Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reflections on what happened in Colorado

YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 9:39:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Rhetoric does not cause people to murder other people, and anyone who believes otherwise misunderstands and/or conflates the process by which individuals make choices. Similarly, guns themselves do not cause people to murder other people. To say otherwise in either the cases of rhetoric or Guns is to embrace idiocy at the expense of reason.

Moreover, covering this incident as one of a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical" or any other iteration of that description is an egregious misrepresentation of what happened. It may well be the case that this man was greatly mentally disturbed, but that's not the point. The point is that this guy was a domestic terrorist, what he did was an act of domestic terrorism and should be described as such.

This is why, on virtually all levels the coverage of what happened here disgusts me. This domestic terrorist is who is to blame. It is his fault, and no one else's. Maybe there should have been safeguards in place to prevent him from getting ahold of guns. Maybe he has an undiagnosed mental condition. That does not change the reality of this situation. You don't get to forsake being a terrorist because you're not an Arab. You don't get to blame how people talk about issues to excuse your behavior. Anyone who says otherwise is greviously wrong, and should be encouraged to reevaluate how they understand the world around them.
Tsar of DDO
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:26:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I strongly agree with this post, and am commenting if only to emphasize that this country needs to take domestic terrorism more seriously, and labelling it as such when appropriate.
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:36:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's a dumb post, though, with like zero function but to pawn of personal responsibility (if it's a mental illness, everyone else can be doing more); 'terrorist' is a frightening word.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:41:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean, what? "No, no, gotta be fair to the Arabs here, guys."

"...Now let's go kill some terrorists!"
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:45:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:41:30 PM, Devilry wrote:
I mean, what? "No, no, gotta be fair to the Arabs here, guys."

"...Now let's go kill some terrorists!"

I think the peripheral message YYW made was that the Arab world does not have a monopoly on terrorism. The larger point was that this incident was mischaracterized by the media, and the real issues misunderstood by many Americans.
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:57:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:45:16 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:41:30 PM, Devilry wrote:
I mean, what? "No, no, gotta be fair to the Arabs here, guys."

"...Now let's go kill some terrorists!"

I think the peripheral message YYW made was that the Arab world does not have a monopoly on terrorism. The larger point was that this incident was mischaracterized by the media, and the real issues misunderstood by many Americans.

The real issue was that a man shot up a Planned Parenthood clinic, and there's very little to misunderstand there. Might as well label him a dog as a terrorist. I mean, what's the point here? I'll tell you: the point of this thread is to lend itself to a declaration of war against such people as who do these things. It's all very insane stuff, to be quite honest.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2015 11:59:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Honestly I can hardly get into the mind of this OP at all, but it's definitely insane lol. I'd say there's definitely a complete lack of sympathy in it, though - maybe a little mania around that.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:01:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First off, homeless people needed to be beaten up. Now, this guy needs to be considered a terrorist.

There's something sickening of utterly unsympathetic eugenics in all this, to be quite honest.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:19:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The point is that this guy was a domestic terrorist, what he did was an act of domestic terror.
If you were to go by the original definition of "terrorism" this case would not be classified as terrorism because the shooters motives are yet to be determined. However, if you extended the definition to include a psycho killer without any motives, then yes, it would be terrorism.
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:19:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:26:37 PM, Praesentya wrote:
I strongly agree with this post, and am commenting if only to emphasize that this country needs to take domestic terrorism more seriously, and labelling it as such when appropriate.

Cheers.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:19:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:01:10 AM, Devilry wrote:
First off, homeless people needed to be beaten up. Now, this guy needs to be considered a terrorist.

There's something sickening of utterly unsympathetic eugenics in all this, to be quite honest.

You're just not a bright person, are you?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:22:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:19:15 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
The point is that this guy was a domestic terrorist, what he did was an act of domestic terror.
If you were to go by the original definition of "terrorism" this case would not be classified as terrorism because the shooters motives are yet to be determined. However, if you extended the definition to include a psycho killer without any motives, then yes, it would be terrorism.

You really think the motives of a guy who goes to a planned parenthood clinic to stage a mass shooting are "undetermined"?

What possible political goal could he have? Protesting police brutality?
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:24:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/29/2015 11:59:37 PM, Devilry wrote:
Honestly I can hardly get into the mind of this OP at all, but it's definitely insane lol. I'd say there's definitely a complete lack of sympathy in it, though - maybe a little mania around that.

This is a completely unproductive post, and as a rule you offer precisely no value to the site. The beginning and end of contributions you have made in this thread is to directly and indirectly attack me, and deviate from the scope of the OP. If you would like to discuss me, then make a thread. Otherwise, stay on topic.
Tsar of DDO
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:26:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:19:59 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:01:10 AM, Devilry wrote:
First off, homeless people needed to be beaten up. Now, this guy needs to be considered a terrorist.

There's something sickening of utterly unsympathetic eugenics in all this, to be quite honest.

You're just not a bright person, are you?

Actually, I'm an incredibly bright person. What, this thread is just to delineate that this man had political agenda? Wowee, deep, lol. Don't fool yourself.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:27:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:24:30 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/29/2015 11:59:37 PM, Devilry wrote:
Honestly I can hardly get into the mind of this OP at all, but it's definitely insane lol. I'd say there's definitely a complete lack of sympathy in it, though - maybe a little mania around that.

This is a completely unproductive post, and as a rule you offer precisely no value to the site. The beginning and end of contributions you have made in this thread is to directly and indirectly attack me, and deviate from the scope of the OP. If you would like to discuss me, then make a thread. Otherwise, stay on topic.

Yes, yes, I'm a terrorist, I suppose, lol. Do you even read yourself? Your defense mechanisms are something farcical.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
NewLifeChristian
Posts: 1,236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:31:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:22:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:19:15 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
The point is that this guy was a domestic terrorist, what he did was an act of domestic terror.
If you were to go by the original definition of "terrorism" this case would not be classified as terrorism because the shooters motives are yet to be determined. However, if you extended the definition to include a psycho killer without any motives, then yes, it would be terrorism.

You really think the motives of a guy who goes to a planned parenthood clinic to stage a mass shooting are "undetermined"?

What possible political goal could he have? Protesting police brutality?
He could have just been another mindless and mentally disturbed killer. Again, his motives have not been officially confirmed.
Pro-Life Quotes:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born."
- Ronald Reagan

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."
- Thomas Jefferson

"A person is a person no matter how small."
- Dr. Seuss
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:38:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:19:15 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
The point is that this guy was a domestic terrorist, what he did was an act of domestic terror.
If you were to go by the original definition of "terrorism" this case would not be classified as terrorism because the shooters motives are yet to be determined. However, if you extended the definition to include a psycho killer without any motives, then yes, it would be terrorism.

His motives are clear, and becoming more clear. So, when he comes out and says enough for you to finally be convinced - will you call him a terrorists then?
Devilry
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:50:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Because that will mean a whole lot.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:55:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:31:22 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:22:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:19:15 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
The point is that this guy was a domestic terrorist, what he did was an act of domestic terror.
If you were to go by the original definition of "terrorism" this case would not be classified as terrorism because the shooters motives are yet to be determined. However, if you extended the definition to include a psycho killer without any motives, then yes, it would be terrorism.

You really think the motives of a guy who goes to a planned parenthood clinic to stage a mass shooting are "undetermined"?

What possible political goal could he have? Protesting police brutality?
He could have just been another mindless and mentally disturbed killer. Again, his motives have not been officially confirmed.

This is dishonest, and requires ignoring the context in which the incident in Colorado took place, as well as the literal words of the guy who did it.

What do you think terrorism is?
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 12:58:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:55:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:31:22 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:22:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:19:15 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
The point is that this guy was a domestic terrorist, what he did was an act of domestic terror.
If you were to go by the original definition of "terrorism" this case would not be classified as terrorism because the shooters motives are yet to be determined. However, if you extended the definition to include a psycho killer without any motives, then yes, it would be terrorism.

You really think the motives of a guy who goes to a planned parenthood clinic to stage a mass shooting are "undetermined"?

What possible political goal could he have? Protesting police brutality?
He could have just been another mindless and mentally disturbed killer. Again, his motives have not been officially confirmed.

This is dishonest, and requires ignoring the context in which the incident in Colorado took place, as well as the literal words of the guy who did it.

What do you think terrorism is?

Its cognitive dissonance. Or, they hope that the news will "blow over".
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 1:02:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:58:10 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:55:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:31:22 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:22:21 AM, YYW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 12:19:15 AM, NewLifeChristian wrote:
The point is that this guy was a domestic terrorist, what he did was an act of domestic terror.
If you were to go by the original definition of "terrorism" this case would not be classified as terrorism because the shooters motives are yet to be determined. However, if you extended the definition to include a psycho killer without any motives, then yes, it would be terrorism.

You really think the motives of a guy who goes to a planned parenthood clinic to stage a mass shooting are "undetermined"?

What possible political goal could he have? Protesting police brutality?
He could have just been another mindless and mentally disturbed killer. Again, his motives have not been officially confirmed.

This is dishonest, and requires ignoring the context in which the incident in Colorado took place, as well as the literal words of the guy who did it.

What do you think terrorism is?

Its cognitive dissonance. Or, they hope that the news will "blow over".

Idk. I think this is more like just your typical "run of the mill" denial. What this means for pro-lifers is that their cause no longer boasts the kind of (pseudo)morality that it has laid a claim to before. It makes the pro-choice camp look more reasonable and rational.

Of course, I certainly don't support or embrace any kind of reactionary politics, but I think it's going to be hard to deny the obvious consequences to public perception here.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 5:10:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If his goal was to change public policy with the attack, then he's pretty much by definition a terrorist. But why does that disqualify him as a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical". He's probably both of those things.
Daffypuck
Posts: 29
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 3:32:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This thread reminds me of a FB conversation I ran across. It was in referance to this very topic. Here is the post. These are not my words, but those of another
"And this is where I part ways with the absolutist position that the comfortably bourgeois ACLU takes on freedom of speech. If your speech -- particularly demonstrably false speech -- can be reasonably expected to incite violence, you ought to be subject to both civil liability and criminal prosecution for the violence you incited.
Moreover, certain categories of speech that almost always lead to violence, i.e., hate speech generally, should be subject to prior restraint. Free speech absolutists' obsession with the not actually very slippery slope of reasonable restraints on speech blinds them to their depraved indifference to the extremely slippery slopes of mob violence and vigilantism."
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 4:02:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 5:10:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
If his goal was to change public policy with the attack, then he's pretty much by definition a terrorist. But why does that disqualify him as a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical". He's probably both of those things.

I didn't say that he wasn't a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical" and I even indicated that being a terrorist and being mentally disturbed are not mutually exclusive.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 4:15:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 12:01:10 AM, Devilry wrote:
First off, homeless people needed to be beaten up. Now, this guy needs to be considered a terrorist.

There's something sickening of utterly unsympathetic eugenics in all this, to be quite honest.

Define "terrorism".
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:35:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 4:02:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/30/2015 5:10:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
If his goal was to change public policy with the attack, then he's pretty much by definition a terrorist. But why does that disqualify him as a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical". He's probably both of those things.

I didn't say that he wasn't a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical" and I even indicated that being a terrorist and being mentally disturbed are not mutually exclusive.

Why is it important that the media emphasize the fact that he's a terrorist? I'm honestly confused why there's so much controversy surrounding this.

Since when did calling someone a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical" as opposed to "terrorist" in any way suggest that you condone their behavior? (I'm talking about conservatives now).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:37:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 5:10:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
If his goal was to change public policy with the attack, then he's pretty much by definition a terrorist. But why does that disqualify him as a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical". He's probably both of those things.

This post suggests to me that you think advocacy of either description is purely a matter of semantically factual labeling.... 'both labels are true; use either; what's the big deal?' .... and this completely misses the point.

By citing the events in Colorado as an act of domestic terrorism, you start to reverse its synonymy with Islam -- at least among those whose thinking is too unrefined to accomplish that separation without the aid of such subtle verbal cues. It's an anti-discrimination rhetorical tactic.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:39:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/30/2015 6:37:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/30/2015 5:10:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
If his goal was to change public policy with the attack, then he's pretty much by definition a terrorist. But why does that disqualify him as a "gravely mentally disturbed lone wolf radical". He's probably both of those things.

This post suggests to me that you think advocacy of either description is purely a matter of semantically factual labeling.... 'both labels are true; use either; what's the big deal?' .... and this completely misses the point.

By citing the events in Colorado as an act of domestic terrorism, you start to reverse its synonymy with Islam -- at least among those whose thinking is too unrefined to accomplish that separation without the aid of such subtle verbal cues. It's an anti-discrimination rhetorical tactic.

Ohhhhh, that makes sense.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:51:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean, I understand why conservatives would hesitate to use the term "terrorist" considering how quickly some people would use it as an opportunity to say "see, Christianity is just as dangerous as Islam". Someone attacking an abortion clinic every decade or so simply doesn't compare to the violence committed by radical Islamists.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2015 6:56:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As a matter of fact, it looks like there a lot of people on this thread who don't understand what the conversation is about.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault