Print

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

[Kagus]

Yeah, I don't know what to do about the picture other than rehosting it myself on a slightly-less-shit site... It's not even showing properly on my phone, so it's not really a regional issue.


Anyways, to mention the Christchurch shooter again, there seems to be some amount of agreement with my blind guess that his manifesto was in it for the memes. I think that kinda makes it worse than just being a fanatic Trump/Breivik/PewDiePie worshiper.

Notorious hacker 4Chan is expected to comment on his sibling's descent into violent madness.

EDIT: And for something actually a bit more thread-relevant, no war crimes here, so don't even bother looking!

[Jopax]

Eh, why even bother doing that, not like the US even allows its soldiers to be tried at the Haague, because they're so obviously good and righteous that there's no way any of them could be war criminals.

[Kagus]

Eh, why even bother doing that, not like the US even allows its soldiers to be tried at the Haague, because they're so obviously good and righteous that there's no way any of them could be war criminals.

We just want to make sure they don't waste resources sending people to "investigate" the wholly innocent US when they could be out digging up the REAL criminals elsewhere in the world!

Like, uh... North Korasia, or Syrghanistan. Or the Democratic Republic of the Bongo!


You see, they're actually furthering international interests by preventing the ICC from investigating the US.

[PTTG??]

I never thought I'd see the day a US President endorsed a mass shooter.

[Kagus]

I never thought I'd see the day a US President endorsed a mass shooter.

Wait, what? All I'd heard was that he'd denounced the attacks, but didn't consider white nationalists to be sizable or influential enough group to warrant concern. What's this about endorsing?

[PTTG??]

He said that White Nationalism isn't increasing (it is), and he used the shooter's rhetoric (referring to immigrants as "invaders"), and did so within hours of the shooting (and the manifesto being publicized).

In fact, he not only used the term, he emphasized that "People hate the word ‘invasion,’ but that’s what it is." You can hear him responding to an aide telling him not to use the word, and him doing it anyway.

[Hanslanda]

Link to the relevant speech please?

[PTTG??]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/434212-trump-issues-first-veto-on-emergency-declaration

During his veto of the wall blocking bill.

Imagine if, on September 12th, 2001, George Bush said, in a speech about trade negotiations, "The US is a, perhaps the, Great Satan of the world." Would he still be in office at the end of the day?

[MrRoboto75]

Trump has been describing immigration of brown people as an invasion for a good while now.

[Kagus]

Are you a Vulcan athlete? Because that's an incredible leap of logic.


I can't help but feel we're reading different documents, because I cannot understand how Trump being a dick about the Mexican border again is somehow equal to the president saying "The US is a, perhaps the, Great Satan of the world". Does it make the US one of the "Great Satan"s of the world? I mean, sure, if it wasn't already... But what on earth does that have to do with the president giving a speech condemning his own country? Just, what?

Nor do I see the connection between "I'm calling Mexican immigration an invasion again" and "I endorse the efforts of the guy shooting up mosques in New Zealand". Especially seeing as it would have to counteract the other statements he made specifically not endorsing the efforts of the guy shooting up mosques in New Zealand.


Listen, I don't like Trump. Nearly everyone here hates the dork. Most of the conservative republicans in here don't like Trump. He's done a lot of incredibly stupid, incredibly horrible shit.

But if you blow things out of proportion to the point of basically fabricating new issues, you hurt the legitimacy of actual complaints against him. By accusing him of something he didn't do, you're not making him into an even worse baddie, you're making the fucker into a martyr. Please don't. It just makes us look bad.

[PTTG??]

Fuck that. Trump's rhetoric caused this catastrophe, and he knows it and refuses to back down. He needs to face consequences for his stochastic terrorism.

(If it makes the comparison works for you, pretend Bush said the US was a Great Satan for allowing abortion or something. Still impossible to imagine. Yet, that doesn't seem quite right. Is it better if the Hypothetical Bush was calling for someone to "make the USA pay," beforehand?)

[Rolan7]

I understand the perils of exaggerating, but Trump's "invader" rhetoric isn't as innocent as it might look.  His speeches are full of dog-whistles to racists, but this isn't even a dog-whistle.  It's the plain, outright xenophobic language used to justify military action against refugees.  Like when he talked about the caravans of "invaders" piling up on our border, and sent the military to deal with them, and pre-emptively downplayed whatever might happen as a result.

He isn't literally saying that the shooter was justified.  He's just saying the same things, in the same language.  And it's not a mistake, it's because he's advised by actual literal racists.  They offer him these populist and xenophobic phrases, and he uses them because they work on him.  Like they do on the xenophobic part of his base.  It's not an *accident*, it's the result of decades of very talented speechwriters/influencers/whatever.

[Starver]

He said that White Nationalism isn't increasing (it is), and he used the shooter's rhetoric (referring to immigrants as "invaders"), and did so within hours of the shooting (and the manifesto being publicized).

In the same statement!

Trump called the terror attack a "horrible, horrible thing" and said he called the PM to convey US "sorrow," then turned to “crimes of all kinds coming through our southern border.” He added, "People hate the word invasion, but that’s what it is.”

[Max™]

Look, white nationalism isn't a threat, it's just a small group of people, and I'm sure some of them are very fine people, superior people even.

[Reelya]

Fuck that. Trump's rhetoric caused this catastrophe, and he knows it and refuses to back down. He needs to face consequences for his stochastic terrorism.

Uh, dude, if you go around exaggerating things then he's exponentially less likely to have to face any consequences. If you list 10 accurate bad things he said or did, but add one inaccurate or stretched-logic one to the end of the list, guess which one is going to get 90% of the attention? It's not the 10 correct things you said first.

It's the same sort of logic people used for the "Obama is a communistical black-power marxist" stuff. Obama supporters merely had to counter the list of wildly inaccurate claims, then Obama got a halo around him, getting a free pass from just about everyone on the actual wrong-things his administration was doing.

The fact is, drawing long-shot arguments only undermines any legitimate complaints you might have, since people can collate a "big list of lies you made about <politician X>" with fairly convincing arguments for each one.