Buffalo white supremacist Terrorist

"The Great Replacement Theory" was started by Renaud Camus in detailing the influx of racial minorities into the British Isles. Camus is not a conservative.

Again, your premise is based on propaganda and not the factual evidence that I sited.


The shooter admitted that he was motivated by a prior Leftist crime.

 

Are Democrats White Supremacists ??? This shooter matches the profile you are pushing.

The history of the Democrat Party, up to this very day, would affirm your words in totality.

 

If all crimes against society by whites, and all murders of blacks by whites increased ten to fifteen times more than what they now are, and if all black crimes against society and whites murdered by blacks remained the same, we would be on equal footing. So please spare us the nonsense about how white people are so awful. It's one thing to be wrong. But you are bass-ackwards.

 

Yes... As a matter of fact it is.... kinda. I know lots of people who eat ice cream and never get fat. Just like most people watch, consume and repeat white supremacist propaganda without going out on a shooting spree.

You can get fat by eating too much ice cream, or by eating to many Big Macs. Just like you can go into a racially motivated shooting spree by consuming white supremacist propaganda, or anti-Chinese propaganda (in fact, another shooting spree this week was motivated by this)...

So I have no idea what this reference to "everyone" means in the mind of @557 I believe it's probably just his "binary" thinking acting up.

 

It's irrelevant to my point.

Because he IS a right winger. He said he was a nationalist fascist, in his manifesto. i.e., an extremist right winger. But that is absolutely irrelevant to the point I'm making. There can certainly also be left wing white supremacists out there somewhere.... But THIS guy was MOTIVATED by white supremacist hate speech that is being spread by extremists on the right like Tucker Carlson. THAT is the point of this thread.

Got it?

 

I don't give a crap who started it. Today it's lauded by right-wing white supremacists like Tucker Carlson. And this cost the lives of ten human beings in Buffalo this week. But is likely to cost MORE lives in the future, if it's not denounced.

I don't understand why right wingers REFUSE to participate in rejecting this immoral narrative.

 

It's very likely there are White Supremacists today who are Democrats. You don't have to resort to the "back in history" strawman. A white supremacist is, above all, a white supremacist. And if they are victims of hate speech like the one that Tucker Carlson and other MAGA-extremists in the media spew, you'll se me here denouncing it just the same as if they are on the right. This one just happens to be a self-proclaimed nationalist fascist (i.e. right winger), but that makes very little difference.

What I don't understand is why you are trying to excuse this hate speech, instead of rejecting it.

 

Like most conspiracy theories supposedly started by right wingers, I never heard of replacement theory until you started spouting it.

Whatever, his motives, the shooter was an eighteen year old nut. I doubt that he even listened to Tucker Carlson. I have known black haters and white haters all my life. They don't need excuses for their hate. Accusing all conservatives of contributing if they disagree is not a bit better than what you are accusing everyone else of.

 

What the hell are you talking about. Only people who are "awful" are those who spew white supremacist hate speech, like Tucker Carlson. Though those who try to change the subject in a thread about this hate speech aren't that great either.

 

Far be it for me to want to emulate your MO. Non sequitur deflections are your providence and the providence of many digging rabbit holes.

 

Ahhh. I appreciate your fallacious arguments. Very predictable. It shows you are incapable of making an intellectual argument to back your claim hate speech made a dude shoot people.

This time it’s appeal to stone fallacy. Instead of addressing a simple straightforward question you have been asked, you engage in ridicule of the question. This is classic argumentum ad lapidem fallacy.

I will repeat the question. Does hate speech make you want to shoot people. Can you answer without engaging in logical fallacy or not?

 

Quite the opposite of binary thinking on my part. You are demonstrating binary thought by claiming hate speech makes people shoot other people. You are unwilling to explore any other causation outside of hate speech.

If hate speech was the binary causative metric here, we should see a bit higher percentage of people exposed to hate speech shooting people. Since hate speech does not cause everyone exposed to hate speech to shoot people there must be more going on than your binary claim hate speech made a dude shoot people.

Does hate speech make you want to shoot people? Nobody will think less of you if you answer. But engaging in pure fallacious argument certainly damages the minuscule credibility you may retain on PF.

 

Saying the shooter is responding to something Tucker Carlson said makes no sense. He might have said it, but it makes no sense that he would follow through on it.

Supposedly the blacks are going to displace whites as the predominant race. Did the shooter think he was going to change that by shooting ten black people or even a few hundred? He did not need an excuse for his hate. Somewhere in his deep subconscious, he might have had some kind of reason. Maybe a black man got something he believed he deserved. Maybe his parents taught him to hate all blacks. But, replacement theory make no sense whatsoever. He might have said it for a reason, but I doubt it was the underlying cause.

 

The greater problem is your hate speech. How you can turn murder into an accusation against Republicans and then against a conservative journalist for identifying leftist societal and political goals is beyond me. Then again, maybe Tucker is right, and the kid is your creation. As such, the left murdered those innocent people shopping for groceries. Keep it up and one day the tragedies will find balance.

 

Except the devil is in the details

Congrats To The Media For Finally Finding A White Supremacist
Fewer than ten ‘white supremacy’ attacks doesn’t exactly sound like something the FBI should be busying itself with.

"....In the final months of Trump’s term, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf released a report titled “Homeland Threat Assessment.” In that report, Wolf said he was “particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists who have been exceptionally lethal in their abhorrent, targeted attacks in recent years.”

The report said that domestic violent extremists, “specifically white supremacist extremists (WSEs)” were and would continue to be “the most persistent and lethal threat in the Homeland.” It made all kinds of claims about “WSEs”: that they have “demonstrated longstanding intent to target racial and religious minorities, members of the LGBTQ+ community, politicians, and those they believe promote multi-culturalism and globalization”; and “have conducted more lethal attacks in the United States than any other DVE (domestic violent extremist) movement”; and “have engaged in outreach and networking opportunities abroad.”

There was even a tally alleging that nearly 40 people had been killed in attacks perpetrated by “WSEs” from 2018 and 2019. “WSEs conducted half of all lethal attacks (8 of 16), resulting in the majority of deaths (39 of 4,” the report said.

But there was a problem with the report. There were precisely zero citations showing where the Department of Homeland Security had derived its conclusions—no news articles or academic papers. Just an assurance by the acting secretary, who was “particularly concerned about white supremacist violent extremists” of late.

Hmm — might there be information elsewhere? A document published the previous year by the same department said the agency looked at the years from 2000 to mid-2016 and counted “28 attacks in the United States committed by WSEs, which collectively resulted in 51 fatalities.”

That factoid came with a citation, so that’s good. But this was the corresponding footnote: “Based on a review of US Government information, law enforcement reporting, and open source.” There was no link to specific incidents or verifiable data. There was no cross reference. That wouldn’t fly in a high school English paper, but the feds apparently think they’re above having to back up their wild claims with any actual evidence.

There’s more publicly available information about the government spending millions of dollars to investigate the prevalence of obesity in lesbians than there is about an allegedly serious and fatal threat we’re facing from white supremacists."
https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/17/congrats-to-the-media-for-finally-finding-a-white-supremacist/

And even if we take the second report at face value that is TWO "attacks" a year and THREE people killed. That would be the quietist weekend in Chicago in DECADES.

The article goes on to look at state reports where there were better cites only to note

One man actually killed himself while making a bomb. Investigators found "white supremist" literature in his apartment
Another was charged with shooting a cop, he was allegedly a member of a WSE group..............the cop was white.
Another was a black man who was burned to dead by his roommate. Where were they roommates.................in the state mental hospital.

Or the case of a black man who was beat up and killed by six skin heads behind a Pennsylvania bar. Guess what, it was reported as SIX different attacks.
Same with this one in Washington state, a black man beat up and killed by 8 skin heads but each reported as a separate attack

It summarized as

"To recap: of the 25 attacks labeled in the New Jersey government’s report as white supremacy, 14 were related to only two separate incidents. One of them involved a man who accidentally killed himself, another was perpetrated by a homeless guy, and yet another was committed by a mental patient in a home for the intellectually disabled. That brings the total attacks in 2018 down to more like eight—across our entire nation of 330 million people.

Fewer than ten “white supremacy” attacks doesn’t exactly sound like something the FBI should be busying itself with. The numbers on “white supremacy” couldn’t have been more padded if they were on their period."

 

When you can ridicule a question by just QUOTING it, that should signal to you that your question is, in and of itself, ridiculous.

Did you miss my response? It's right here...
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...acist-terrorist.599750/page-4#post-1073451475

I still think it's ridiculous but... there you go.

 

When all you can use is continued argumentum ad lapidem fallacy we have no option but to accept that you concede your statement linked to is incorrect. I’ve made an intellectual argument and you have provided nothing but binary thought and logical fallacy.

Does the act of me quoting your posts demonstrate your posts are ridiculous?

I didn’t miss that post, I quoted it and responded to it’s content. You are still unable to answer the simple question. Does hate speech make you want to shoot people?

 

And he SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT HE'S NOT REFERRING TO RACE. I mean, hello?

 

Was THAT your point? Yes. There can be MANY causes to mass shootings. THIS one just happened to be motivated by hate speech, as shown by the shooters manifesto. Another one in California this week was "hate speech" by Chinese propagandists against Taiwanese, for example. Of course, other causes like mental health issues are likely co-responsible. But we can't denounce those. We CAN denounce those who spread hate speech, though. Like Tucker Carlson and other MAGA-extremists in the media. So that's what we do. And we also denounce how easily it is to obtain guns designed to kill many people in a short amount of time. But that is being discussed in a different thread.

Anything else?

Why is it that, when I debate with you, I always feel like I'm wasting my time?

Aha! I KNEW you were trying to accommodate the topic to your binary mind frame.

Understand: "binary causative metrics" don't exist. EVER... At least not in the real world.

 

If you go on a mass killing spree, your problem isn't hate speech. Your problem is your a f__ing lunatic.
If hate speech is the reason people go on mass killing sprees, there wouldn't be a black man alive today in the US given the years of KKK and claimed white Supremacy influence.
The ONLY reason why the left cries about speech, is they can't control it.

 

What accusation against Republicans are you talking about?

Is making up nonsense your only purpose in these forums?

 

and no one thought to take this troubled young man's guns?

 

He said no such thing! What he says is that he doesn't want to make it a racial issue, just before he goes on to make it a racial issue. But he NEVER says what you claim. Making up nonsense is yet another sign that extremists on the right are intent on defending hate speech, but have no arguments to do so.

 

ANYBODY who believes hate speech is a f...ing lunatic. Just that most of them don't go on a shooting spree. But there are a few who do.

 

I see. Poor golem has a comprehension problem. Poor fella, here's your gold star.