Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[darkrider2]

white mass shooters are ALWAYS mentally ill lone wolves.

It seems odd to me, that in the language following mass shootings of the sort, any level of unstable mentality in the shooter is treated as if it weren't obvious in the first place, despite nearly every shooter in memory having displayed the trait. Wouldn't by this time we'd have placed mental instability into the profile of mass shooters? Surely it comes to no surprise anymore to anyone who reads about these things.

I say this specifically because this trait is treated as if it is what makes the shooter a special case, when this is a common aspect of these events.

[Helgoland]

Clinton, showing off her initiative and political prowess, decides she doesn't even need to wait until she's elected to start abandoning her platform.

That's an intellectually dishonest way to frame it: You held it against her that she pushed TTIP, and you now hold it against her that she opposes it. You're not criticising her position, you're criticising her person. Your post would've had the same content if you'd just written 'I don't like Clinton, she's a meanie.'

Seriously, you can't react like that to politicians changing their minds. It'll just lead to politicians clinging to stupid positions to not embarass themselves, and everyone will start to act like the tea party does now.

[Shazbot]

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

[RedKing]

white mass shooters are ALWAYS mentally ill lone wolves.

It seems odd to me, that in the language following mass shootings of the sort, any level of unstable mentality in the shooter is treated as if it weren't obvious in the first place, despite nearly every shooter in memory having displayed the trait. Wouldn't by this time we'd have placed mental instability into the profile of mass shooters? Surely it comes to no surprise anymore to anyone who reads about these things.

I say this specifically because this trait is treated as if it is what makes the shooter a special case, when this is a common aspect of these events.

The problem is that mental instability is used to avoid discussing the root problem, because "well who knows why a crazy person does what they do, and besides they're SO unpredictable there's no way we could have anticipated this and intervened".

Yeah, because giving a gun to an unemployed, bitter kid with a fascination with neo-Nazism and white supremacy....no way that could end badly. But at the same time, denying a gun to someone because of their political beliefs isn't feasible or advisable.

[Zangi]

white mass shooters are ALWAYS mentally ill lone wolves.

It seems odd to me, that in the language following mass shootings of the sort, any level of unstable mentality in the shooter is treated as if it weren't obvious in the first place, despite nearly every shooter in memory having displayed the trait. Wouldn't by this time we'd have placed mental instability into the profile of mass shooters? Surely it comes to no surprise anymore to anyone who reads about these things.

I say this specifically because this trait is treated as if it is what makes the shooter a special case, when this is a common aspect of these events.

The problem is that mental instability is used to avoid discussing the root problem, because "well who knows why a crazy person does what they do, and besides they're SO unpredictable there's no way we could have anticipated this and intervened".

Yeah, because giving a gun to an unemployed, bitter kid with a fascination with neo-Nazism and white supremacy....no way that could end badly. But at the same time, denying a gun to someone because of their political beliefs isn't feasible or advisable.

Well, considering that the KKK hasn't gone and done a massacre in my recent memory, yea... you could say most people under that category won't go-off-the-deep-end and shoot up some people they don't like cause hate.

Clinton, showing off her initiative and political prowess, decides she doesn't even need to wait until she's elected to start abandoning her platform.

That's an intellectually dishonest way to frame it: You held it against her that she pushed TTIP, and you now hold it against her that she opposes it. You're not criticising her position, you're criticising her person. Your post would've had the same content if you'd just written 'I don't like Clinton, she's a meanie.'

Seriously, you can't react like that to politicians changing their minds. It'll just lead to politicians clinging to stupid positions to not embarass themselves, and everyone will start to act like the tea party does now.

On one hand, she was working directly under the administration.  It was basically part of her job to promote the TPP, else, someone else would have been chosen for the job.  There is also the fact that the Democratic side needs to show some sort of solidarity in the face of the Republicans being Republicans.  It is kinda bad politics for the administration to be seen as fractured.

On the other, I guess she is flip-flopping from her previous statements.

[SalmonGod]

I sort of agree with you guys... but I sort of don't.

It honestly didn't occur to me that she would be required to promote the TPP as part of her job within the administration.... partly because I think of the ideal politician as someone who should fight for what is right for the people they're governing, and it's really fucked up to me that they should ever actively promote something that they believe to be harmful to their people.

But I still can't ignore that she's only reversing her position now that the TPP has suffered major leaks and popular opposition to it has intensified, at the same time as positioning for the presidential election is beginning in earnest.  It's really really really hard for me to believe that she's doing this for sincere reasons.  Most of the reason I framed it the way I did is because I expect her to build a platform of opposition to the TPP during her campaign, and then immediately abandon that once elected.  Just like Obama did on government surveillance, transparency, whistleblowing, and to a more debatable extent the war on terror.  I don't have a problem with politicians changing their minds, but if I'm going to believe they're not just bending with the wind, they need to go out of their way to explain themselves.

[RedKing]

Well, if I'm in a mood to be generous, I'd say she learned from the mistake of NAFTA. And yeah, I do agree with others that promoting TPP as Sec. of State was kind of her job. Just like all the Army generals who turned into vociferous Iraq War critics upon retirement. You suck it up and tow the official line while they're paying your paycheck.


But at the same time, she's of the centrist, pro-corporate wing of the Democratic party that would inherently support TPP. So likewise, I have a hard time swallowing her newfound opposition to free trade.

[mainiac]

The "pro-corporate" wing of the Democratic party likes that shit because they figure that agenda will accomplish something.  The more lever headed supporters of NAFTA could point to substantial benefits it would offer.  TPP can't offer as much.  It's not so much learning the lessons as the situations being different.

[Sheb]

So, did anyone read that Charleston fucker's manifesto? He apparently set up a website (www.lastrhodesian.com, I kid you not) before going on his rampage.

[Angle]

From his site: “Even if my life is worth less than a speck of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.”

Well, that's nice.

How very generous of him.

Sarcasm aside, though, I think that's very illuminating. It really let's you get inside his head. He was convinced that black people were an existential threat to him and his way of life, and that he needed to do something about it - so he did. I dunno what to do about it, though. Organize a concerted effort to go into white supremacist websites and tell them they're wrong? *Shrugs*

[nenjin]

Isolate and demonize them until their speech is considered on the same level as violent jihadis.

And I include the milder but still socially acceptable speech that singles out black people as a problem in that. The whole "attack on white culture" BS that has been going on for years, that is the sanitized for media version of the hate speech they practice in private.

[FearfulJesuit]

Isolate and demonize them until their speech is considered on the same level as violent jihadis.

A significant portion of ISIS's manpower is composed of Western-born Muslims. Even if the vast majority of respectable society shuns white supremacists, it won't eliminate isolated fringe extremists like this guy- and, in many cases, apocalyptic ideologues like Dylann Roof just become more resilient under pressure, because they get an "only sane man" complex.

(I'm not saying they should be socially tolerated- they definitely shouldn't be. But ostracism can only get you so far.)

[Zangi]

Edumacation and integration during a young age goes a long way I reckon.  Ain't a silver bullet, but it'll help in the long run.

It can be harder to hate someone you've had to work with side by side on equal grounds for example.

[Helgoland]

But I still can't ignore that she's only reversing her position now that the TPP has suffered major leaks and popular opposition to it has intensified, at the same time as positioning for the presidential election is beginning in earnest.  It's really really really hard for me to believe that she's doing this for sincere reasons.

Who cares about the sincerity of reasons? It's practically a given that the Soviets didn't crush Nazi Germany because they were horrified at the concentration camps, and neither did the US - but I'm still thankful that they did and consider it the right choice. As long as it's not just a campaign stunt - and I thinkk it isn't, anti-TTIP sentiment is too wide-spread for that - her motives don't matter, her actions do.

Who would you rather have: A very moral, kind, considerate politician who is horribly ineffective, or a nasty sonofabitch who gets the job done?

[mainiac]

Well sincerity generally helps politicians do the right thing in the face of public backlash, like ramming ObamaCare and NAFTA through even though it costs them votes among the ignorant public.