Here are some thoughts on the terrorism question:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/18/8803721/charleston-terrorism-racism
I made it down the list to the one who surmised that perhaps this killer was actually a black person in whiteface and another who feared of revenge rape and murder of whites by African-Americans. Some real enlightened folks represented here.
I'm so glad that racism has been declared dead in America.
Does it really matter whether we call this terrorism or a mass shooting or whatever? A delusional hate filled person went into a church and killed 9 innocent people. Labels just distract us from what happened or why it happened.
Does it really matter whether we call this terrorism or a mass shooting or whatever? A delusional hate filled person went into a church and killed 9 innocent people. Labels just distract us from what happened or why it happened.
Amen. The bigger picture. A rose by any other name ...
Postscript: By agreeing with the statement I didn't mean to lessen the severity of the offense in any way. As I stated much earlier, this crime certainly fits my own working definition of terrorism - should that term make any difference in charges or sentencing.
Looking at the picture of the offender - he's barely more than a boy. It makes me wonder what or who got into his young mind with all of these insane ideas. Not defending him or what he did. He's old enough to know better. He's phocked his life up forever now. It's just sick.
Edited - added postscript. RB
[Edited on 6/18/2015 by Rusty]
Does it really matter whether we call this terrorism or a mass shooting or whatever? A delusional hate filled person went into a church and killed 9 innocent people. Labels just distract us from what happened or why it happened.
I'm not sure but I think the label of the crime has to do with the punishment. A "Hate Crime" that includes murder can, in many jurisdictions, be punished with harsher penalties.
I think "Terrorism" opens the door to Federal charges. So, if this had happened in a State without the death penalty, the federal death penalty could be used to execute the terrorist.
I'm no lawyer but I think the name of the crime does matter.
Does it really matter whether we call this terrorism or a mass shooting or whatever? A delusional hate filled person went into a church and killed 9 innocent people. Labels just distract us from what happened or why it happened.
I'm not sure but I think the label of the crime has to do with the punishment. A "Hate Crime" that includes murder can, in many jurisdictions, be punished with harsher penalties.
I think "Terrorism" opens the door to Federal charges. So, if this had happened in a State without the death penalty, the federal death penalty could be used to execute the terrorist.
I'm no lawyer but I think the name of the crime does matter.
That's right, labels aren't just semantics, they make a difference in the legal system. That said, I don't disagree with jkeller's sentiment. Nine innocent people are dead either way and their families and friends are grieving.
Does it really matter whether we call this terrorism or a mass shooting or whatever? A delusional hate filled person went into a church and killed 9 innocent people. Labels just distract us from what happened or why it happened.
I'm not sure but I think the label of the crime has to do with the punishment. A "Hate Crime" that includes murder can, in many jurisdictions, be punished with harsher penalties.
I think "Terrorism" opens the door to Federal charges. So, if this had happened in a State without the death penalty, the federal death penalty could be used to execute the terrorist.
I'm no lawyer but I think the name of the crime does matter.
That's right, labels aren't just semantics, they make a difference in the legal system. That said, I don't disagree with jkeller's sentiment. Nine innocent people are dead either way and their families and friends are grieving.
No matter what this is called, this guy is facing the death penalty. So it is just semantics in this case.
Does it really matter whether we call this terrorism or a mass shooting or whatever? A delusional hate filled person went into a church and killed 9 innocent people. Labels just distract us from what happened or why it happened.
I'm not sure but I think the label of the crime has to do with the punishment. A "Hate Crime" that includes murder can, in many jurisdictions, be punished with harsher penalties.
I think "Terrorism" opens the door to Federal charges. So, if this had happened in a State without the death penalty, the federal death penalty could be used to execute the terrorist.
I'm no lawyer but I think the name of the crime does matter.
That's right, labels aren't just semantics, they make a difference in the legal system. That said, I don't disagree with jkeller's sentiment. Nine innocent people are dead either way and their families and friends are grieving.
x2
These are from an article pops42 posted:
President Barack Obama, who personally knew the slain pastor, state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, said these shootings have to stop.
"At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries," Obama said.
This shooting "should be a warning to us all that we do have a problem in our society," said state Rep. Wendell Gilliard, a Democrat whose district includes the church. "There's a race problem in our country. There's a gun problem in our country. We need to act on them quickly."
I agree with both of these statements, and frankly don't see how any of us at this point can argue that we have serious problems in these areas. We have to come to grips with that and start working toward some solutions.
I'm so glad that racism has been declared dead in America.
Does it really matter whether we call this terrorism or a mass shooting or whatever? A delusional hate filled person went into a church and killed 9 innocent people. Labels just distract us from what happened or why it happened.
I'm not sure but I think the label of the crime has to do with the punishment. A "Hate Crime" that includes murder can, in many jurisdictions, be punished with harsher penalties.
I think "Terrorism" opens the door to Federal charges. So, if this had happened in a State without the death penalty, the federal death penalty could be used to execute the terrorist.
I'm no lawyer but I think the name of the crime does matter.
That's right, labels aren't just semantics, they make a difference in the legal system. That said, I don't disagree with jkeller's sentiment. Nine innocent people are dead either way and their families and friends are grieving.
No matter what this is called, this guy is facing the death penalty. So it is just semantics in this case.
Not in the eyes of the legal system it isn't. For the rest of us, of course it is.
We should have a whack-job of the day thread.
The first step is admitting you have a problem:
We should have a whack-job of the day thread.
The first step is admitting you have a problem:
The irony of this coming from you is awesome.
We should have a whack-job of the day thread.
The first step is admitting you have a problem:
The irony of this coming from you is awesome.
_______________________________________________________________________
Not me junior, those folks are the heroes of the left!
Is there anything our resident one trick pony troll will not turn into a left/right issue?
We should have a whack-job of the day thread.
The first step is admitting you have a problem:
The irony of this coming from you is awesome.
_______________________________________________________________________
Not me junior, those folks are the heroes of the left!
To take the opportunity to degrade the tragedy of this massacre of innocents by turning it into a further screed against "the left" is incredibly shameful, disgusting and disgraceful.
These are from an article pops42 posted:
President Barack Obama, who personally knew the slain pastor, state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, said these shootings have to stop.
"At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries," Obama said.
This shooting "should be a warning to us all that we do have a problem in our society," said state Rep. Wendell Gilliard, a Democrat whose district includes the church. "There's a race problem in our country. There's a gun problem in our country. We need to act on them quickly."
I agree with both of these statements, and frankly don't see how any of us at this point can argue that we have serious problems in these areas. We have to come to grips with that and start working toward some solutions.
Just an attempt to return to the original discussion.
quote:
quote:
quote:
We should have a whack-job of the day thread.The first step is admitting you have a problem:
The irony of this coming from you is awesome.
_______________________________________________________________________
Not me junior, those folks are the heroes of the left!
To take the opportunity to degrade the tragedy of this massacre of innocents by turning it into a further screed against "the left" is incredibly shameful, disgusting and disgraceful.
I'm sure Mule would consider the tragedy in more serious light if it had been white people murdered.
quote:
quote:
quote:
We should have a whack-job of the day thread.The first step is admitting you have a problem:
The irony of this coming from you is awesome.
_______________________________________________________________________
Not me junior, those folks are the heroes of the left!
To take the opportunity to degrade the tragedy of this massacre of innocents by turning it into a further screed against "the left" is incredibly shameful, disgusting and disgraceful.
I'm sure Mule would consider the tragedy in more serious light if it had been white people murdered.
________________________________________________________________________
You are the resident racist here Little Billy.
I wonder why? Good thing he has his 2nd amendment rights.
U.S. President Barack Obama. "Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun."
Since the kid wanted to kill people, he would have done so some other way if he couldn't get his hands on a gun. Not having a gun never stopped anyone set on killing people. All the Ku Klux Klan used was crosses, fire and rope. Guns do not create crime, they are only a tool that some use for the purpose.
[Edited on 6/19/2015 by gina]
I agree that this act by this sick SOB is the epitome of terrorism.
Sounds like they know who he is at this point. I'd imagine that by the end of the day he'll either be dead or in custody.
Just wondering if he went through the required waiting period and had his psychological profile and all that.
Say anything you want about guns - the right to bear arms and all that - just tell me how to keep them out of the hands of angry sociopaths and dickheads in general.FYI - also missing from discussion in the past week: any thread about the "trans-raced lady" and the New York escapees. We're missing lots of opportunities for chatting, here.
I don't want to hijack this thread re: the escapees from NY, but I will say one thing about that, there are some that want to use that incident as justification to implant RFID chips into prisoners. I am opposed to planning those chips in anyone, for any reason.
Terrorism is usually defined as an act of violence committed to further a socio-political message or bring attention to an organization or cause.
So, basically, it's the difference between and nutjob and a nutjob with a point to make. 😛
I thought people had to be Muslims to be terrorists. Seems like they are the only people our govt. labels as terrorists, being a Muslim is a pre-requisite, it is a requirement!
I just wonder where would a crazed young white lunatic get an idea like blacks are taking over the country? Just where in public discourse would an idea like that come from?
Well, Mr. Trump did refer to rapists invading the country the other day, but to be fair, he was talking about Mexican immigrants. 😛
Yes he did say most Mexican immigrants were either drug dealers or rapists and did not back down on the comments and right here on an old rock band website we have posters cheering him on because he is good at business.
Mexicans are drug dealers? No that's the Colombians, the only thing they grow in Mexico is pot, and most people know that Mexican pot is not something anyone would buy much less smoke, just sayin'! [somebody invite The Donald to a Doobie Brothers concert!)
I wonder why? Good thing he has his 2nd amendment rights.
U.S. President Barack Obama. "Once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun."
Since the kid wanted to kill people, he would have done so some other way if he couldn't get his hands on a gun. Not having a gun never stopped anyone set on killing people. All the Ku Klux Klan used was crosses, fire and rope. Guns do not create crime, they are only a tool that some use for the purpose.
[Edited on 6/19/2015 by gina]
Do you think he could have walked into the church with a rope and hanged nine people?
[Edited on 6/19/2015 by rmack]
Why are the nine black people murdered last night in Charleston more important to you than the dozens of black people murdered every day?
Could it be that the dozens of black people killed every day are murdered in the cities run by liberals who have the responsibility for public safety?
A political issue? Apparently.
Obama today, while feigning emotion at the murders last night in Charleston went right for his political agenda; gun control and played the race card yet again.
Then in his usual pattern jumped on the tax-payer’s Air Force One and flew to California for Democrat fund raising events many of which are with the movie and TV folks who blow away people in their shows and make a living with guns in their hands.
Obama wants gun control? Fine
Show us you proposed legislation.
You won’t see it because Obama is always calling for Congress to do something while never offering his own plan.
After Sandy Hook, Obama called for gun control and for a fix to the nation’s broken mental health system. He never offered a plan, never pursued the matters.
The hypocrisy is pathetic.
In the meantime, black people are being murdered, mostly by other black people and what do we hear from the liberals?
Nothing.
As requested by an earlier poster, can a right-leaning person please help us with ideas on how to keep guns out of the hands of these people? There must be a way.
As requested by an earlier poster, can a right-leaning person please help us with ideas on how to keep guns out of the hands of these people? There must be a way.
__________________________________________________________________________
First you would have to define who "these people" are.
Then the hard work begins.
The principle reason so-called gun control legislation has difficulty is that while it restricts citizens Constitution rights and does nothing to get the gun out of the hands on the criminals.
The cities with the highest murder rates also have the most restrictive gun laws.
And that is just the beginning.
Fair warning to alloak, this is an opinion piece from a source that could have a bias so don't read it if you think it could possibly offend you.
It’s not about mental illness: The big lie that always follows mass shootings by white males
Blaming "mental illness" is a cop-out -- and one that lets us avoid talking about race, guns, hatred and terrorism
I get really really tired of hearing the phrase “mental illness” thrown around as a way to avoid saying other terms like “toxic masculinity,” “white supremacy,” “misogyny” or “racism.”
We barely know anything about the suspect in the Charleston, South Carolina, atrocity. We certainly don’t have testimony from a mental health professional responsible for his care that he suffered from any specific mental illness, or that he suffered from a mental illness at all.
We do have statistics showing that the vast majority of people who commit acts of violence do not have a diagnosis of mental illness and, conversely, people who have mental illness are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators.
We know that the stigma of people who suffer from mental illness as scary, dangerous potential murderers hurts people every single day — it costs people relationships and jobs, it scares people away from seeking help who need it, it brings shame and fear down on the heads of people who already have it bad enough.
But the media insists on trotting out “mental illness” and blaring out that phrase nonstop in the wake of any mass killing. I had to grit my teeth every time I personally debated someone defaulting to the mindless mantra of “The real issue is mental illness” over the Isla Vista shootings.
“The real issue is mental illness” is a goddamn cop-out. I almost never hear it from actual mental health professionals, or advocates working in the mental health sphere, or anyone who actually has any kind of informed opinion on mental health or serious policy proposals for how to improve our treatment of the mentally ill in this country.
What I hear from people who bleat on about “The real issue is mental illness,” when pressed for specific suggestions on how to deal with said “real issue,” is terrifying nonsense designed to throw the mentally ill under the bus. Elliot Rodger’s parents should’ve been able to force risperidone down his throat. Seung-Hui Cho should’ve been forcibly institutionalized. Anyone with a mental illness diagnosis should surrender all of their constitutional rights, right now, rather than at all compromise the right to bear arms of self-declared sane people.
What’s interesting is to watch who the mentally ill people are being thrown under the bus to defend. In the wake of Sandy Hook, the NRA tells us that creating a national registry of firearms owners would be giving the government dangerously unchecked tyrannical power, but a national registry of the mentally ill would not — even though a “sane” person holding a gun is intrinsically more dangerous than a “crazy” person, no matter how crazy, without a gun.
We’ve successfully created a world so topsy-turvy that seeking medical help for depression or anxiety is apparently stronger evidence of violent tendencies than going out and purchasing a weapon whose only purpose is committing acts of violence. We’ve got a narrative going where doing the former is something we’re OK with stigmatizing but not the latter. God bless America.
What’s also interesting is the way “The real issue is mental illness” is deployed against mass murderers the way it’s deployed in general — as a way to discredit their own words. When you call someone “mentally ill” in this culture it’s a way to admonish people not to listen to them, to ignore anything they say about their own actions and motivations, to give yourself the authority to say you know them better than they know themselves.
This is cruel, ignorant bullshit when it’s used to discredit people who are the victims of crimes. It is, in fact, one major factor behind the fact that the mentally ill are far more likely to be the targets of violence than the perpetrators–every predator loves a victim who won’t be allowed to speak in their own defense.
But it’s also bullshit when used to discredit the perpetrators of crimes. Mass murderers frequently aren’t particularly shy about the motives behind what they do — the nature of the crime they commit is attention-seeking, is an attempt to get news coverage for their cause, to use one local atrocity to create fear within an entire population. (According to the dictionary, by the way, this is called “terrorism,” but we only ever seem to use that word for the actions of a certain kind — by which I mean a certain color — of mass killer.)
Elliot Rodger told us why he did what he did, at great length, in detail and with citations to the “redpill” websites from which he got his deranged ideology. It isn’t, at the end of the day, rocket science — he killed women because he resented them for not sleeping with him, and he killed men because he resented them for having the success he felt he was denied.
Yes, whatever mental illness he may have had contributed to the way his beliefs were at odds with reality. But it didn’t cause his beliefs to spring like magic from inside his brain with no connection to the outside world.
That’s as deliberately obtuse as reading the Facebook rants of a man who rambled on at great length about how much he hated religion and in particular hated Islam and deciding that the explanation for his murdering a Muslim family is that he must’ve just “gone crazy” over a parking dispute.
Now we’ve got a man who wore symbols of solidarity with apartheid regimes, a man who lived in a culture surrounded by deadly weapons who, like many others, received a gift of a deadly weapon as a rite of passage into manhood.
He straight-up told his victims, before shooting them, that he was doing it to defend “our country” from black people “taking over.” He told a woman that he was intentionally sparing her life so she could tell people what he did.
There is no reasonable interpretation of his actions that don’t make this a textbook act of terrorism against black Americans as a community.
And yet almost immediately we’ve heard the same, tired refrain of “The real issue is mental illness.”
Well, “mental illness” never created any idea, motivation or belief system. “Mental illness” refers to the way our minds can distort the ideas we get from the world, but the ideas still come from somewhere.
One of the highest-profile cases of full-blown schizophrenia in history is that of John Nash, who, unlike the vast, vast majority of mentally ill people, really did develop a whole system of delusions entirely separate from reality. And yet even then the movie A Beautiful Mind whitewashes what those beliefs actually were–when he came up with an all-powerful conspiracy that was monitoring his every move, that conspiracy by sheer coincidence was a conspiracy of the world’s Jews.
Was it just sheer bad luck for Jewish people that a random genius’ random fertile imagination made them into demonic villains? Or did he get that idea from somewhere?
Misogynistic rants that exactly match Elliot Rodger’s are just a Google search away, if you have a strong stomach. So are racist threats that exactly match Dylann Roof’s. Are all those people “mentally ill”? And if so is there some pill you could distribute to cure it?
Dylann Roof is a fanboy of the South African and Rhodesian governments. As horrific as Roof’s crime was, the crimes that occurred over decades of apartheid rule were far, far worse, and committed by thousands of statesmen, bureaucrats and law enforcement officials. Were all of them also “mentally ill”? At the risk of Godwinning myself, John Nash wasn’t the only person to think the Jews were a global demonic conspiracy out to get him–at one point in history a large portion of the Western world bought into that and killed six million people because of it. Were they all “mentally ill”?
Even when violence stems purely from delusion in the mind of someone who’s genuinely totally detached from reality–which is extremely rare–that violence seems to have a way of finding its way to culturally approved targets. Yeah, most white supremacists aren’t “crazy” enough to go on a shooting spree, most misogynists aren’t “crazy” enough to murder women who turn them down, most anti-government zealots aren’t “crazy” enough to shoot up or blow up government buildings.
But the “crazy” ones always seem to have a respectable counterpart who makes a respectable living pumping out the rhetoric that ends up in the “crazy” one’s manifesto–drawing crosshairs on liberals and calling abortion doctors mass murderers–who, once an atrocity happens, then immediately throws the “crazy” person under the bus for taking their words too seriously, too literally.
And the big splashy headliner atrocities tend to distract us from the ones that don’t make headline news. People are willing to call one white man emptying five magazines and murdering nine black people in a church and openly saying it was because of race a hate crime, even if they have to then cover it up with the fig leaf of individual “mental illness”–but a white black man wearing a uniform who fires two magazines at two people in a car in a “bad neighborhood” in Cleveland? That just ends up a statistic in a DoJ report on systemic bias.
And hundreds of years of history in which an entire country’s economy was set up around chaining up millions of black people, forcing them to work and shooting them if they get out of line? That’s just history.
The reason a certain kind of person loves talking about “mental illness” is to draw attention to the big bold scary exceptional crimes and treat them as exceptions. It’s to distract from the fact that the worst crimes in history were committed by people just doing their jobs–cops enforcing the law, soldiers following orders, bureaucrats signing paperwork. That if we define “sanity” as going along to get along with what’s “normal” in the society around you, then for most of history the sane thing has been to aid and abet monstrous evil.
We love to talk about individuals’ mental illness so we can avoid talking about the biggest, scariest problem of all–societal illness. That the danger isn’t any one person’s madness, but that the world we live in is mad.
After all, there’s no pill for that.
[Edited on 6/19/2015 by gondicar]
