Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

suicide_circus wrote: »

i'm using "white" due to the white nationalist nature of the Christchurch attack but yes i'll revise my language.

the notion i speak of is perhaps an overarching impression of the coverage of this attack. i can only give my own reading of it.

Then call it was it is - White Supremacist radicalisation. My quibble is several times you have referred to Westerners as being White/Christians both in the context of being victims of Islamic extremism and generally as if being White is a given.

White Westerners have also become Islamic extremists.

So, it's just your own personal notion then...

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Really?

I haven't seen this notion expressed anywhere other than your post. I would genuinely be interested in where you have seen it.

My impression is that overwhelmingly the notion is that only Muslims get "radicalised" while White people are "lone wolves" with "mental health issues".

BTW - do stop with this nonsense about Westerners all being white. It's not true. Westerners come in all colours. Like Muslims do.

i'm using "white" due to the white nationalist nature of the Christchurch attack but yes i'll revise my language.

the notion i speak of is perhaps an overarching impression of the coverage of this attack. i can only give my own reading of it.

suicide_circus wrote: »

clearly i have.

there is a notion that radicalisation of muslims is more "legitimate" or more understanable than a westerner who turns to white nationalism. I reject that assertion. Its the bigotry of low expectations and i wont have it. Both turn out as murdering scum.

Really?

I haven't seen this notion expressed anywhere other than your post. I would genuinely be interested in where you have seen it.

My impression is that overwhelmingly the notion is that only Muslims get "radicalised" while White people are "lone wolves" with "mental health issues".

BTW - do stop with this nonsense about Westerners all being white. It's not true. Westerners come in all colours. Like Muslims do.

suicide_circus wrote: »

clearly i have.

there is a notion that radicalisation of muslims is more "legitimate" or more understanable than a westerner who turns to white nationalism. I reject that assertion. Its the bigotry of low expectations and i wont have it. Both turn out as murdering scum.

For the record, I don't view it as more legitimate or acceptable. I view such actions as reprehensible. Saying that organised extremism can take advantage of an individual's vulnerabilities is a reality though. We should not actively make it easier to make Islamic fundamentalists to recruit. By profiling people as would be terrorists because of skin colour, we do so and it does nothing to actually reduce terrorism.

batgoat wrote: »

You seem to love picking out one line and thinking you've made some cutting edge point.

clearly i have.

there is a notion that radicalisation of muslims is more "legitimate" or more understanable than a westerner who turns to white nationalism. I reject that assertion. Its the bigotry of low expectations and i wont have it. Both turn out as murdering scum.

suicide_circus wrote: »

including the Christchurch perpetrator

You seem to love picking out one line and thinking you've made some cutting edge point.

MrFresh wrote: »

That's completely nonsensical. Acknowledging the flaws in your discrimination does not justify it.

Maybe it is nonsensical because that is not what I said or implied

In one breath you declare it nonsensical and then in the next breath describe a position no one actually mentioned. Wow.

MrFresh wrote: »

There is a base level of security in airports and it's a pretty high standard. Selecting a ton of Muslim looking people for extra checks is unlikely to yield many results.

Again showing you did not _actually_ read the essay as he at no point suggested selecting "Muslim looking people". He said "anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim". And he multiple times said he very much includes _himself_ in that group! He then later in the same essay described what he does _not_ mean by it and guess what - he specifically contradicts what you claim here! See Addendum 1 specifically.

You are taking exception to his position by inventing one of your own and attacking that. Why all the straw?

MrFresh wrote: »

That kind of profiling simply does not work and is an unnecessary invasion on the rights of innocent people.

Also showing you did not read it. His position on what he calls "anti profiling" is based on _reducing_ the inpact on innocent people.

Further he is not actually advocating anything extra or out of the ordinary. His position is on what we are doing _already_ and how we focus our time when doing it. The majority of the work the TSA do is invading the lives of innocent people. All he is advocating is that since we are doing that anyway - lets do it intelligently.

Also what "right" is it you specifically thing is being "invaded" here? We are all subject to searches and questioning - or the potential for both - when we choose to travel through airport security. No "right" here is being contravened at all. You're hyperbole is showing.

batgoat wrote: »

anyone can be radicalised in right circumstances.

including the Christchurch perpetrator

MrFresh wrote: »

That's completely nonsensical. Acknowledging the flaws in your discrimination does not justify it. There is a base level of security in airports and it's a pretty high standard. Selecting a ton of Muslim looking people for extra checks is unlikely to yield many results. That kind of profiling simply does not work and is an unnecessary invasion on the rights of innocent people.

Also profiling would tend to increase the likelihood of them being susceptible to radicalisation. Applies to doing it against any group.

Deleted User wrote: »

I will leave it to people to read the full and actual article to make that decision for themselves. I read the whole thing and I have heard him talk on his "anti profiling" concept very very often and the simple fact is that quoting that single sentence out of context does _not_ make it pretty clear at all.

Which he both acknowledges and includes in much of his writings and talks on the subject. So you are rebutting hm on the basis of something actually included in his position. Which shows me once again that your comment about "context" is actually based on you not being moved to consider or even inform yourself of it in the first place.

This "only" narrative came from you entirely. Not hiim. Nothing he has written or said anywhere suggest this is somehow mutually exclusive to any other remit or goals. You came up with that entirely by yourself there.

As he wrote in the link above however his position is that if "In any case, it is simply a fact that, in the year 2012, suicidal terrorism is overwhelmingly a Muslim phenomenon. If you grant this, it follows that applying equal scrutiny to Mennonites would be a dangerous waste of time.".

Meaning that whatever the remit of the TSA - it is simply rational that the %s of their effort scale with the %s of exactly what they are looking for. And if 20% of terrorism comes from Muslims - or 90% then their efforts at profiling should reflect that in kind. Hardly a massively controversial position - now is it.

That's completely nonsensical. Acknowledging the flaws in your discrimination does not justify it. There is a base level of security in airports and it's a pretty high standard. Selecting a ton of Muslim looking people for extra checks is unlikely to yield many results. That kind of profiling simply does not work and is an unnecessary invasion on the rights of innocent people.

MrFresh wrote: »

His statement is pretty clear and the context doesn't make it any better.

I will leave it to people to read the full and actual article to make that decision for themselves. I read the whole thing and I have heard him talk on his "anti profiling" concept very very often and the simple fact is that quoting that single sentence out of context does _not_ make it pretty clear at all.

MrFresh wrote: »

Mr Harris might have the makings of a point if the TSA was only tasked with looking for Jihadi terrorists but their role goes beyond that.

Which he both acknowledges and includes in much of his writings and talks on the subject. So you are rebutting hm on the basis of something actually included in his position. Which shows me once again that your comment about "context" is actually based on you not being moved to consider or even inform yourself of it in the first place.

This "only" narrative came from you entirely. Not hiim. Nothing he has written or said anywhere suggest this is somehow mutually exclusive to any other remit or goals. You came up with that entirely by yourself there.

As he wrote in the link above however his position is that if "In any case, it is simply a fact that, in the year 2012, suicidal terrorism is overwhelmingly a Muslim phenomenon. If you grant this, it follows that applying equal scrutiny to Mennonites would be a dangerous waste of time.".

Meaning that whatever the remit of the TSA - it is simply rational that the %s of their effort scale with the %s of exactly what they are looking for. And if 20% of terrorism comes from Muslims - or 90% then their efforts at profiling should reflect that in kind. Hardly a massively controversial position - now is it.

But I notice the goal post shift here. I was talking about "the accusation" which you referred to in your last post. And asking how any of this actually supports that accusation. You have now dropped that line entirely and are moving instead to rebut the point of his essay. Which is fine - it is certainly an essay and position worth of discussion - but the dodge is noted.

Deleted User wrote: »

And here since you conveniently left it out is the entire Essay in which that quote appears - including an Addendum where he deals with some of the concerns you likely have with the single sentence you lifted out of it:

https://samharris.org/in-defense-of-profiling/

I can think of a few "accusations" or disagreements one can have with that article as it happens. I am inline with much but not all of it and I disagree with some. But nothing in the article _there_ supports the accusations made against him _here_ on this thread.

In short though what he is advocating is a kind of "reverse profiling" and he is saying that what that means will lead us to profile people - people who look like himself too (" I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye ") - which we should not let ourselves be embarrassed about.

His statement is pretty clear and the context doesn't make it any better. Mr Harris might have the makings of a point if the TSA was only tasked with looking for Jihadi terrorists but their role goes beyond that.

suicide_circus wrote: »

i shan't. Throwing around the phobia thing in neither useful nor necessary.

just pointing out the hypocrisy.

You aren't pointing out actually hypocrisy though. Any reason for omitting most of Bann's post?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

ISIS certainly have a large dose of Westernophobia so feel free to call it that if you wish.

i shan't. Throwing around the phobia thing in neither useful nor necessary.

just pointing out the hypocrisy.

suicide_circus wrote: »

where were the calls of Christianophobia or whiteophobia or westernophobia during the isis campaign in Europe? they didnt happen. in fact, these tragedies were quickly followed by warnings against islamophobia

Well, I'm not sure if you are aware of this but ISIS were terrorists. Many of us do not expect terrorists to conform to civilised standards nor are we surprised when they don't. That's why they are called terrorists. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect our governments to adhere to a higher standard of human rights.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Most of the victims of ISIS have been Muslims.

You are assuming everyone who died in Europe was White and Christian. This is not correct.

ISIS certainly have a large dose of Westernophobia so feel free to call it that if you wish.

Yep, have been looking lots of victims in the west that were Muslims. And there are white members of ISIS, anyone can be radicalised in right circumstances.

MrFresh wrote: »

This is a quote from Mr Harris. Seems the accusation against him is correct.

And here since you conveniently left it out is the entire Essay in which that quote appears - including an Addendum where he deals with some of the concerns you likely have with the single sentence you lifted out of it:

https://samharris.org/in-defense-of-profiling/

I can think of a few "accusations" or disagreements one can have with that article as it happens. I am inline with much but not all of it and I disagree with some. But nothing in the article _there_ supports the accusations made against him _here_ on this thread.

In short though what he is advocating is a kind of "reverse profiling" and he is saying that what that means will lead us to profile people - people who look like himself too (" I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye ") - which we should not let ourselves be embarrassed about.

suicide_circus wrote: »

where were the calls of Christianophobia or whiteophobia or westernophobia during the isis campaign in Europe? they didnt happen. in fact, these tragedies were quickly followed by warnings against islamophobia

Most of the victims of ISIS have been Muslims.

You are assuming everyone who died in Europe was White and Christian. This is not correct.

ISIS certainly have a large dose of Westernophobia so feel free to call it that if you wish.

where were the calls of Christianophobia or whiteophobia or westernophobia during the isis campaign in Europe? they didnt happen. in fact, these tragedies were quickly followed by warnings against islamophobia

Zorya wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqOdDV7Brq4

Sam Harris speaks about dangerous accusations being made about him being an Islamophobe, and how he and others like him who have offered reasonable criticism of Islam are being held somehow responsible in the ordinary media for the Christchurch massacre. The cynical, agenda-driven abuse of the term ''Islamophobia''.

I know of Harris but vaguely as our interests do not intersect. But from any of his work I have come across, though I sometimes disagree with what I have heard, he seems like a reasonable and thoughtful person.

~ Wiki

This is a quote from Mr Harris.

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.

Seems the accusation against him is correct.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

Again that is unlikely as Harris' entire approach to his position on these things is conversation conversation conversation. While Harris is happy to list the extremes at which he would consider things like torture for example - he does so while making it clear he only does it to define the extent of the continuum rather than actually thinks torture is a good choice.

Again your response is "dilute" therefore. Simply saying he is "in the mix" tells us nothing at all. It is like you are trying to be as vague as possible to say as little as possible - but still include his name for no actual reason at all.

What never seems to happen from people like yourself is an actual explanation of what Harris positions or words actually were - and what specifically from them is "in the mix". Basically it seems to qualify to be "in the mix" all you have to do is say anything at all against Islam publicly. By that low bar - hell - you can include me "in the mix" therefore.

But back here in reality the fact is Harris has never said anything that condones or motivates such an attack on innocent civilians.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

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.

There we agree. I am not in any way a supporter of any religion. Nonsense made up without any evidence at all. They talk about their god all the time without stopping even once to offer a shred of evidence it even exists. They talk about the after life and how great you can make it by various actions here on this planet - without ever once stopping to show that human awareness or subjectivity or experience survives death at all.

There are reasons that Islam is singled out as being more pernicious and dangerous than other religions though. And it is not just the specific calls to violence in some of the texts they use. One of the worst things about it in my opinion is that - while Christianity had a kind of reformation - Islam is much more resistant to it. And there are claims from Muslims that Islam is the final revelation - that is there will be no new instructions or modifications or revelation or anything that might help us reform it.

Christianity is dangerous enough therefore in that it couches modern morality in the ideas of a bronze aged peasantry. Islam more so for the same reason and for it's claims to be the final word on the matter. But that is the kind of factual observation people will avoid dealing with in favor of the more hit and run response of hiding behind the word "islamophobia".

Zorya

batgoat wrote: »

Except you're assuming there isn't a problem with people being hateful towards Muslims. Aka as Islamophobia, Eg I think most people can comfortably say that the Australian Senator from last week is Islamophobic. The Killer was Islamophobic. Same for Breivik. You don't have to be a mass murderer to be Islamophobic. Same applies for racism and anti Semitism.

The way you and others have dragged this thread is pretty sickening tbh.

Oh give over with your ''pretty sickening'' lark. I am not dragging anything anywhere, merely partaking in a discussion, so don't use emotive language to try and silence me.
There are of course some people who are hateful to Muslims, and I was among the first to respond to this thread to say this event is horrific. Which it is. That senator was idiotic and repulsive. Etc

My point - as you know well - is that there is legitimate criticism to be made of Islam, and any other theology or political ideology in the wide world, and those who make such criticism are not responsible in ANY WAY for this massacre. Just as people who criticise Christianity are not in any way responsible for the people who slaughtered 20 Mass-goers in the Cathedral in the Philippines 2months ago.
Should I go to some religious threads on boards and find raging unrestrained criticism of Christianity to show you examples of people being hateful? I saw Christianity because I probably won't find much about Buddhists, or Hindus, but in other countries that might be more applicable.

EDIT - sorry missed the card and posted this before I saw it.

Cienciano

sk8erboii wrote: »

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.

It's pretty clear what he is. A troll? You mean someone who winds up people on the internet for fun? What makes you think that? And a communist? He's definitely not that either, look at the quote about communism.
He's against one thing which I though was pretty clear. Foreigners of completely different cultures mixing.

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.

I have a copy of it - and I've read it.
You aren't missing much.

Skylinehead

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.

Mod: I'll make it easy for you, don't post here again. Accusations of trolling, and constant personal abuse.