Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Can someone explain this? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
William Farnum
msg tools
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Sure, you have a fundamentally dishonest worldview, so I get why you can't make heads or tails of it.

When a minority individual commits a crime, and a presidential candidate is spending time slandering that minority, it invites violence against other members of the minority group. The hope that a white male is responsible for the incident is about prevention of violence against innocent minority populations as retribution for the actions of the individual criminal.

Or, if your ideology can handle it, you could go look at the three men arrested in Kansas with the intention of driving four trucks filled with explosives into the corners of an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants. The literal example of retributive violence by the majority targeted against innocent members of a minority.

If you're honest, and I've maligned you, you'll learn something PDQ from this thread. If you're not, then I'm sure we'll get treated to the next iteration of you wondering why liberals hate America or why women don't report rape, or whatever the vomit of the day is.
14 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marcel
Netherlands
Den haag
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?


Because a lot of people can not distinguish individuals from groups when an individual is from a group they do not associate with.

If the person responsible is a white Christian, people are not going to blame all whote Cristians for the attack. This saves the liberals from having toexplain that not all white Cjristians are terroeists.

if the attacker is muslim, the same people who would not claim that all white Christians are terrorists, would start blaming all muslims, meaning that then it would force others to explain again that individuals are not the same as groups.

If people would respond in the same way to an attack, regardless of which group an attacker was from, then others would not care which group the attacker is from.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Farnum
msg tools
Doc Mage wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Sure, you have a fundamentally dishonest worldview, so I get why you can't make heads or tails of it.

When a minority individual commits a crime, and a presidential candidate is spending time slandering that minority, it invites violence against other members of the minority group. The hope that a white male is responsible for the incident is about prevention of violence against innocent minority populations as retribution for the actions of the individual criminal.

Or, if your ideology can handle it, you could go look at the three men arrested in Kansas with the intention of driving four trucks filled with explosives into the corners of an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants. The literal example of retributive violence by the majority targeted against innocent members of a minority.

If you're honest, and I've maligned you, you'll learn something PDQ from this thread. If you're not, then I'm sure we'll get treated to the next iteration of you wondering why liberals hate America or why women don't report rape, or whatever the vomit of the day is.


Liberals are the ones that hoping they can pin an act on the group that they wish had commited the act. How does that make my worldview dishonest?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
Avatar
mag74b wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?


Because a lot of people can not distinguish individuals from groups when an individual is from a group they do not associate with.

If the person responsible is a white Christian, people are not going to blame all whote Cristians for the attack. This saves the liberals from having toexplain that not all white Cjristians are terroeists.

if the attacker is muslim, the same people who would not claim that all white Christians are terrorists, would start blaming all muslims, meaning that then it would force others to explain again that individuals are not the same as groups.

If people would respond in the same way to an attack, regardless of which group an attacker was from, then others would not care which group the attacker is from.


Well, would you eat a bowl of skittles knowing one of them is poisoned?

/sarcasm
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
knucklesamwich wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Sure, you have a fundamentally dishonest worldview, so I get why you can't make heads or tails of it.

When a minority individual commits a crime, and a presidential candidate is spending time slandering that minority, it invites violence against other members of the minority group. The hope that a white male is responsible for the incident is about prevention of violence against innocent minority populations as retribution for the actions of the individual criminal.

Or, if your ideology can handle it, you could go look at the three men arrested in Kansas with the intention of driving four trucks filled with explosives into the corners of an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants. The literal example of retributive violence by the majority targeted against innocent members of a minority.

If you're honest, and I've maligned you, you'll learn something PDQ from this thread. If you're not, then I'm sure we'll get treated to the next iteration of you wondering why liberals hate America or why women don't report rape, or whatever the vomit of the day is.


Liberals are the ones that hoping they can pin an act on the group that they wish had commited the act. How does that make my worldview dishonest?


Because anyone can understand that the comments are not about shifting blame, they are about recognizing the way retributive violence harms innocents in minority population.

I believe you are dishonest, because I am convinced you understand that very simple concept. The evidence largely being that you reminded us all of your bullshit liberal straw man.

I could be wrong about your honesty, of course. You could just be an idiot.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Farnum
msg tools
Doc Mage wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Sure, you have a fundamentally dishonest worldview, so I get why you can't make heads or tails of it.

When a minority individual commits a crime, and a presidential candidate is spending time slandering that minority, it invites violence against other members of the minority group. The hope that a white male is responsible for the incident is about prevention of violence against innocent minority populations as retribution for the actions of the individual criminal.

Or, if your ideology can handle it, you could go look at the three men arrested in Kansas with the intention of driving four trucks filled with explosives into the corners of an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants. The literal example of retributive violence by the majority targeted against innocent members of a minority.

If you're honest, and I've maligned you, you'll learn something PDQ from this thread. If you're not, then I'm sure we'll get treated to the next iteration of you wondering why liberals hate America or why women don't report rape, or whatever the vomit of the day is.



So the outcome that the media and liberal politicians are aiming at is to stop possible violence or retribution against minorities. I get that and agree that is what would be beneficial for everyone. What I do not understand is the way that these groups go about achieving that goal. I learned as a kid that the end does not justify the means. If the means to achieve your goal is falsely accusing and hoping ill against a group you don't like then that is not a good situation.

I often think about these types of things in the context of what I would teach my kids. Let's say my kid came to me and said that someone destroyed his bike. If I used the logic of John Posedta I would tell my kids that we should blame Jimmy across the street for it because we don't want Freddie down the street to get blamed. Freddie is a minority and the rest of the neighbors might be mad and do something against Freddie. You see son it's the end that matters and that is protecting Freddie. Jimmy might be innocent but we can't take the chance of something happening to Freddie. Is that truly the best way to handle these incidents? Is that a lesson you would ever teach your kids? If it is then it's no wonder why our country is in such a mess.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
knucklesamwich wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Sure, you have a fundamentally dishonest worldview, so I get why you can't make heads or tails of it.

When a minority individual commits a crime, and a presidential candidate is spending time slandering that minority, it invites violence against other members of the minority group. The hope that a white male is responsible for the incident is about prevention of violence against innocent minority populations as retribution for the actions of the individual criminal.

Or, if your ideology can handle it, you could go look at the three men arrested in Kansas with the intention of driving four trucks filled with explosives into the corners of an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants. The literal example of retributive violence by the majority targeted against innocent members of a minority.

If you're honest, and I've maligned you, you'll learn something PDQ from this thread. If you're not, then I'm sure we'll get treated to the next iteration of you wondering why liberals hate America or why women don't report rape, or whatever the vomit of the day is.



So the outcome that the media and liberal politicians are aiming at is to stop possible violence or retribution against minorities. I get that and agree that is what would be beneficial for everyone. What I do not understand is the way that these groups go about achieving that goal. I learned as a kid that the end does not justify the means. If the means to achieve your goal is falsely accusing and hoping ill against a group you don't like then that is not a good situation.

I often think about these types of things in the context of what I would teach my kids. Let's say my kid came to me and said that someone destroyed his bike. If I used the logic of John Posedta I would tell my kids that we should blame Jimmy across the street for it because we don't want Freddie down the street to get blamed. Freddie is a minority and the rest of the neighbors might be mad and do something against Freddie. You see son it's the end that matters and that is protecting Freddie. Jimmy might be innocent but we can't take the chance of something happening to Freddie. Is that truly the best way to handle these incidents? Is that a lesson you would ever teach your kids? If it is then it's no wonder why our country is in such a mess.


I honestly don't even know what to say.

The goal for law enforcement is: Identify the perpetrators of violence. Arrest perpetrators. Prosecute and incarcerate the guilty. Do not do any of the above to anyone innocent.

The people you are referring to, Podesta, the Salon article, are not calling for any innocent person to be targeted. They are observing that retributive violence happens disproportionately to minority populations, when individual perpetrators (or suspects) are minority individuals.

You have invented a straw man about liberals. You can learn about them if you like. The view of Podesta in your example would be that the guilty party should be held responsible, regardless of whether it is Jimmy, Freddie, or someone else. There is no assigning blame to an innocent party. Mob violence against the guilty party is unacceptable. There may be enhanced risk of such violence against minority populations, which is an acceptable observation. That is important because a) the guilty party actually deserves to be protected from mob justice and b) because if the guilty party is unknown, it is far more likely that the minority individual might suffer from retributive violence.

That's it. It probably looks pretty much like what most conservatives would say about the situation, because it's basically the only rational thing. I can't convince you that it's what liberals believe too, but if you carry on with the straw man, ever again, it's about you advancing a dishonest agenda.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Pay no attention to these Liberal Fucktards. Also, I'm pretty sure you already know the answer. Just look at the responses here - the answer is guilt and self-loathing. The liberal/progressive indoctrination establishment teaches these people, from when they are young and malleable, to hate themselves and to seek out any tendril of culpability by white people when it appears. Their own self-loathing makes them morally and intellectually bankrupt and a truly despicable class of corrosive humanity.

Look at the last couple of days - In Chicago people were dropping like flies as black urban thugs randomly and wantonly gunned each other down indiscriminately, then there was a huge gang gun battle in LA in a restaurant leaving several dead and something like 20 people wounded. While the media reluctantly covered these stories the top billing was given to 3 white guys somewhere in fucking Kansas who plotted to kill Syrians. Plotted, not killed, plotted. Sure that's a crime, but so are Wild West gun battles among urban street gangs, beat downs on female cops and a few thousand murders a years.

So yeah, these people think you're dishonest. What else could they think? They don't have the skill set, the intellectual tools to see society as it is, they can only parse what is around them via the lens of indoctrinated, thoughtless ideology.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Pay no attention to these Liberal Fucktards. Also, I'm pretty sure you already know the answer. Just look at the responses here - the answer is guilt and self-loathing. The liberal/progressive indoctrination establishment teaches these people, from when they are young and malleable, to hate themselves and to seek out any tendril of culpability by white people when it appears. Their own self-loathing makes them morally and intellectually bankrupt and a truly despicable class of corrosive humanity.

Look at the last couple of days - In Chicago people were dropping like flies as black urban thugs randomly and wantonly gunned each other down indiscriminately, then there was a huge gang gun battle in LA in a restaurant leaving several dead and something like 20 people wounded. While the media reluctantly covered these stories the top billing was given to 3 white guys somewhere in fucking Kansas who plotted to kill Syrians. Plotted, not killed, plotted. Sure that's a crime, but so are Wild West gun battles among urban street gangs, beat downs on female cops and a few thousand murders a years.

So yeah, these people think you're dishonest. What else could they think? They don't have the skill set, the intellectual tools to see society as it is, they can only parse what is around them via the lens of indoctrinated, thoughtless ideology.


Thank god you're here to tell us how it is Tripp. Wouldn't want you to actually communicate with anyone, it would be a shame for anything to challenge that foundation of preconceived notions.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
this
T͟His/Submit
pronoun
1.
used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.
"is this your bag?"
2.
referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned.
"the company was transformed, and Ward had played a vital role in bringing this about"
determiner
1.
used to identify a specific person or thing close at hand or being indicated or experienced.
"don't listen to this guy"
2.
referring to a specific thing or situation just mentioned.
"there was a court case resulting from this incident"
adverb
1.
to the degree or extent indicated.
"they can't handle a job this big"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Farnum
msg tools
Doc Mage wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Sure, you have a fundamentally dishonest worldview, so I get why you can't make heads or tails of it.

When a minority individual commits a crime, and a presidential candidate is spending time slandering that minority, it invites violence against other members of the minority group. The hope that a white male is responsible for the incident is about prevention of violence against innocent minority populations as retribution for the actions of the individual criminal.

Or, if your ideology can handle it, you could go look at the three men arrested in Kansas with the intention of driving four trucks filled with explosives into the corners of an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants. The literal example of retributive violence by the majority targeted against innocent members of a minority.

If you're honest, and I've maligned you, you'll learn something PDQ from this thread. If you're not, then I'm sure we'll get treated to the next iteration of you wondering why liberals hate America or why women don't report rape, or whatever the vomit of the day is.



So the outcome that the media and liberal politicians are aiming at is to stop possible violence or retribution against minorities. I get that and agree that is what would be beneficial for everyone. What I do not understand is the way that these groups go about achieving that goal. I learned as a kid that the end does not justify the means. If the means to achieve your goal is falsely accusing and hoping ill against a group you don't like then that is not a good situation.

I often think about these types of things in the context of what I would teach my kids. Let's say my kid came to me and said that someone destroyed his bike. If I used the logic of John Posedta I would tell my kids that we should blame Jimmy across the street for it because we don't want Freddie down the street to get blamed. Freddie is a minority and the rest of the neighbors might be mad and do something against Freddie. You see son it's the end that matters and that is protecting Freddie. Jimmy might be innocent but we can't take the chance of something happening to Freddie. Is that truly the best way to handle these incidents? Is that a lesson you would ever teach your kids? If it is then it's no wonder why our country is in such a mess.


I honestly don't even know what to say.

The goal for law enforcement is: Identify the perpetrators of violence. Arrest perpetrators. Prosecute and incarcerate the guilty. Do not do any of the above to anyone innocent.

The people you are referring to, Podesta, the Salon article, are not calling for any innocent person to be targeted. They are observing that retributive violence happens disproportionately to minority populations, when individual perpetrators (or suspects) are minority individuals.

You have invented a straw man about liberals. You can learn about them if you like. The view of Podesta in your example would be that the guilty party should be held responsible, regardless of whether it is Jimmy, Freddie, or someone else. There is no assigning blame to an innocent party. Mob violence against the guilty party is unacceptable. There may be enhanced risk of such violence against minority populations, which is an acceptable observation. That is important because a) the guilty party actually deserves to be protected from mob justice and b) because if the guilty party is unknown, it is far more likely that the minority individual might suffer from retributive violence.

That's it. It probably looks pretty much like what most conservatives would say about the situation, because it's basically the only rational thing. I can't convince you that it's what liberals believe too, but if you carry on with the straw man, ever again, it's about you advancing a dishonest agenda.


I have invented nothing. Liberal politicians and media want white people to be responsible for these sick acts and that is so bizarre. When I see something like a bombing or shooting I don't hope that it's a certain group that I have a problem with. That is some sick brain wiring right there. I hope that those responsible get caught and whoever is waiting In The wings to commit similar acts see that it's not a good idea. How must we look to those who have bad intent? They know that there are people who are ready and willing to try and assign blame to someone other then the people responsible. It's so crazy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmb
"Can someone explain this?"

<Ignores and attacks all explanations>

"Seriously, can anyone even begin to explain this?"
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Doc Mage wrote:


Thank god you're here to tell us how it is Tripp. Wouldn't want you to actually communicate with anyone, it would be a shame for anything to challenge that foundation of preconceived notions.


Hey, you're the one who just outright called the OP stupid and pretty much explained that "hoping it's a white guy" is a-okay. If you're going to be a fucking moron, which you appear to be, then don't be surprised if you get called a fucking moron.

How about if a reporter for some media outlet you despise was quoted as "hoping it was a Muslim or black guy" who shot up a bunch of people. Would your stupid answer still apply? No big deal? White, black, brown, doesn't matter to you?

Moron.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Farnum
msg tools
windsagio wrote:
"Can someone explain this?"

<Ignores and attacks all explanations>

"Seriously, can anyone even begin to explain this?"



I have attacked nothing. I just don't get why it's fine to hope ill on groups you don't like. Why can't these liberals just address the problem of people doing sick things to other people. Instead they commit another wrong and try to assign blame where it isn't due. Do These elitist liberals not care that it might be offensive to white people that they are hoping whites commited evil acts? Would you teach your kids to do that? I honestly think most liberals wouldn't teach their kids that the end justifies the means. And even if they don't verbally teach that lesson it's sad that so many in leadership live it out through their actions. But who knows, Teaching a kid to justify any action based on the outcome is nonsensical to me but maybe not to liberals.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Schoell
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
knucklesamwich wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
Doc Mage wrote:
knucklesamwich wrote:
We have yet another instance of liberals hoping that some hoffiric incident was perpetrated by white people. The latest comes from the John Podesta Wikileaks emails who made this statement "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter,". And don't forget this from the aftermath in Boston, the title of a Salon.com article was "let's hope the Boston marathon bomber was a white American". And another instance was in the hours following the Aurora shooting Brian Ross of ABC breathlessly announced that he had found a white American tea party member named James Holmes who turned out to be completely unrelated.

It's appears that liberals want white men to be responsible for these incidents but I wonder why? My gut tells me that it's because it fits the narrative that they are trying to create. Them having this knee jerk reaction to pin blame on whites just makes them get so excited. Maybe it's the same weird thinking that makes them claim every incident of violence from Islamics is just lone wolf isolated incidents like when CNN bent so far backwards as to hilariously claim the bombs recently found in New York were 2-3 lone wolves who managed to get together. Yeah, lets go with that. Benefit of the doubt to Islamic terrorist but under the bus for whites.

Can someone can shed some light on this weird desire that keeps popping up?




Sure, you have a fundamentally dishonest worldview, so I get why you can't make heads or tails of it.

When a minority individual commits a crime, and a presidential candidate is spending time slandering that minority, it invites violence against other members of the minority group. The hope that a white male is responsible for the incident is about prevention of violence against innocent minority populations as retribution for the actions of the individual criminal.

Or, if your ideology can handle it, you could go look at the three men arrested in Kansas with the intention of driving four trucks filled with explosives into the corners of an apartment complex housing Somali immigrants. The literal example of retributive violence by the majority targeted against innocent members of a minority.

If you're honest, and I've maligned you, you'll learn something PDQ from this thread. If you're not, then I'm sure we'll get treated to the next iteration of you wondering why liberals hate America or why women don't report rape, or whatever the vomit of the day is.



So the outcome that the media and liberal politicians are aiming at is to stop possible violence or retribution against minorities. I get that and agree that is what would be beneficial for everyone. What I do not understand is the way that these groups go about achieving that goal. I learned as a kid that the end does not justify the means. If the means to achieve your goal is falsely accusing and hoping ill against a group you don't like then that is not a good situation.

I often think about these types of things in the context of what I would teach my kids. Let's say my kid came to me and said that someone destroyed his bike. If I used the logic of John Posedta I would tell my kids that we should blame Jimmy across the street for it because we don't want Freddie down the street to get blamed. Freddie is a minority and the rest of the neighbors might be mad and do something against Freddie. You see son it's the end that matters and that is protecting Freddie. Jimmy might be innocent but we can't take the chance of something happening to Freddie. Is that truly the best way to handle these incidents? Is that a lesson you would ever teach your kids? If it is then it's no wonder why our country is in such a mess.


I honestly don't even know what to say.

The goal for law enforcement is: Identify the perpetrators of violence. Arrest perpetrators. Prosecute and incarcerate the guilty. Do not do any of the above to anyone innocent.

The people you are referring to, Podesta, the Salon article, are not calling for any innocent person to be targeted. They are observing that retributive violence happens disproportionately to minority populations, when individual perpetrators (or suspects) are minority individuals.

You have invented a straw man about liberals. You can learn about them if you like. The view of Podesta in your example would be that the guilty party should be held responsible, regardless of whether it is Jimmy, Freddie, or someone else. There is no assigning blame to an innocent party. Mob violence against the guilty party is unacceptable. There may be enhanced risk of such violence against minority populations, which is an acceptable observation. That is important because a) the guilty party actually deserves to be protected from mob justice and b) because if the guilty party is unknown, it is far more likely that the minority individual might suffer from retributive violence.

That's it. It probably looks pretty much like what most conservatives would say about the situation, because it's basically the only rational thing. I can't convince you that it's what liberals believe too, but if you carry on with the straw man, ever again, it's about you advancing a dishonest agenda.


I have invented nothing. Liberal politicians and media want white people to be responsible for these sick acts and that is so bizarre. When I see something like a bombing or shooting I don't hope that it's a certain group that I have a problem with. That is some sick brain wiring right there. I hope that those responsible get caught and whoever is waiting In The wings to commit similar acts see that it's not a good idea. How must we look to those who have bad intent? They know that there are people who are ready and willing to try and assign blame to someone other then the people responsible. It's so crazy.


Why did you bother asking the question if you were going to argue both sides of it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.