Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

"Radical"? *snigger*. Read all their stuff. The most radical thing they did or said was bothering to write the books at all.

Would be interested to know which of his rhetoric in situ is actually linked to "causes the atrocities". I have seen the level of selective quoting that goes on with their work - Harris in particular - usually quoted in such a way as to literally reverse what they actually said. But aside from that I am baffled as to what they did or said that can even remotely be blamed for someone going out with weapons to kill people.

Harris constantly talks about a "war of ideas" and how all humanities problems require the strong application of conversation. Everything else he does or says stems from that core position. Which is - you might notice - the exact opposite of gunning people down.

Exactly. Though when the emotional blood is up rash decisions are a near given and any questioning of those decisions is seen as condoning whatever got your blood up in the first place.

Whatever about changes to the gun laws, this is a worrying turn and near guaranteed to encourage radicals and/or whatever political philosophy is next waiting in the wings.

Yeah_Right

Boggles wrote: »

That's not really true is it?

I mean you don't make it into the top 20 of gun ownership in the world without having some bit of a gun culture.

Japan don't have a gun culture because they don't really have any guns. New Zealand have a lot of guns, including ones that can kill 50 people in a relative short amount of time.

Sensible gun laws are needed. Everywhere, you just shouldn't wait until a lot of people are massacred.

No NZ doesn't have a gun culture. I read this week that there was about quarter of a million people in NZ with firearm licenses. Out of a population of 5 million. So about 5 percent.

I could count on one hand the number of my mates that had a license. When we went duck hunting, most of my friends or colleagues would have to borrow or hire a shotgun.

If you look at the crime stats, gun crime is low. When gangs like the Mongrel Mob, Black Power or the Headhunters fight, it's usually with bats, machetes, axes and iron bars. Not guns.

I think Ireland has a higher murder and gun crime rate than NZ. Until this year obviously.

Boggles

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

They're just going bat****. If they sat down and thought for literally 1 minute they'd see they're pissing all over their own ideals

Ideals?

Which ones exactly?

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

because they don't trust their population (including journalists/academics/psychologists etc).

Those who have the publication for legitimate purposes, such as reporters, researchers and academics to analyse and educate can apply for an exception

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"Radical"? *snigger*. Read all their stuff. The most radical thing they did or said was bothering to write the books at all.

Would be interested to know which of his rhetoric in situ is actually linked to "causes the atrocities". I have seen the level of selective quoting that goes on with their work - Harris in particular - usually quoted in such a way as to literally reverse what they actually said. But aside from that I am baffled as to what they did or said that can even remotely be blamed for someone going out with weapons to kill people.

Harris constantly talks about a "war of ideas" and how all humanities problems require the strong application of conversation. Everything else he does or says stems from that core position. Which is - you might notice - the exact opposite of gunning people down.

Ideas, or ideologies can lead to violence at some stage. Islam is also just ideas.

sk8erboii

Cienciano wrote: »

He's pretty clear on communism to be fair. From the manifesto:



DS86DS comes to the conclusion that he was communist

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The manifesto is a troll. He’s a communist. He’s an anarchist, oh wait no he wants a totalitarian far right government. Oh no he’s an eco fascist.


You’d have to be pretty low IQ to not see what he’s doing.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Ideas, or ideologies can lead to violence at some stage. Islam is also just ideas.

Well that is pretty - dilute. If all we are saying is that any idea can potentially lead to violence then we are not saying very much at all.

It is about as informative as saying "Food can lead to chocking at some stage". Which while true glosses over the fact that some foods do it a lot and some foods hardly ever have, if at all ever.

The question was how specifically one particular persons ideas led to violence - or why they are specifically singled out and named for this - and no one can seem to answer that other than those very carefully and very selectively quote minding their texts. When asked what is "radical" about their ideas - silence comes back.

Further I would be careful at any implication that all ideas are somehow equal in that potential. Islam is not "just ideas". It is a set of ideas that has a much larger potential for leading to violence than the ideas of - say - the Jains. Pedantically _everything_ is just ideas in this space. That does not build an equivalence between then.

Boggles

Yeah_Right wrote: »

No NZ doesn't have a gun culture. I read this week that there was about quarter of a million people in NZ with firearm licenses. Out of a population of 5 million. So about 5 percent.

Yeah, that is still a gun culture though isn't it?

If 5% of the population own 1.2 million guns, you have a gun culture.

The vast majority of Americans don't own a gun, but they certainly do have a gun culture, Ireland has a gun culture.

The likes of Japan don't, because they don't really have any guns.

If some scum bag can flitter in and out of your country, legally stockpile an Arsenal of weapons and murder 50 people then the gun culture and in particular the type and how they are acquired needs to be examined.

No country thinks they have a problem with guns until some massacres a whole bunch of people, luck, not judgement.

Call Me Jimmy

Boggles wrote: »

Ideals?

Which ones exactly?

I dunno about you but I wouldn't be happy about being criminalised for having read it and it being on my computer.

Just to be clear, would you be someone who supports criminalising possession of mein kampf? (like in germany I believe).

Boggles

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I dunno about you but I wouldn't be happy about being criminalised for having read it and it being on my computer.

I wouldn't or haven't read it, I suppose that's the difference.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Just to be clear, would you be someone who supports criminalising possession of mein kampf? (like in germany I believe).

It is for Sale in Germany AFAIK, the copyright ran on it.

Call Me Jimmy

Boggles wrote: »

It is for Sale in Germany AFAIK, the copyright ran on it.

Ah didn't know that! Do you think posession of it should be criminalised though?

batgoat

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Ah didn't know that! Do you think posession of it should be criminalised though?

It's a historically significant text so most definitely not. Mixed feelings on NZ banning distribution of the shooters text but it's not remotely comparable to the banning of a historical text. I would be inclined to say it should only be applied short term.

Boggles

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Ah didn't know that! Do you think posession of it should be criminalised though?

I think you trying to add equivalency to a book written nearly 100 years ago by one of the greatest mass murders in history, an actual leader of a country who's actions redefined a planet, a very "unique" individual and "story" with some cowardly simpleton copycat who spunked out 16 pages of nonsense in MS Word is bizarre.

Also for the record, I haven't read Hitlers book either.

1641

I don't know anything about Bill Shorten but I agree with what he says about hate speech:

Australia’s opposition Labor leader Bill Shorten was more direct in his condemnation of what may have influenced (the Christchurch murderer) and others like him. “Not all right-wing extremist hate speech ends in right-wing extremist violence, but all right-wing extremist violence starts in right-wing extremist hate speech,” he said. In a plea to media commentators, he added: “Can I just say for those who believe that freedom of speech extends to hate speech and right-wing extremist hate speech: can’t you call time on this?”

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

So some person who is pretty insignificant had his feelings hurt by some other person of similar insignificance and he decides to have a moan about it on Youtube. He seems to have been called out because he "thinks" Islamophiba doesn't exist. I turned if off after he started claiming early on that "pornographers" are trying to getting him murdered.

But anyway, How is that even remotely relevant to a cowardly scumbag racist islamophobe who executed 50 innocent people in Christchurch New Zealand and more pertinent why did you feel the need to post it in this thread?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Best I can work out the point is that, apparently, people are complaining that criticism of Islam (the religion) gets you called an Islamophobe which 'proves' there isn't any Islamophobia it's all just false flag name calling.

Which, of course, underplays that there have been actual documented instances of attacks on people because they are Muslim which is the very definition of Islamobhobia.



It's very similar (albeit with a twist) to the criticism of the State of Israel is Antisemitic trope used to deflect from that county's policies around Gaza.

Apparently the fact that it is possible to dislike a religion without hating those individuals who believe in it or disagreeing with the policies of a country without hating the people of that country due to their religion is too subtle a distinction.

Islamophobia was central to the discussion on the last few pages, and my point was exactly pertinent to the knee jerk reaction that is abounding.
Plus I think I make my points well enough.
You are both extremely condescending.

Boggles

batgoat wrote: »

It's a historically significant text so most definitely not. Mixed feelings on NZ banning distribution of the shooters text but it's not remotely comparable to the banning of a historical text. I would be inclined to say it should only be applied short term.

I don't.

People ironically claiming / demanding that they need to read the text in order to understand him is pretty hilarious, like it is some sort of honest self declaration of what he is.

The crime is ongoing, his plan is to get his text out so it will reach similar weak minded individuals like himself, it's only prudent and right that plan and crime is stopped. Same with his snuff video.

He has been described several times on here as a "Troll" - how do fook off a troll?, ignore him and don't feed him.

If the FBI which they have done and continue to do, need to understand a mass murderer or serial killer that is still alive they go in and interview them for years sometimes, they don't just really on some garbage they scrawled out at one time or another.

But I can guarantee you there is fook all unique to this scumbag, probably tortured animals when he was young, socially stupid, couldn't get a girlfriend, and spent the vast majority of his time smoking himself retarded with other weak minded simpletons online.

Shortest trial in NZ history, lock him up, throw away the key and forget about him.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Islamophobia was central to the discussion on the last few pages

Exactly so why would you just out of the blue casually toss in some random stranger moaning on Youtube who doesn't think Islamophobia actually exists?

Franz Von Peppercorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well that is pretty - dilute. If all we are saying is that any idea can potentially lead to violence then we are not saying very much at all.

It is about as informative as saying "Food can lead to chocking at some stage". Which while true glosses over the fact that some foods do it a lot and some foods hardly ever have, if at all ever.

The question was how specifically one particular persons ideas led to violence - or why they are specifically singled out and named for this - and no one can seem to answer that other than those very carefully and very selectively quote minding their texts. When asked what is "radical" about their ideas - silence comes back.

Further I would be careful at any implication that all ideas are somehow equal in that potential. Islam is not "just ideas". It is a set of ideas that has a much larger potential for leading to violence than the ideas of - say - the Jains. Pedantically _everything_ is just ideas in this space. That does not build an equivalence between then.

However this guy 50 killed people in a mosque. He did so because of an ideology, it wasn’t in reaction to an attack on him, or his family. He picked his ideological crumbs up from somewhere. I haven’t read the manifesto but it’s clear what kind of anti Islamic theories he is picking up and that Harris is in the mix.

I am far from being pro Islam either by the way. These things are driven by ideas and the ideas need to be looked at.

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Exactly so why would you just out of the blue casually toss in some random stranger moaning on Youtube who doesn't think Islamophobia actually exists?

Are you acting the annoying eegit on purpose? Sam Harris is not some random stranger, as I linked. And he has been accused by Omer Aziz in the New York Times of being somehow linked to the Christchurch massacre because of his supposed''Islamophobia''. I don't know about Harris etc., who says this kind of public claim makes his life difficult because of the endangerment to his personal security, but I will continue to criticise regressive aspects of any shagging religion, politics or ideology, including Islam. But you didn't bother to listen to the video. So, bog off.

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Are you acting the annoying eegit on purpose? Sam Harris is not some random stranger, as I linked. And he has been accused by Omer Aziz in the New York Times of being somehow linked to the Christchurch massacre because of his supposed''Islamophobia''. I don't know about Harris etc., who says this kind of public claim makes his life difficult because of the endangerment to his personal security, but I will continue to criticise regressive aspects of any shagging religion, politics or ideology, including Islam. But you didn't bother to listen to the video. So, bog off.

Seems legit.

:rolleyes:

suicide_circus

its amazing how quickly we revert to witch trials and book burning.

the slightest bump in the road and the hard won enlightenment principles go out the window.

we are still a savage frightened little species.

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Seems legit.

:rolleyes:

I'm afraid that you are going to work on your reading comprehension. In this case ''I don't know about Sam Harris'' means not that I have never heard of him, but rather that I don't know what his intended response will be... But as you were, Mr obviously Boggled.

suicide_circus

Boggles wrote: »

Islamophobia actually exists?

it does exist. just not in most of the cases it is accused. its chief function is to close down rational debate and is generally employed by fascists.

Call Me Jimmy

Boggles wrote: »

I think you trying to add equivalency to a book written nearly 100 years ago by one of the greatest mass murders in history, an actual leader of a country who's actions redefined a planet, a very "unique" individual and "story" with some cowardly simpleton copycat who spunked out 16 pages of nonsense in MS Word is bizarre.

Also for the record, I haven't read Hitlers book either.

Just asking about your logic, where you would draw lines. So we want the government to decide when something is historically significant enough for you to read. The factors being how long ago it was written and how many people did they kill. When both are high enough, then it should be legal.

For the record, I haven't read Hitler's book either

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

I'm afraid that you are going to work on your reading comprehension. In this case ''I don't know about Sam Harris'' means not that I have never heard of him, but rather that I don't know what his intended response will be... But as you were, Mr obviously Boggled.

Yeah, I know you said that all ready.

Zorya wrote: »

I know of Harris but vaguely as our interests do not intersect.

The point remains though, why post up some "vague" stranger moaning on youtube about his "feelings" been hurt by some other person of insignificance, a vague stranger who believes Islamophobia doesn't exist.

Why just causally toss that into a thread.

It's a simply enough question.

You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, especially if you are just going to resort to childish name calling again.

Boggles

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Just asking about your logic, where you would draw lines. So we want the government to decide when something is historically significant enough for you to read. The factors being how long ago it was written and how many people did they kill. When both are high enough, then it should be legal.

For the record, I haven't read Hitler's book either

I've explained my logic several times.

There is no equivalency and I'd be worried about anyone trying to claim there is.

Zorya

I wondering how many months in jail would be appropriate for those of us who have pasted a quote here and there from the manifesto on this thread?
A week per word, a month per line? Where does it end?

Zorya

Boggles wrote: »

Yeah, I know you said that all ready.



The point remains though, why post up some "vague" stranger moaning on youtube about his "feelings" been hurt by some other person of insignificance, a vague stranger who believes Islamophobia doesn't exist.

Why just causally toss that into a thread.

It's a simply enough question.

You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, especially if you are just going to resort to childish name calling again.

Because it's relevant. Sorry you cannot comprehend that. Your trolling however is not. So, for the first time ever, I am going to put a 'vague', moany and insignificant stranger on ignore.

sk8erboii

Zorya wrote: »

I wondering how many months in jail would be appropriate for those of us who have pasted a quote here and there from the manifesto on this thread?
A week per word, a month per line? Where does it end?

Cringe. Its not to oppress you, or any other self victimizing ‘’’free thinker’’’ The point of banning his manifesto is to not give him a platform.

Call Me Jimmy

Boggles wrote: »

I've explained my logic several times.

There is no equivalency and I'd be worried about anyone trying to claim there is.

Right...

Boggles

Zorya wrote: »

Because it's relevant. Sorry you cannot comprehend that. Your trolling however is not. So, for the first time ever, I am going to put a 'vague', moany and insignificant stranger on ignore.

What about my freedom of speech?