shooter manifests against Jews, then what you said could not reasonably be seen as laughable.

Trump is the most unequivocally pro-Jewish US president in history.  As a businessman he demonstrated even more illegal preference for hiring and housing Jews than illegal prejudice against hiring and housing African Americans.  His favorite daughter converted to Judaism and her Jewish husband is his right-hand man. Sorry, Velcro; Donald Trump loves Jews to the point that most reasonable Jews begin to feel uncomfortable with the intensity of his love.  Netanyahu's halfway to declaring him a righteous gentile. <head explodes> 

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2018, 01:01:29 PM »
When I said Trump reinforces anti-Semitic tropes, I did not mean the statements in the OP.  I apologize if that is not clear.

From another thread:

Quote
The far right has ecstatically embraced the spectacle of elected political figures such as Trump and Gaetz theorizing about Soros. After Trump’s Soros tweet about Kavanaugh, the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer echoed and surpassed Trump’s assertion that anti-Kavanaugh dissent was a nefarious, paid-for plot.

“It is impossible to deny that subversive anti-American Jews were the primary force involved in a sinister plot to destroy Kavanaugh,” Lee Rogers wrote on the site a couple of days later. “These Jews do not represent the interest of America. They represent the interest of their diabolical and evil race first and foremost.”

In response to an Oct. 19 Trump speech in Missoula, Mont., in which Trump again suggested that protesters were paid by “Soros or somebody,” a commenter on anonymous message board 4chan exulted, “TRUMP NAMED THE IMMIGRATION JEW.” (“Naming the Jew” is an anti-Semitic term that refers to pointing out purported nefarious Jewish influence on world events.)

So
[As a businessman he demonstrated even more illegal preference for hiring and housing Jews than illegal prejudice against hiring and housing African Americans.  His favorite daughter converted to Judaism and her Jewish husband is his right-hand man. Sorry, Velcro; Donald Trump loves Jews to the point that most reasonable Jews begin to feel uncomfortable with the intensity of his love.  Netanyahu's halfway to declaring him a righteous gentile. <head explodes> 

My argument is that his rhetoric reinforces anti-Semitic tropes.  The evidence is above.
Your argument is that he can't be anti-Semitic, because he hires Jews, and "some of his best friends" are Jews.

I don't claim he is anti-Semitic.
But just as an exercise in logic, your reasons are not compelling.

Racist NFL owners prefer hiring African Americans.  Doesn't mean they aren't racists.
When bigots actually meet the type of person they are bigoted against, they often like them.  Then they justify their bigotry by saying that their new friend is not a typical (ethnicity).
Netanyahu loves Trump because he and Trump are similar in many ways, not because he treats Jews well.

A few notes:
Trump spoke to the Republican Jewish Coalition in 2015.
Quote
"I'm a negotiator like you folks, we are negotiators," Trump said, drawing laughter before pivoting to how he would renegotiate the Iran deal. "Is there anybody that doesn't renegotiate deals in this room? This room negotiates them -- perhaps more than any other room I've ever spoken in."
Quote
"You're not gonna support me because I don't want your money. You want to control your politicians, that's fine.
Trump's response to Charlottesville was exactly what an anti-Semitic President would say.
His final campaign ad followed anti-Semitic tropes.
Steve Bannon.
Neo-Nazis support him, and feel (rightly or wrongly) that he is "their guy".

So most pro-Jewish president in history?  I don't think so.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #23 on: November 08, 2018, 04:30:28 AM »
That rebuttal assumes that anti-semitic means "holding racially stereotypical views about Jews."

I never said the man is reasonable or not racist.

I absolutely agree that Trump's posts (listed in the OP) should be "condemned unequivocally."

That's precisely why I ask you to remove the equivocation from your condemnation.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #24 on: November 08, 2018, 02:05:28 PM »
"Anti-Semitic" usefully means harmful to Jewish people of those of Jewish descent.

Doesn't matter what personal biases a given person has or doesn't have, just what they net effect of their behavior, particularly if they are making no effort made to check their own biases.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #25 on: November 08, 2018, 07:59:30 PM »
"Anti-Semitic" usefully means harmful to Jewish people of those of Jewish descent.



Is G-d of the Torah “anti Semitic”, Pyr? Because he frequently asked in a way that’s harmful to a number of persons of Jewish descent.

Leftist legal nihilists constantly try to strip big words like rape and murder from any sort of criminal intent, and you seem to be doing that with antisemitic now...  with a pure results based test to identify antisemitism.  Remember 18 years when the butterfly ballot was deemed antisemitic?

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #26 on: November 09, 2018, 12:26:11 PM »
Leftist legal nihilists constantly try to strip big words like rape and murder from any sort of criminal intent, and you seem to be doing that with antisemitic now...  with a pure results based test to identify antisemitism.  Remember 18 years when the butterfly ballot was deemed antisemitic?

Any system of oppression will keep on perpetuating itself unless the people that pass it on actively take responsibility for their part in perpetuating it. Effect is the only meaningful measure, because most of the values and attitudes that contribute to it are so ingrained into society that people don't even realize that they're doing harm until it's pointed out to them, and then generally act to defend their egos rather than correct their future behavior to do less harm. Anti-Semitism is no different than sexism, racism, classism, or any other self-perpetuating system of oppression in that regard.

But then "personal responsibility" is really just a code phrase used to protect privilege and create fake moral justification for forcing people to live in poverty and endure oppression, and not actually meant to be a call for people to examine the consequences of their behavior and work to change their behavior in order to minimize harm to others, isn't it?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #27 on: November 09, 2018, 12:50:34 PM »
But then "personal responsibility" is really just a code phrase used to protect privilege and create fake moral justification for forcing people to live in poverty and endure oppression, and not actually meant to be a call for people to examine the consequences of their behavior and work to change their behavior in order to minimize harm to others, isn't it?

Having had many discussions about this type of thing before, I'll ask a new question. Your premise is that an "ism" is a reflection of uneven results on some identity line, and that each person needs to own their participation in creating these results. Therefore you conclude that individual intention is either (a) irrelevant, or (b) unexamined, and that therefore perceived motivation isn't useful compared to the final result.

My question: What if a person's individual attitude and even moral choices in a culture/society/noosphere is actually not contributary to the uneven result? In other words, what if the system producing these results is not related to the individual self-awareness of the people in it? I'll try to give a couple of examples of this.

EXAMPLE
Culture A is highly motivated to succeed; we might call them ambitious, even greedy. Their children are taught that monetary success if everything.
Culture B is taught that enjoying quietness, being peaceful, and giving one's advantage away is the most important thing.
Premise: each of these cultures also has a racial divide between them; i.e. they developed in geographically differing areas without mixing.

We might well see in short order that people of racial group A end up much richer than those in racial group B, after having both begun mixing in the same geographical zone. Soon the wealth disparity becomes self-perpetuating.

Question: Is racial group A part of a "racist" system and need to check their privilege and acknowledge that each of them is contributing to racism?

EXAMPLE 2:
In a mining town there's work in a mine where conditions are very hot during work, but the best paying jobs are in the mine. Racial group A in town has a natural resistance to heat, whereas group B finds it difficult to tolerate those conditions. After some time group A has acquired financial dominance in town.

Do the members of group A need to check their privilege and acknowledge that they contribute to a racist system producing uneven results along racial lines? Does each individual need to note how he/she can modify their behavior in order to alleviate the racism inherent in the system, that they personally contribute to?

My questions are hopefully a way to examine the question of how you differentiate between an "ism" that is caused by human ignorance or uncaring about the harm they cause, versus results that would naturally emerge regardless of anyone's attitude.

« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 12:52:38 PM by Fenring »

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2018, 02:00:56 PM »
Can you clarify in each of those situations what harm is occurring. In each case is race A forcing Race B to hinge its survival on participating in a system designed for the success of race A? IS race A withholding resources (considering them rewards for their success) for race B, then blaming race B for poverty and starvation within it that arises from lack of resources?

Without that, the bias here seems to be in both cases that you are defining good results or  "success" in race A's terms then suggesting that there race B is less successful because htey don't conform to Race A's goals and desires.

Keep in mind, the standard is _harm_ not mere difference.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2018, 02:16:20 PM »
The problem comes when someone does the equivalent of voting straight ticket when it comes to hiring.

"Well, people from culture A are highly motivated to succeed, so we ought to just recruit as many of them as possible."

People IN culture A are even more likely to slip into that kind of thinking, and that's why they do need to "check their privilege" and acknowledge that their tribalism could lead them down a bad road.

This is why white coaches helped other white people dominate the quarterback position, to use a specific example.

Quote
East Texas school superintendent Lynn Redden got caught with his racism showing when he wrote: “When you need precision decision making you can’t count on a black quarterback” in the comments section of a Houston Chronicle article regarding Houston Texans Quarterback Deshaun Watson. The comment was in response to Watson holding on to the ball when time expired in a 20-7 loss to the Tennesee Titans. It’s an open secret that a considerable amount of white people keep their racism private in order to absolve themselves, which probably explains why Redden thought mentioning that the comment was meant to be a private message was justification enough for his bigotry.

This guy probably doesn't think of himself as a racist, he's just pointing out mere difference yeah?

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2018, 04:06:45 PM »
Can you clarify in each of those situations what harm is occurring.

You see, this is exactly the issue. In the broader debate the entire idea of "harm" is something you (or rather your type of argument) are bringing up as a new criterion for analysis. I think most people consider how people do in society and whether they get a fair shot at what others do. If they're denied for bad reasons we can identity then we call that unfair bias (could be racism or whatever else). But when people try to treat each other correctly and some group is *still* getting screwed then we get into the issue of harm being defined as getting unequal results based on their race/sex/etc. So this is actually the part where *you* have to define where in a given system this 'harm' you describe is happening. If it's not the unequal result itself then it must be something else, and what I'm angling to do is get you to pin down exactly what the nature of this 'harm' is.

Quote
In each case is race A forcing Race B to hinge its survival on participating in a system designed for the success of race A? IS race A withholding resources (considering them rewards for their success) for race B, then blaming race B for poverty and starvation within it that arises from lack of resources?

There are scenarios in the world where a group actively enslaves another; such as slavery in the U.S. In such a case it's clearly coherent to speak of one group simply making the other participate. But in the absence of that exact scenario we have what is mostly found in real life, which is an established system in which people find themselves (most often through being born there) and have to cope with whatever rules or avenues it has. They can "opt out" by leaving, or maybe by becoming a criminal, but otherwise they are "made" to participate insofar as to get what they want they will have to play ball. In American this would mean things like getting a job, speaking to others in a certain way, etc. You can decline to get a job, and then whatever happens is your 'choice' if we want to call it that. No one chooses it to be true that being unemployed means they won't have money, but knowing that that's how it works your participation is usually motivated by self-interest. And that is what I'm talking about here. In scenario 1 two cultures mix freely but quickly learn that culture A is highly motivated to dominate financially, and they do. Does this striving to be efficient (if we want to call it that) equate to "forcing" group B into that scenario? You can answer that in your own way, but most people would probably call that "a dose of reality", when you're overcome by someone else's success in a realm where material success requires certain actions and not others.

Quote
Without that, the bias here seems to be in both cases that you are defining good results or  "success" in race A's terms then suggesting that there race B is less successful because htey don't conform to Race A's goals and desires.

I didn't suggest anything; I just painted the scenarios. Group B is free to 'play the game' that group A is playing, or not (in the 1st scenario). They can choose to lead a more contemplative life if they want, but the result will be being less financial dominant. Trying to paint this as group A requiring conformity would be to distort the scenario as I described it. In scenario 2 the issue is one of nature and not of choice, and so your point about goals and desires is moot.

Quote
Keep in mind, the standard is _harm_ not mere difference.

Thus far I can only understand your terms as implying that difference along racial/sex/etc lines *is* harm. If it's not, then going back to what I asked above, how do you define harm? And in real life, when a scenario exists with unequal results, how do you pinpoint that the result is caused by harm (however you define it) versus being a natural phenomenon that is no one's fault? And note that in the event that something is a natural phenomenon, that doesn't mean we can't take steps to bend the system to account for it anyhow; but that's different from suggesting that anyone's done anything wrong to get to that situation.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2018, 04:13:20 PM »
I think the gun lobby needs to come up with some ideas about how to prevent mass shootings.

The 2nd amendment does give people the right to own guns, and the gun lobby is very good at making sure that the guns that people can have are capable of horrific destruction. And there are already so many guns out there that even some of the mitigations the left wants won't stop the shootings.

What's going to happen is the collective disgust with mass shootings is going to build up to the point that we eventually repeal the 2nd amendment.  If the gun lobby doesn't get on board with managing gun rights to a much more effective degree, eventually the public disgust will eliminate gun rights. But a lot of bodies will pile up in the meantime.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2018, 04:17:56 PM »
"What's going to happen is the collective disgust with mass shootings is going to build up to the point that we eventually repeal the 2nd amendment."

Ha. Ha. Ha.

2/3 of both houses, 3/4 of state legislatures

You couldn't get that much support for an Amendment declaring that stop signs should be red.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2018, 04:31:32 PM »
"What's going to happen is the collective disgust with mass shootings is going to build up to the point that we eventually repeal the 2nd amendment."

Ha. Ha. Ha.

2/3 of both houses, 3/4 of state legislatures

You couldn't get that much support for an Amendment declaring that stop signs should be red.

Urbanization will continue, kids who aren't yet voters are growing up with the drills that most of us didn't, and the body counts are trending up. And boomers are dying off.

Yep, eventually the disgust will add up that high.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2018, 04:53:39 PM »
Oh sure, the disgust will add up. But large enough numbers of people are going to continue to believe that the best defense is for everyone to carry a loaded firearm at all times. That gun control measures will be not only ineffective but counter-productive.

13 state governments can prevent an Amendment.

The last time we managed one was lowering the voting age to 18, and that got pushed up in part because of Vietnam. The last really significant amendments with contention were over 100 years ago.

If gun control becomes a reality, it won't be through that mechanism, it will be through making it more difficult to get a gun while still being able to claim that the 2nd doesn't apply. This would look a lot like the Brady Bill. But even that legislation couldn't keep its 5 day waiting period - which clearly is not a violation of the 2nd but still couldn't get through Congress.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2018, 08:04:00 PM »
Effect is the only meaningful measure, because most of the values and attitudes that contribute to it are so ingrained into society that people don't even realize that they're doing harm until it's pointed out to them, and then generally act to defend their egos rather than correct their future behavior to do less harm.

Can you clarify in each of those situations what harm is occurring.

Did you not just say effect is the only meaningful measure?  The effect was set out in the example was it not?

Quote
Keep in mind, the standard is _harm_ not mere difference.

How is claiming "harm" is the standard, when you said effect is the only meaningful measure?  In fact, we both know that an effect that shows an economic difference will always be claimed to be a harm, whether or not the disadvantaged group chooses a path other than that which brings money.

Quote
In each case is race A forcing Race B to hinge its survival on participating in a system designed for the success of race A?

No force was mentioned or necessary in the examples.  Yet there is disparity, ergo by your measure it's racism.

Quote
IS race A withholding resources (considering them rewards for their success) for race B, then blaming race B for poverty and starvation within it that arises from lack of resources?

No withholding or blame was mentioned, yet disparity, ergo racism.

Why are you asking for evidence that you said was not relevant?

Quote
Without that, the bias here seems to be in both cases that you are defining good results or  "success" in race A's terms then suggesting that there race B is less successful because htey don't conform to Race A's goals and desires.

In example 2, he said they became richer.  He made no comment on whether Culture B also got what they desired.  Per your argument a difference that occurs because of desire is still resulting in a difference (actually two differences) and ergo a result of an "ist".



Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #36 on: November 11, 2018, 08:17:03 PM »
Beware doing a Glen Beck:

https://www.theblaze.com/video/thousand-oaks-killer-posted-chilling-manifesto-before-massacre-cnns-chris-cuomo-echos-his-message

Beck points out that newscasters that mock the phrase “thoughts and prayers” are using the same words as an anti religious mass killer.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2018, 04:15:33 PM »
Oh, you mean like this person? :)

Glen Beck's a numbskull.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2018, 08:54:57 PM »
Oh, you mean like this person? :)

Glen Beck's a numbskull.

Perhaps, but his main problem is that he's a thaumaturgist.

Velcro is definitely not a numbskull but the OP uses the exact same mind-numbing thaumaturgy that Beck uses, when Velcro uses hateful language that Trump invokes against Mexicans, to blame Trump for the Pittsburgh shooter. 

I might as well say that university leftist protesters descend from anti-integration protesters because they use the same lame-ass unoriginal "Two-Four-Six-Eight" chants.