How Many Attacks Will It Take Until the White-Supremacist Threat Is Taken Seriously?

eohrnberger said:

And then there was the one leftist guy in Daytona, which seems to have slipped from prominence in the media.

Click to expand...

Daytona? That's in Florida.
Methinks you're trying to refer to Dayton, Ohio, which is not Florida by any stretch.
And no, he has not slipped from prominence anywhere.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Daytona? That's in Florida.
Methinks you're trying to refer to Dayton, Ohio, which is not Florida by any stretch.
And no, he has not slipped from prominence anywhere.

Click to expand...

Typo noted and accepted.

The search results listed, how many were reporting the facts that the shooter appears to have been an ardent leftist?

Yeah, sure, lots of ink for healing and funerals, as would be appropriate. But the leftist connection? I'm willing to wager not all that much.

eohrnberger said:

Typo noted and accepted.

The search results listed, how many were reporting the facts that the shooter appears to have been an ardent leftist?

Yeah, sure, lots of ink for healing and funerals, as would be appropriate. But the leftist connection? I'm willing to wager not all that much.

Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that if the number of left leaning mass shooters reaches even partial parity with the explosion of far-right characters, it will not only be duly noted by the press, it will become cause for alarm.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

I would hazard a guess that if the number of left leaning mass shooters reaches even partial parity with the explosion of far-right characters, it will not only be duly noted by the press, it will become cause for alarm.

Click to expand...

I would hazard a guess that both would be out numbered by far by mentally unstable mass shooters.

So what would justify all the prominence of the shooter's political lean then? Especially if not left?

swing_voter said:

How many people are in these groups? 1,000? 10,000? Millions?

Click to expand...

As long as you restrict criteria to historical images of white robe wearing Klansmen, you'll never know.
But here's a bit of poetic license which is at least somewhat based on fact, thanks to a little movie called "American History X" in which Cameron, the leading local Nazi luminary, counsels Derek Vinyard that it's not only unnecessary to wear the hoods and swastikas, it might even be counterproductive to the cause.

"Yeah well, I see you grew out of that shaved head bull*** a long time ago. I like your hair the way it is now. You see, that's what I mean, we're thinking bigger now."

Click to expand...

Yeah, of course. That's why people like Richard Spencer and David Duke prefer to wear a suit and tie.
So you see, it might be difficult to tally up membership numbers if they drop the costumes and blend into society.

Of course, that gives APOLOGIS and other sympathizers a lot of cover and plausible deniability so that they can run around and say things like

swing_voter said:

It's not like there's a organization with 10,000 members that we can infiltrate or sue.
The Ku Klux Klan was a big organization back in the 1860's - 1945. They've been pretty much destroyed. I don't really see a new organization taking their place.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't just happen to be one of those apologists, would you? :lamo

eohrnberger said:

I would hazard a guess that both would be out numbered by far by mentally unstable mass shooters.

So what would justify all the prominence of the shooter's political lean then? Especially if not left?

Click to expand...

The fact that when one's "political lean" turns into cult like allegiance to radical dogma, manifestos and fusillades of gunfire, it IS for all practical purposes bat**** insanity and a textbook example of mental instability.

Are you attempting to provide plausible deniability and cover for white nationalism?
Have you ever seen me attempting to provide plausible deniability and cover for Antifa, or any other radical far-left group that advocates violence and terrorism?

Is there an homage to the Symbionese Liberation Army or The Weather Underground in my posting history?
When those groups were a matter of national visibility, journos did not hesitate to probe their far-left political leanings.
You seem upset that the shoe might be on the other foot.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

The fact that when one's "political lean" turns into cult like allegiance to radical dogma, manifestos and fusillades of gunfire, it IS for all practical purposes bat**** insanity and a textbook example of mental instability.

Are you attempting to provide plausible deniability and cover for white nationalism?
Have you ever seen me attempting to provide plausible deniability and cover for Antifa, or any other radical far-left group that advocates violence and terrorism?

Is there an homage to the Symbionese Liberation Army or The Weather Underground in my posting history?
When those groups were a matter of national visibility, journos did not hesitate to probe their far-left political leanings.
You seem upset that the shoe might be on the other foot.

Click to expand...

Its more so a criticism of the media, and not necessarily you.

"when one's "political lean" turns into cult like allegiance to radical dogma"
Seems to describe the present state of the Democrat party and their present presidential primary candidates, aided along by a corrupt and complicit media, if you ask me.

But I acknowledge that opinions would differ on that.

eohrnberger said:

Its more so a criticism of the media, and not necessarily you.

"when one's "political lean" turns into cult like allegiance to radical dogma"
Seems to describe the present state of the Democrat party and their present presidential primary candidates, aided along by a corrupt and complicit media, if you ask me.

But I acknowledge that opinions would differ on that.

Click to expand...

If you just don't like Democrats, goodie for you, I cannot take umbrage, or laugh.
But I can indeed guffaw with great gusto at your attempt to compare Democrats to mass shooters, because if you're even ten percent serious, you might as well get busy penning your own manifesto.

I already pointed out that the Dayton shooter is still in the news.
I also said that if the pattern begins to match those of far-right shooters, it will blow a hole in current theories about far-right extremism and force a rethink.

I think those are both reasonable statements, but I don't think pretending that the media is tamping down references to the Dayton shooter's lefty impulses nor comparisons of Democrats to mass shooters is the least bit so.

"You need to calm down"

Checkerboard Strangler said:

If you just don't like Democrats, goodie for you, I cannot take umbrage, or laugh.

Click to expand...

The description you provided is perfectly applicable to the democrats that I applied it to (an no, not shooters).

But I can indeed guffaw with great gusto at your attempt to compare Democrats to mass shooters, because if you're even ten percent serious, you might as well get busy penning your own manifesto.

Click to expand...

I wasn't.

I already pointed out that the Dayton shooter is still in the news.

Click to expand...

Of course the shooting is still in the news, 'if it bleeds it leads', right?

The question posed was is the El Paso's shooter's political lean as prominently reported as the Dayton shooter's political lean?

And on that count, I'm highly skeptical, and rightfully so, given the political advocacy, activism and political narrative pushing the so called 'news' media has taken on, oh for the last dozen or so years now.

I also said that if the pattern begins to match those of far-right shooters, it will blow a hole in current theories about far-right extremism and force a rethink.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but that would depend on what sort of accurate statistic are gathered about the political lean of the mass shooters, beyond their obvious mental instability. It wouldn't be accurate data based simply on the 'news' reporting nor its frequency, would it?

Also, there's the matter of the definition of 'far-right extremism', 'far-left extremism', and White Nationalism, all of which such definitions from the left are often completely vague, subject to interpretation (always the left's); AOC's latest Twitter screed being a prime example of such. Given such flexible definitions, rather easy to adapt it to always make it come out to meet and match the demands of the political narrative, isn't it?

I think those are both reasonable statements, but I don't think pretending that the media is tamping down references to the Dayton shooter's lefty impulses nor comparisons of Democrats to mass shooters is the least bit so.

Click to expand...

The political bias in the media isn't a question of 'pretending', it is a fact, amply demonstrated and worsening over the period I've highlighted above.

"You need to calm down"

Click to expand...

I am calm, and high skeptical, distrustful of the political left, and distrustful of the leftists in the government bureaucracy, of which some of their corruption has been highlighted these last few years. This is not to say that there's all that much more trust in the political right either. There isn't.

Specific to distrusting the leftists in the government bureaucracy: It is utterly un-american and anti-democratic for members of the Executive branch to feel at liberty to work against a duly elected President, whose role they take an Oath, in swearing to serve, protect and defend the Constitution, which puts them at the service of the duly and legitimately elected President.

Now what reason would there be to trust leftists in the government bureaucracy given the exhibited track record it has established for itself?

Not until various right wingers run out of arbitrary standards for the number of white supremacists who must exist for them to matter to make up for the purpose of shutting down discussion.

You all saw how Tucker Asshole Carlson announced that white supremacy is a hoax and BOOM, suddenly all the usuals are saying the same. "It's not enough to count." Says who? You? You'll just up the number the next time.

Mr Person said:

Not until various right wingers run out of arbitrary standards for the number of white supremacists who must exist for them to matter to make up for the purpose of shutting down discussion.

You all saw how Tucker Asshole Carlson announced that white supremacy is a hoax and BOOM, suddenly all the usuals are saying the same. "It's not enough to count." Says who? You? You'll just up the number the next time.

Click to expand...

Tucker Carlson's argument is laughably bad anyway; there's a great article that tackles it.

The Problem With Tucker Carlson’s White-Supremacy Riff - The Atlantic

Captain Adverse said:

One must be cautious when giving the government more power to surveil, monitor, invade privacy, etc., that in fear you give up your own privacy rights.

What can be used against extremists can also be used against the common citizen, and you wouldn't know it until too late. Anyone remember Eric Snowden and the NSA?

IMO, people should be encouraged to report concerns but not simply "suspicions." There must be a good faith belief supported by a preponderance of the evidence standard in order to start an investigation. Otherwise you'd have every gossip and busybody having anyone they disliked being checked out resulting in unnecessary harassment and wasting police time.

I don't care who allegedly raised this homily, IMO it remains true nonetheless. To paraphrase it in my own words; those who give up essential liberties to purchase temporary security, end up with neither liberty nor security.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the NSA has insured we are long past the point where the government couldn't pull up all of our electronic communications and what would these terrorist have if they had no internet? How many times a day do you suppose you are caught on a camera somewhere?

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of who is performing the act.

Memestrels said:

Tucker Carlson's argument is laughably bad anyway; there's a great article that tackles it.

The Problem With Tucker Carlson’s White-Supremacy Riff - The Atlantic

Click to expand...

I do not watch TV pundits as a rule, do not have cable anymore except for broadband internet, and so I only hear about what that imbecile says when I read about it or someone mentions him. At a certain point, I write people off. He's well past that point.

Hence his claim that if we've got 5 things to worry about, we don't have the resources to worry about the 6th. We apparently think we've got enough resources to laugh at borrowing a trillion dollars a year to fund two tax cut packages that generally don't benefit most Americans so..... why exactly can we not afford to devote more resources to domestic terrorism if that is the argument? Of course it's BS. People like him are the only reason Fox keeps Shep Smith on as a shield, in the same way WaPo has this Mark Thiessen guy and a couple others who basically import Fox/National Review/Federalist/Etc.

AProudLefty said:

How do you know which white supremacists are a threat? One out of many white supremacists mowed down people with his car.

Click to expand...

IMO their agenda is a threat to every non-white and Jewish person in the country. And they often seem to be dangerously misogynistic as well.

Please, explain to me...what is it that white supremacists want?

eohrnberger said:

And then there was the one leftist guy in Daytona, which seems to have slipped from prominence in the media.

Click to expand...

Then he's not part of this discussion, this OP thread on white supremacists then, is he?

bongsaway said:

I'm pretty sure the NSA has insured we are long past the point where the government couldn't pull up all of our electronic communications and what would these terrorist have if they had no internet? How many times a day do you suppose you are caught on a camera somewhere?

Terrorism is terrorism regardless of who is performing the act.

Click to expand...

Guns, schools, malls, vehicles, libraries, mobility, disguises....

Lursa said:

IMO their agenda is a threat to every non-white and Jewish person in the country. And they often seem to be dangerously misogynistic as well.

Please, explain to me...what is it that white supremacists want?

Click to expand...

No blacks here of course.

AProudLefty said:

No blacks here of course.

Click to expand...

I dont understand your response.

But I hope you will answer my question more directly:

Lursa said:

I dont understand your response.

But I hope you will answer my question more directly:

Please, explain to me...what is it that white supremacists want?​

Click to expand...

Again, they do not want blacks here.

To be more clear for you, they want a white country.

AProudLefty said:

Again, they do not want blacks here.

To be more clear for you, they want a white country.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Well I want to be rich. But how would I go about that?

So I guess my question wasnt clear...now that we know what they want...do they have ideas or plans for how to accomplish that? If so, what are they? Where do they publish them?

Lursa said:

Thanks.

Well I want to be rich. But how would I go about that?

So I guess my question wasnt clear...now that we know what they want...do they have ideas or plans for how to accomplish that? If so, what are they? Where do they publish them?

Click to expand...

Oh your question was clear. I think your question was an attempt to trap me into agreeing that the white supremacists are a threat to black people and Jews because of their views.
And funny you should ask how one would get rich. Would you view people who want or plan to get rich as a threat to society because some people get rich through illegal methods?

AProudLefty said:

Oh your question was clear. I think your question was an attempt to trap me into agreeing that the white supremacists are a threat to black people and Jews because of their views.
And funny you should ask how one would get rich. Would you view people who want or plan to get rich as a threat to society because some people get rich through illegal methods?

Click to expand...

Lots of ways to get rich. Some legal, some illegal. That would determine the threat, not the desire.

I think you just made my point. Dont see any 'methods' forthcoming for the white supremacists' goal.

Lursa said:

Lots of ways to get rich. Some legal, some illegal. That would determine the threat, not the desire.

I think you just made my point. Dont see any 'methods' forthcoming for the white supremacists' goal.

Click to expand...

What point? The point is that you consider all white supremacists to be a threat? Again, the question is how do you determine that? I've met my share of racists and white supremacists. I have a friend who is extremely racist and a strong Confederate flag supporter. Other than their rants, they're pretty harmless. They're even friendly with black people.

AProudLefty said:

What point? The point is that you consider all white supremacists to be a threat? Again, the question is how do you determine that? I've met my share of racists and white supremacists. I have a friend who is extremely racist and a strong Confederate flag supporter. Other than their rants, they're pretty harmless. They're even friendly with black people.

Click to expand...

The point is that I asked about their methods to achieve their goals. So I dont have that answer...altho you seem to have assumed one.

Lursa said:

The point is that I asked about their methods to achieve their goals. So I dont have that answer...altho you seem to have assumed one.

Click to expand...

Well one of the methods would be restricting immigration to white people only. That's one of their beliefs.

And also I guess this is one method out of many: :lamo