Army.ca Forums

The Mess => Radio Chatter => Topic started by: Colin P on March 16, 2019, 10:38:06

Title: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Colin P on March 16, 2019, 10:38:06
The timing is fortuitous for the Liberals and their gun control agenda, you be sure they won't let this go to waste.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Furniture on March 16, 2019, 11:27:20
The timing is fortuitous for the Liberals and their gun control agenda, you be sure they won't let this go to waste.

Which will essentially be giving the nutjob exactly what he wants. His stated goal was to drive an even deeper wedge between the "left" and the "right" in the culture war, while also pushing to expand the racial divide. Pushing through another round of useless gun laws won't stop gangbangers from killing each other and innocent civilians, nor will it stop a nutjob from killing those they want dead.

The media it seems wants to help his goals along by pushing the idea that there is a huge group of white nationalists hiding around every corner waiting to gun down everybody that doesn't look like them, or worship in the same way. The far scarier situation is there are a few motivated, prepared, isolated(in that they don't operate in cells), and internet/self-radicalized crazies out there, and when they act they do it in a devastating way. Just like in Quebec city, Norway, and now unfortunately Christchurch.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 12:03:09
I wish people would stop using the term 'white nationalist'. We're essentially adding our own islamaphobia tag to ourselves. While all other 'nationalist' monikers are essentially pride and celebrations of race, black nationalist, japanese nationalist and all other nationalists movements are good things.

Why is 'white nationalist' the only one with negative racial overtones?

You're playing the liberal globalist game every time you use the phrase. It was made up by the left to demonize Trump when he said he was a nationalist, not a globalist.

Keep it up and it'll end up pigeonholing every white European that ever came here.

This does nothing more than lend credence to the left's other disgusting, false mantra of white privilege.

How about 'white' nationalism is the same as all the other nationalisms, except a different colour or race.

I consider myself a nationalist. I have since I was a wee lad. I'm proud of my country, our history and heritage. I'm a patriot.

I'm not a skinhead, a white supremacist, a neo nazi or anything close to that ilk. No matter how certain individuals try to paint me.

I belong to the world's largest fraternal organization and we don't see colour, religion, race or politics. We see the man, nothing more, nothing less.

So why is 'white' nationalism the only one that is bad and all other colour and race nationalism is looked at as good and attainable?

Were the black panthers and blm ever called black nationalists? They are modern equivalents of black racism, espousing white genocide, kind of a black KKK. Nationalists? Hardly. Black supremacists and anarchists for sure, but not nationalists.

Stop bastardizing the language to fit an agenda of people that want the country broken up.

 
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 12:22:09
I wish people would stop using the term 'white nationalist'. We're essentially adding our own islamaphobia tag to ourselves. While all other 'nationalist' monikers are essentially pride and celebrations of race, black nationalist, japanese nationalist and all other nationalists movements are good things.

Why is 'white nationalist' the only one with negative racial overtones?

You're playing the liberal globalist game every time you use the phrase. It was made up by the left to demonize Trump when he said he was a nationalist, not a globalist.

Keep it up and it'll end up pigeonholing every white European that ever came here.

This does nothing more than lend credence to the left's other disgusting, false mantra of white privilege.

How about 'white' nationalism is the same as all the other nationalisms, except a different colour or race.

I consider myself a nationalist. I have since I was a wee lad. I'm proud of my country, our history and heritage. I'm a patriot.

I'm not a skinhead, a white supremacist, a neo nazi or anything close to that ilk. No matter how certain individuals try to paint me.

I belong to the world's largest fraternal organization and we don't see colour, religion, race or politics. We see the man, nothing more, nothing less.

So why is 'white' nationalism the only one that is bad and all other colour and race nationalism is looked at as good and attainable?

Were the black panthers and blm ever called black nationalists? They are modern equivalents of black racism, espousing white genocide, kind of a black KKK. Nationalists? Hardly. Black supremacists and anarchists for sure, but not nationalists.

Stop bastardizing the language to fit an agenda of people that want the country broken up.

Did you not learn anything the first time I ripped this apart? Must we do this dance again? Nobody is ‘painting’ you anything, so you can stick the victim card back in the deck. You are merely exposing a willfully ignorant view of some very ugly modern history, and you’re trying to parse language in such a way that terms you don’t like lose a perjorative meaning through deliberate obfuscation- but that doesn’t fly either.

I’ll refer to my prior post (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,129875.msg1562594.html#msg1562594) on this matter. You didn’t like it the first time and you won’t like it now, but after the fuss you kicked up the first time it’s still there and I never got a word about it from the admins, so it seems it’s good to go. I stand by my words. If you keep posting this apologist nonsense, you can expect to keep hearing replies.

I had thought you would at least have the self awareness and good sense to just awkwardly stay out of this particular point (white nationalism) on this particular mass slaughter, but apparently not. Pity.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 12:31:13
You are as much at fault for allowing this stupidity and condemning those asking for equal time. You have no moral authority on the subject. Didn't learn the last time? From you? :rofl: You spent more time in your last post attacking me than the point of the post.

You always take the opportunity to paint me as something I'm not. You don't like me so you resort to constant character assassination. You want everyone to believe I'm a white supremacist or a far right nutjob. Some likely will, but the majority of the sensible people know you're just making crap up.

I'm not going to second guess the mods. If they found nothing wrong with my previous post, that should be YOUR indicator that you're view ISN'T the only one. Just as they never take you to task for attacking me instead of the argument. This is three times this week you've attacked me with impunity. You are now totally immaterial to anything I wish to discuss. Back to ignore so you can go bang the drums or something.



As for White Supremacists, the numbers are even smaller, there is perhaps 5,000 KKK in the US with a smattering of other groups maybe pushing that number over 10,000.



.........and one here!!! :rofl:

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 13:38:21
You are as much at fault for allowing this stupidity and condemning those asking for equal time. You have no moral authority on the subject. Didn't learn the last time? From you? :rofl: You spent more time in your last post attacking me than the point of the post.

You always take the opportunity to paint me as something I'm not. You don't like me so you resort to constant character assassination. You want everyone to believe I'm a white supremacist or a far right nutjob. Some likely will, but the majority of the sensible people know you're just making crap up.

I'm not going to second guess the mods. If they found nothing wrong with my previous post, that should be YOUR indicator that you're view ISN'T the only one. Just as they never take you to task for attacking me instead of the argument. This is three times this week you've attacked me with impunity. You are now totally immaterial to anything I wish to discuss. Back to ignore so you can go bang the drums or something.

.........and one here!!! :rofl:

Again, you are not a victim. Stop acting like one.

I have never called you, attempted to paint you as, nor in any way insinuated that you are a “white supremacist” nor a “far right nutjob”. Had I done either, the admin team would have been on my like a fat kid on a cupcake, and rightly so. I have consistently challenged only your claims and arguments, and I have done so with analysis and with verifiable facts, something you have incorrectly characterized as ‘ad hominem’, a total misapplication of that logical fallacy, and one whose irony I think escapes you now. I have on a couple of occasions expressed concern about what you have picked for sources and you took that as a personal attack, but that’s not my problem. That’s how I deal with things I disagree with; I come back with a reasoned counter. Absolutely there have times where I have come back snidely and on a few occasions somewhat condescendingly, and I’ll own that- but it’s the exception. As to what others believe about you? Not my business, and I don’t care.

Nor do I ‘always take the opportunity’ to ‘paint you as something”, or even to rely at all. I don’t follow you around. I ignore most of your posts by simply not replying. Only rarely do I engage with you, and that where you say something particularly inaccurate, AND where I can back up what I would say in reply.

I like this site and I think there’s generally a pretty good level of discourse. When a I see something that I think is wrong and worthy enough of my time - either because it inherently interests me, or because I’m concerned about others being misled by misrepresentations - I will reply. If you don’t like having your opinions or arguments challenged, that’s unfortunate, but it’s our problem and not mine. If you’re going to try to either dismiss the notion of or make apologetics for white nationalism in a thread about a slaughter at a mosque, you can expect that to be challenged, and it happened to be me.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming. I simply was not going to let an *actual* attack on character - mine in this case - go unchallenged. Admins, this tangent might be most suitably split off into a different board, and I apologize for it having been necessary to engage in this again.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: TechCrmn on March 16, 2019, 14:03:50
Hey Guys,

I think that the term is being used or at least misinterpreted by both sides to some degree and is likely what what is causing the conflict, or at least I think so.

If we begin by looking at the meaning of the word Nationalist is says:

Nationalist (google search) - "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

So before we even assign a describing word ie. white, black, american, etc. we can see that a Nationalist is someone who strongly supports their nation and especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Now we add a describing word.

White Nationalist - a  White (the nation) person who strongly identifies with their own nation(whites) and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations (other nations being other races)." To me this sounds like someone who could be considered a racist or at the least discriminatory because they are basing their nationalism strictly on the basis of race or colour, hence White Nationalist.

Canadian Nationalist - a Canadian person who strongly identifies with their own nation(Canada) and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." (other nations being other Countries or ways of life differing from the Canadian way of life).

Maybe what Fishbones Jones means is that he is a Canadian Nationalist or even just a patriot, or maybe still a White Nationalist, I don't know. My point is, that many people use terms with out knowing the exact definitions which causes arguments to arise even though you might actually be like-minded. Maybe that is what is happening in this case as well, maybe not.

Personally, I would consider myself a Canadian Patriot, and not a Canadian nationalist because I don't particularly agree with the latter point of the definition which reads "especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriot -  "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors."
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 14:20:23
TechCrmn,

That's more than possible. I subscribe to being a white nationalist in the same way of all the rest of the colours / nationalities do. Why can they call themselves nationalists in all piety, but as soon as it's caucasian, it's damning and horrendous. This is the same nonsense as those that subscribe to different decades and centuries old handsignals like the OK sign or the 'V' sign being in support of white supremacists. If you don't wave right and your caucasian, you're KKK. Utter stupidity and I'll say anyone that subscribes to that theory shouldn't have a job requiring a brain. Perhaps they should carry luggage or something, like a bellhop. Pick that up, go where your told.

I'm proud of my race and country. I'm condemning no one. Not unless they try change things against the will of the people of my country, just like any other good and lawful citizen.

In the interest of ending this sidetrack from people that can't think outside the box or for themselves, Patriot it is.

Tanks!
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 14:23:06
Hey Guys,

I think that the term is being used or at least misinterpreted by both sides to some degree and is likely what what is causing the conflict, or at least I think so.

If we begin by looking at the meaning of the word Nationalist is says:

Nationalist (google search) - "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

So before we even assign a describing word ie. white, black, american, etc. we can see that a Nationalist is someone who strongly supports their nation and especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Now we add a describing word.

White Nationalist - a  White (the nation) person who strongly identifies with their own nation(whites) and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations (other nations being other races)." To me this sounds like someone who could be considered a racist or at the least discriminatory because they are basing their nationalism strictly on the basis of race or colour, hence White Nationalist.

Canadian Nationalist - a Canadian person who strongly identifies with their own nation(Canada) and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." (other nations being other Countries or ways of life differing from the Canadian way of life).

Maybe what Fishbones Jones means is that he is a Canadian Nationalist or even just a patriot, or maybe still a White Nationalist, I don't know. My point is, that many people use terms with out knowing the exact definitions which causes arguments to arise even though you might actually be like-minded. Maybe that is what is happening in this case as well, maybe not.

Personally, I would consider myself a Canadian Patriot, and not a nationalist because I don't particularly agree with the latter point of the definition which reads "especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

Patriot -  "a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors."

I’m not taking any issue with him describing himself as a ‘nationalist’, particularly as in his case he has made clear that he sees that as synonymous with ‘patriot’. There are a lot of historical problems with trying to define it that narrowly, but that’s an aside. If he wants to call himself a ‘nationalist’ that’s no skin off my back.

The genesis of this particular conflict is that in a previous discussion a few weeks back (I linked i in my reply), he tried to extend that same narrow definition to argue that “white nationalism” is a misuse, which he achieved by artificially separating and parsing each word separately.  I corrected him rather forcefully on the point, using the same dictionary reference that he had initially used for ‘nationalism’, and which you appear to have also used. Essentially he refuses to accept that “white nationalism” has its own very real and dark meaning, and that the inclusion of “nationalism”, which in his expressed opinion just means “patriotism” does not water down that ugly thing just because that one word in a frictionless vacuum can be argued as benign.

And then that particular point of contention occurred in the context of us having butted heads for years, and us not being on each others’ Christmas card list.

In any case I will forcefully argue any claim that tries to diminish white nationalism as being anything but the malignant and increasingly murderous phenomenon that it is.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 14:26:10
 :not-again:

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 14:32:50
I subscribe to being a white nationalist in the same way of all the rest of the colours / nationalities do. Why can they call themselves nationalists in all piety, but as soon as it's caucasian, it's damning and horrendous.

If you’re going to “subscribe to being a white nationalist”, it is probably very much in your interest to really digest all that that self-identification entails. Ignorance has not been an excuse for a long time now. You don’t get to call yourself a “white nationalist” and then try to change what the term actually means.

“White nationalist” =/= “patriot”. Relabelling the one does not mean synonymity with the other. “White nationalist” does not mean “a Canadian patriot who happens to be white”. Never has, never will. If what you mean is that you want a state and society that enshrines and advances whiteness, to the exclusion of others, then that is being a white nationalist. If that is not what you mean, you cannot twist “white nationalist” until it fits another definition.

So which is it? I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you’re still honesty struggling to understand why “white nationalism” is something other than what you believe it to be, and maybe it’s just your dislike of me personally as the messenger that is standing in the way of that realization and acceptance. But because you’ve just gone and self identified with “white nationalism” on a forum full of serving members of the military, I think clarity is owed here.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: TechCrmn on March 16, 2019, 14:44:57
Haha ok, I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation, at first glance it appeared as if the quarrel was the result of a simple misunderstanding. Its apparent that the two of you have quite the history and passion on the topic and have no use for my commentary :) I hope one day you two can come to an understanding, but what fun would that be ;)
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 14:51:24
Haha ok, I will respectfully withdraw from this conversation, at first glance it appeared as if the quarrel was the result of a simple misunderstanding. Its apparent that the two of you have quite the history and passion on the topic and have no use for my commentary :) I hope one day you two can come to an understanding, but what fun would that be ;)

All good, not your fault for not having the background. Have a good one.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 15:02:55
Back on topic, in the interest of “how does this happen?”

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-christchurch-manifesto-the-weaponization-of-the-internets-ranting-troll-culture?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0xeqbWFFYSHrcuRH3t6FV4YNuniQwyUlKjTFGC_BHrUKQzIzsQKyzzaQc#Echobox=1552707680

The Christchurch manifesto: a weaponization of the internet’s ranting troll culture
Adrian Humphreys
March 16, 2019 1:05 AM EDT

There is a dark and terrible line between a rant and a manifesto and it increasingly seems to be mass murder.

The gunman who killed 49 people in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on Friday, allegedly mapped out his five-step process: train, plan, settle affairs, write a manifesto, then kill.

He wouldn’t start killing without one.

A manifesto was so important to him, he wrote 240 pages and then, in a spasm of self-doubt, deleted it and began again, two weeks before his rampage. Or so claims the 74-page document Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian, allegedly released online shortly before the shooting started.

And so we have “The Great Replacement: Towards a New Society,” a digital document titled like a political science treatise, looking like a high school journal, positioned as an ideological manifesto but coming off as a cut-and-paste online rant.

It reads exactly like what it appears to be: the weaponization of the internet’s culture of trolling, ranting, “shitposts” and memes, the culmination of long, demoralizing hours watching online videos, reading anonymous forums, following conspiracy theories and conferring with selected Wikipedia entries.

He even presents much of the material in the form of a FAQ, one of the oldest internet conventions of asking and answering your own frequently asked questions.

“From where did you receive/research/develop your beliefs?” he asks himself. His answer couldn’t be less surprising: “The internet, of course. You will not find the truth anywhere else.”

And the power of what he found is clear. He recounts his own radicalization to the white nationalist cause and encourages others to fan the flames of race war online through mimicking what he is himself mimicking in an echochamber of racial violence.

“Create memes, post memes, and spread memes. Memes have done more for the ethnonationalist movement than any manifesto,” the Christchurch treatise says.

He takes his own advice, deviating occasionally from pseudo-serious lecturing to cut-and-paste internet insider jokes, sarcasm and even repetitive joke-replies from the online forums he frequented.

Alongside the written manifesto, the gunman left a selfie video by livestreaming his attack on the internet and, reportedly, starts with one of the biggest throws in today’s internet culture by reminding viewers to “subscribe to PewDiePie,” a huge but controversial YouTube star.

And his chosen forum for distributing his manifesto was also he world he apparently inhabited. It was uploaded to 8chan, an internet forum where anonymous posters create their own content threads with immense leeway over subject matter. 8chan was created to combat censorship in other online forums.

The manifesto spends pages describing the intent of his attacks, a chronicle of grievances that boil down to fear of non-European immigrants, characterizing it as “an invasion.”

“Mass immigration will disenfranchise us, subvert our nations, destroy our communities, destroy our ethnic binds, destroy our cultures, destroy our peoples,” it says.

“If not combated” it “will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people.”

He gallops from writing of a “civilizational paradigm shift” to the hysterics of all-capital letters rants of “This is WHITE GENOCIDE.” He complains of Westerners converting to Islam, calling them “blood traitors to their own race,” which evokes both Hitler’s policies and Harry Potter subplots.

And in case there is any doubt, he recites (a slightly misquoted) version of the notorious “14 word” slogan of the white nationalist movement: “We must ensure the existence of our people, and a future for white children.” He says he is neither a Nazi nor a neo-Nazi but is a fascist.

His writing is roadmap to his version of his radicalization story. Fuelled by what he found attractive online and making some money dealing in cryptocurrency, he says he traveled widely.

His hatred burned when he visited France and saw Muslim immigrants “in every french town…no matter how small.”

“WHY WON’T SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING?” he writes. “WHY DON’T I DO SOMETHING?” He started thinking he would be a man to take violent action to help spur a race war, he writes.

He drew inspiration from others in his milieu, including other notorious mass murderers who had similar motivations.

The Christchurch manifesto directly refers to him reading the manifestos left by Anders Breivik, a Norwegian far-right anti-immigration terrorist who killed 77 people in 2011, and Dylann Roof, an American who shot and killed nine people in 2015’s Charleston church shooting in South Carolina.

Breivik’s manifesto, presenting like a university thesis, stretched to 1515 pages.

In Friday’s manifesto, the two prior killers are admiringly called “ethno soldiers” and “freedom fighters”, and he claims he even received “a blessing for my mission” from Breivik.

He also gives a qualified nod of approval to U.S. President Donald Trump.

“Are you a supporter of Donald Trump?” he asks himself. “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no,” he answers.

It all shows how action and words can inspire others to emulation, even when the outcome is a horror show of pain.

He also shows his inspiration, both in his chosen title but much of its content, from right-wing French polemicist Renaud Camus who, in 2012, published Grand Remplacement, or “Great Replacement” in English. It outlines his view on how the ethnic French are being ousted and replaced by immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.

“It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates,” says the Christchurch manifesto, echoing Camus’ premise.

He says at the start of his manifesto that if people remember only one thing, it must be that the Western world’s lower birthrate mean it is being subsumed by mass immigration and higher birthrates of “the immigrants.”

Camus, now 72, told The Washington Post Friday that although he condemns the Christchurch attack but is glad “that people take notice of the ethnic substitution that is in progress in my country.”

The manifesto fits a pattern of extremists, say scholars of extremist violence.

“Many attackers across the ideological spectrum have left manifestos of some form — whether written documents or videos. But far-right attackers do have a tendency to write very long screeds,” said Amarnath Amarasingam, a senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue at the University of Waterloo.

“They exist largely to articulate the reasons for their actions for new audiences who are desperate for motive, make a bunch of disparate and nebulous ideas coherent for supporters, and leave a written testament so they will be remembered.”

Simplified messages gussied up in flowery language or academic presentation are appealing to those already sympathetic to their cause, said Kamran Bokhari, a lecturer on countering violent extremism with the Center for Global Policy in Washington and the University of Ottawa.

“Extremist groups are not in the business of conversation they are in the business of staking out their ideas, stoking fears and apprehensions,” said Bokhari.

“They need to justify their action. How? They are not going to appeal to broader society but that’s not their target audience, you think they are a hopeless cause. You want to be able to at least tell people who think like you, or somewhat sympathetic to you.”

Despite his jokes and internet savvy, the manifesto’s author offers a dark and stark coda for his actions.

“Do you feel any remorse for the attack?” he asks himself.

“No, I only wish I could have killed more invaders, and more traitors as well.” Was
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 16, 2019, 15:14:37
Jesus Jones, you can beat the same drum all you want, but "white nationalist" is used by Nazis and other hate groups as a label to obscure the fact that they are white supremacists. You're continuing insistence otherwise smacks of being obtuse or purposefully ignorant.

White nationalists are Nazis. They are one of the extremist groups who are a poison that needs to be cut out of society.

Given that we went to war with Nazis for being Nazis, personally think Nazis, white supremacist/nationalists and others of their ilk are traitors and should be treated as such.

Feel free to read any dictionary or encyclopedia to see why 'white nationalists' isn't what you claim it to be. This constant us vs them is pretty stupid, but people being proud of being white and thinking that somehow a whole group of people with completely different cultures, languages and values are somehow a group that should band together based on a lack of melanin is beyond me.  I have more in common with any Canadian than I do with any Brit, Afrikaaner, Eastern European etc, so while I'm not ashamed of my roots, I can't figure out any good reason for that to be a point of division, or have some kind of referred pride for things other people that looked like me did. I take pride in what I've done and how I live my life; but that's it.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 15:21:58
If you’re going to “subscribe to being a white nationalist”, it is probably very much in your interest to really digest all that that self-identification entails. Ignorance has not been an excuse for a long time now. You don’t get to call yourself a “white nationalist” and then try to change what the term actually means.

“White nationalist” =/= “patriot”. Relabelling the one does not mean synonymity with the other. “White nationalist” does not mean “a Canadian patriot who happens to be white”. Never has, never will. If what you mean is that you want a state and society that enshrines and advances whiteness, to the exclusion of others, then that is being a white nationalist. If that is not what you mean, you cannot twist “white nationalist” until it fits another definition.

So which is it? I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you’re still honesty struggling to understand why “white nationalism” is something other than what you believe it to be, and maybe it’s just your dislike of me personally as the messenger that is standing in the way of that realization and acceptance. But because you’ve just gone and self identified with “white nationalism” on a forum full of serving members of the military, I think clarity is owed here.

 ::)

Seriously? YOU want me to explain to you? Clarity, discussion? With you?  ::) I'm not struggling to understand anything. You are the one that keeps bringing it back. I doubt the membership here thinks me a white supremacist for using that term, like everyone else in the world uses it for their own nationality, race and culture. Most everyone but you that is. This is your agenda bucko. Shove off. You simply don't rate any discussion, or explanation, on my end. Let alone take direction from you and do as you demand. What you think is immaterial to me. And me not answering you should not be misconstrued for agreement with your bias. Fini.

Mods, I've tried to leave this and I will after this point. As I don't R2M anymore, it needs doing in the open. You may delete whatever you think is false or inappropriate for a response to my detractor.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 15:33:24
Jesus Jones, you can beat the same drum all you want, but "white nationalist" is used by Nazis and other hate groups as a label to obscure the fact that they are white supremacists. You're continuing insistence otherwise smacks of being obtuse or purposefully ignorant.

White nationalists are Nazis. They are one of the extremist groups who are a poison that needs to be cut out of society.

Given that we went to war with Nazis for being Nazis, personally think Nazis, white supremacist/nationalists and others of their ilk are traitors and should be treated as such.

Feel free to read any dictionary or encyclopedia to see why 'white nationalists' isn't what you claim it to be. This constant us vs them is pretty stupid, but people being proud of being white and thinking that somehow a whole group of people with completely different cultures, languages and values are somehow a group that should band together based on a lack of melanin is beyond me.  I have more in common with any Canadian than I do with any Brit, Afrikaaner, Eastern European etc, so while I'm not ashamed of my roots, I can't figure out any good reason for that to be a point of division, or have some kind of referred pride for things other people that looked like me did. I take pride in what I've done and how I live my life; but that's it.

Hey that car is red, no it's maroon. C'est la vie, C'est la guerre, c'est la pomme de terre. Now why would that be? Why would caucasion pride, white pride or Canada pride mean something 180 degrees opposite of every other single meaning of the word or phrase nationalist/ pride? Why would that be, why can't it go back to what it was. It'll never change if it's never challenged. The left will use it like a hammer as they are now and as I'm being lectured here? So, do we cower, acquiesce, hang our heads in shame over being patriotic? Because someone has decided that the word is toxic only if used in conjunction with caucasions? I am proud and patriotic and white and that's why I refuse to be labelled by gits.

I've never been good with groupthink.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 16, 2019, 15:34:20
If you’re going to “subscribe to being a white nationalist”, it is probably very much in your interest to really digest all that that self-identification entails. Ignorance has not been an excuse for a long time now. You don’t get to call yourself a “white nationalist” and then try to change what the term actually means.

For me all race is is a matter of environmental factors and mutation. People from desert climate developed differently than those in Europe or the Himalayas. I find the notion of being proud of your race is weird because it's nothing you have control over. It's like being proud you have brown eyes - who cares.

To other people it's important to them and they're proud of it, more power to them and I respect their views on it.

My opinion on race aside I personally think there IS a double standard in our society when it comes to people being proud of their gender and race. (There's even a difference between white/black nationalist in the dictionary I posted here)

If I'm a proud black man then that's celebrated. Gay and proud? More power to me.
If I'm a proud white male then I feel there's an assumption I'm racist and/or misogynistic. Proud and straight? I must be homophobic.

Am I wrong?

What does this have to do with the conversation? If we as a society attack white males for being white males then it's going to breed animosity and feed hate groups or nationalist groups or whatever they're called. We all know what happens when we "treat soldiers like children"- they feed off it and act like it. It's just a hypothesis but I think the double standard I mentioned is at least in-part enabling some of these groups.  Maybe our whole society and how we treat each other has to change. Stop feeding into the left vs right (which I'm guilty of I admit, and working on).
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 15:37:03
::)

Seriously? YOU want me to explain to you? Clarity, discussion? With you?  ::) I'm not struggling to understand anything. You are the one that keeps bringing it back. I doubt the membership here thinks me a white supremacist for using that term, like everyone else in the world uses it for their own nationality, race and culture. Most everyone but you that is. This is your agenda bucko. Shove off. You simply don't rate any discussion, or explanation, on my end. Let alone take direction from you and do as you demand. What you think is immaterial to me. And me not answering you should not be misconstrued for agreement with your bias. Fini.

Mods, I've tried to leave this and I will after this point. As I don't R2M anymore, it needs doing in the open. You may delete whatever you think is false or inappropriate for a response to my detractor.

I suspect that what I think is not immaterial to you or you’d not have announced that you’re ignoring me twice in a week, and then come back increasingly irate for my next challenge to your position. But that’s by the by.

And yes, that’s what I want. In your post that I quoted you “subscribe to white nationalism”, your words. I want to know what that means to you, because what we see it meaning in the world in this day and age is normally pretty awful. You know it doesn’t mean merely being a patriot, yet you claim it anyway. I did not previously have the benefit of knowing that you claim that term for yourself. Now it makes your very evident angst on the subject of “white nationalism”, as the rest of us see it, much more clear.

If you think I’m the only one wondering, you’re wrong. If you don’t like being challenged on it, too bad. You chose to post, you chose to reply, you chose your words. Being called on it is just the inevitable result. You are not a victim. You don’t get to claim this forum as a ‘safe space’ where your words are immune to challenge.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 15:38:10
For me all race is is a matter of environmental factors and mutation. People from desert climate developed differently than those in Europe or the Himalayas. I find the notion of being proud of your race is weird because it's nothing you have control over. It's like being proud you have brown eyes - who cares.

To other people it's important to them and they're proud of it, more power to them and I respect their views on it.

My opinion on race aside I personally think there IS a double standard in our society when it comes to people being proud of their gender and race. (There's even a difference between white/black nationalist in the dictionary I posted here)

If I'm a proud black man then that's celebrated. Gay and proud? More power to me.
If I'm a proud white male then I feel there's an assumption I'm racist and/or misogynistic. Proud and straight? I must be homophobic.

Am I wrong?

What does this have to do with the conversation? If we as a society attack white males for being white males then it's going to breed animosity and feed hate groups or nationalist groups or whatever they're called. We all know what happens when we "treat soldiers like children"- they feed off it and act like it. It's just a hypothesis but I think the double standard I mentioned is at least in-part enabling some of these groups.  Maybe our whole society and how we treat each other has to change. Stop feeding into the left vs right (which I'm guilty of I admit, and working on).


No. You are not wrong.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 16, 2019, 16:03:43
My opinion on race aside I personally think there IS a double standard in our society when it comes to people being proud of their gender and race. (There's even a difference between white/black nationalist in the dictionary I posted here)

If I'm a proud black man then that's celebrated. Gay and proud? More power to me.
If I'm a proud white male then I feel there's an assumption I'm racist and/or misogynistic. Proud and straight? I must be homophobic.

Am I wrong?


You aren't wrong, but you are ignoring the historical context.  Taking pride in being black, gay, native, female etc is a counter to literally generations of people being told they were lesser because of it. And while that's diminished to some extent, it's still quite prevalent, and in a lot of cases, just below the surface. So it's a direct counter to that. Given that these are things that have affected people for generations, it's going to take a long time to fix.

Similarly, the historical context for people saying they proud of being white and straight was that was why they are better than someone. White pride in inextricably tangled up in White supremacy. Pretending otherwise is being ignorant.

So yes, there is a double standard. But considering black men are regularly gunned down by cops, gay people are still being beaten to death for being who they are, and women are always looking over their shoulder, I don't think that's something that needs sorted out until everyone is actually on an equal footing.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 16:24:28
Perfectly put. It’s pride in something that has historically made groups of people both alike, and also made them victims- with a lot of prejudice and, sadly, still some violence as a result. That’s why the definitions you see applied are so different, and why there are negative connotations for some that are lesser or absent for others.

There’s also a difference between group identities, and an exclusionary nationalism based on those identities. The latter is in my opinion morally wrong in all cases, whether it’s white nationalism in the west or similar but opposite manifestations in places like Zimbabwe.

I hold the belief that in a free country, the state should be blind to colour, race, or religion. It’s idealistic to an arguably foolish extent, I know. But we have enough real differences already without having to drive wedges in more of them.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Furniture on March 16, 2019, 16:27:48
You aren't wrong, but you are ignoring the historical context.  Taking pride in being black, gay, native, female etc is a counter to literally generations of people being told they were lesser because of it. And while that's diminished to some extent, it's still quite prevalent, and in a lot of cases, just below the surface. So it's a direct counter to that. Given that these are things that have affected people for generations, it's going to take a long time to fix.

Similarly, the historical context for people saying they proud of being white and straight was that was why they are better than someone. White pride in inextricably tangled up in White supremacy. Pretending otherwise is being ignorant.

So yes, there is a double standard. But considering black men are regularly gunned down by cops, gay people are still being beaten to death for being who they are, and women are always looking over their shoulder, I don't think that's something that needs sorted out until everyone is actually on an equal footing.

Society as a whole seems to think about it the way you do as well. That has led us to the point where a very small minority of white men are lashing out at being told(or perceiving they are being told) they can't express "pride" in their race, or ancestral origins.

So yes, there is a double standard. But considering black men are regularly gunned down by cops, gay people are still being beaten to death for being who they are, and women are always looking over their shoulder, I don't think that's something that needs sorted out until everyone is actually on an equal footing.

That's like saying I won't worry about the low tire pressure warning light on my dash until the check engine light gets fixed. Sure it's not an immediate problem, but it will come back to bite you in the end.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: mariomike on March 16, 2019, 16:35:08
, in the interest of “how does this happen?”
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/the-christchurch-manifesto-the-weaponization-of-the-internets-ranting-troll-culture?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0xeqbWFFYSHrcuRH3t6FV4YNuniQwyUlKjTFGC_BHrUKQzIzsQKyzzaQc#Echobox=1552707680

Interesting, to me at least, what he had to say about memes,

Quote
“Create memes, post memes, and spread memes. Memes have done more for the ethnonationalist movement than any manifesto.

Edit to add:

Milo Yiannopoulos banned from Australia for comments on New Zealand massacre
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/milo-yiannopoulos-banned-from-australia-for-comments-on-new-zealand-massacre/ar-BBUR2gR?ocid=ientp
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: TechCrmn on March 16, 2019, 16:37:58
Hey Guys,

Sorry to interject again I just can't resist following your debate.

Fishbone you said "I find the notion of being proud of your race is weird because it's nothing you have control over. It's like being proud you have brown eyes - who cares."

I strongly agree with you but this is in direct contradiction to White Nationalist beliefs which is what you claim to be.

Again by definition a White Nationalist is " a person who strongly identifies with other whites and vigorously supports their interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

A White Nationalist by definition is concerned only with race (white) whereas an American/Canadian Nationalists are distinguishing by country.

But again its wordplay because a Nationalist who is white is not a "White Nationalist". The "White" in "White Nationalist" denotes the nation(whites) of the type of nationalist being referred to and not the race of the person that is being called a White Nationalist.

Interestingly though, a nationalist is "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation..." Therefore  a White Nationalist would have to be a person who is white but a Nationalist whom is white is not necessarily a White Nationalist!



Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 16:55:02
Society as a whole seems to think about it the way you do as well. That has led us to the point where a very small minority of white men are lashing out at being told(or perceiving they are being told) they can't express "pride" in their race, or ancestral origins.

That's like saying I won't worry about the low tire pressure warning light on my dash until the check engine light gets fixed. Sure it's not an immediate problem, but it will come back to bite you in the end.


There it is. And why should we accept the moniker, when no one else has to? We're agreeing to our own pillory. Big talkers afraid to tackle a simple grammar problem. Let the liars beat you down instead. Attack the messenger instead of doing something about it.

I'm Canadian, not European. I was raised a christian, but don't subscribe to any religion now. The colour of my skin is something I had no control over, but I'm not ashamed of it and never will be.

I don't give a real rat's *** about how the term may have been used before, but I reserve the right to use the word in the same sense as everyone else.

Others can sit back and take, what I see as abuse, racism and inequality, or you can stand up and say "Bullshit, I won't accept your label, nor can you change the meaning of words by proceeding them with a colour, race or religion."

If you want to subscribe that it was white supremacists that defined the word, instead of co-opting it, then all that followed black, red, yellow, Canadian, US or China would need to concede the first usage of the word nationalist/ pride is racist and all that used it afterwards were supremacists of their own order. It's stupid to take the meaning of the phrase for anything other than what the writer or speaker intends to ascribe to it.

Besides, I just might identify as a green dog. You have to accept that as fact.

No? Then tell me again why you are right and I am wrong.

I know what side I fall on and I won't walk the line to make some feel like they know what they are talking about. Fence sitters are like zombie minions. I make no apologies and I'm done trying to explain it.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 17:17:28
Hey Guys,

Sorry to interject again I just can't resist following your debate.

Fishbone you said "I find the notion of being proud of your race is weird because it's nothing you have control over. It's like being proud you have brown eyes - who cares."

I strongly agree with you but this is in direct contradiction to White Nationalist beliefs which is what you claim to be.

Again by definition a White Nationalist is " a person who strongly identifies with other whites and vigorously supports their interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."

A White Nationalist by definition is concerned only with race (white) whereas an American/Canadian Nationalists are distinguishing by country.

But again its wordplay because a Nationalist who is white is not a "White Nationalist". The "White" in "White Nationalist" denotes the nation(whites) of the type of nationalist being referred to and not the race of the person that is being called a White Nationalist.

Interestingly though, a nationalist is "a person who strongly identifies with their own nation..." Therefore  a White Nationalist would have to be a person who is white but a Nationalist whom is white is not necessarily a White Nationalist!





See, the problem here is that you still subscribe to the notion that "white nationalism" is a bad thing, as defined by ne'er do wells and supremacists and wiki, but any other kind of nationalism is OK. Now why would that be? You like that label? If it's not nipped in the bud, it will become the norm and everyone will wear the label.

I'm saying I won't accept one meaning for Caucasians and another for everyone else when the same wordings are used.

I'm fighting this and don't accept that we have to sit back and accept this.

In my mind, if you aren't willing to stand and say, "you are not hanging that label on me. It's wrong and racist" you are part of the perpetuation of this grievance.

I will not go quietly into this goodnight. I will not let someone label me or tell me what I have to believe.

I am not enamored with the status quo.

You guys can continue to think it's OK, and that I'm wrong, but I won't. It is wrong and I'm doing something about it in my own way. At least I'm trying, instead of bitching people out as racist and walking away. Maybe I'm just have a Don Quixote moment, who knows, but I feel strongly on this and believe it's a wrong that needs to righted.

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: TechCrmn on March 16, 2019, 17:21:57
All I'm saying is when I stumbled upon this thread I had to Google the meaning of Nationalist and have no predispositions for or against the term White Nationalist nor do I wish to label anyone as one. If you take the actual meaning of the term which  by the way is what "everyone else uses". Then you are describing a person who strongly identifies with other whites and vigorously supports their interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other races. It's not my place to say this is a bad thing or not, all I can say is that the beliefs you are claiming to support and what a White Nationalist is are not the same thing. It's irrelevant what "you think" the term means because I just told you what the term means several times and that's what "everyone else" knows the term to mean also. If you want to go around calling yourself a White Nationalist and claiming it means something totally different then the actual definition, then that's your prerogative.

 I mean you can even google White Nationalism - "White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation."

This is almost identical to the literal definition I mentioned several times previously, I have no idea what definition of the word you are referring to that does not involve race or exclusion of other races but these are the definitions that people not involved in the discussion will find, thus what you will be labelled as. No one else is labeling you as anything, your are labeling yourself! How can you not see this!?

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Furniture on March 16, 2019, 17:40:03

There it is. And why should we accept the moniker, when no one else has to? We're agreeing to our own pillory. Big talkers afraid to tackle a simple grammar problem. Let the liars beat you down instead. Attack the messenger instead of doing something about it.

I'm Canadian, not European. I was raised a christian, but don't subscribe to any religion now. The colour of my skin is something I had no control over, but I'm not ashamed of it and never will be.

I don't give a real rat's *** about how the term may have been used before, but I reserve the right to use the word in the same sense as everyone else.

Others can sit back and take, what I see as abuse, racism and inequality, or you can stand up and say "Bullshit, I won't accept your label, nor can you change the meaning of words by proceeding them with a colour, race or religion."

If you want to subscribe that it was white supremacists that defined the word, instead of co-opting it, then all that followed black, red, yellow, Canadian, US or China would need to concede the first usage of the word nationalist/ pride is racist and all that used it afterwards were supremacists of their own order. It's stupid to take the meaning of the phrase for anything other than what the writer or speaker intends to ascribe to it.

Besides, I just might identify as a green dog. You have to accept that as fact.

No? Then tell me again why you are right and I am wrong.

I know what side I fall on and I won't walk the line to make some feel like they know what they are talking about. Fence sitters are like zombie minions. I make no apologies and I'm done trying to explain it.

I think I didn't explain myself quite well enough.

I was not saying I agree with the way society at large views things. I completely disagree with the idea of "white guilt", I also disagree with the idea that we should punish, or judge a whole group of people based on the actions of individuals. Nobody alive today should be held accountable for the real or perceived wrongs of history that occured before they were born.

I was simply stating that society has helped to push a specific group of people to the margins, and those people are starting to push back in the only way they feel they can get the attention of the world, and respect of their small echo chamber of like minded people. The more we push people into the dark corners of the internet, and tell them they are "wrong" because of the colour of their skin, religious belief, or the sexual organs they posess we will keep seeing this kind of attack.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 18:51:41
All I'm saying is when I stumbled upon this thread I had to Google the meaning of Nationalist and have no predispositions for or against the term White Nationalist nor do I wish to label anyone as one. If you take the actual meaning of the term which  by the way is what "everyone else uses". Then you are describing a person who strongly identifies with other whites and vigorously supports their interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other races. It's not my place to say this is a bad thing or not, all I can say is that the beliefs you are claiming to support and what a White Nationalist is are not the same thing. It's irrelevant what "you think" the term means because I just told you what the term means several times and that's what "everyone else" knows the term to mean also. If you want to go around calling yourself a White Nationalist and claiming it means something totally different then the actual definition, then that's your prerogative.

 I mean you can even google White Nationalism - "White nationalism is a type of nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white national identity.[2][3][4] Its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation."

This is almost identical to the literal definition I mentioned several times previously, I have no idea what definition of the word you are referring to that does not involve race or exclusion of other races but these are the definitions that people not involved in the discussion will find, thus what you will be labelled as. No one else is labeling you as anything, your are labeling yourself! How can you not see this!?

I accept that some individuals may think I'm labeling myself, but it's quite the opposite. I don't accept that label, so it is not me.

I define white nationalism differently, is all. I define it as the original form of the word. I don't need to say 'white' nationalist, but I'm afraid without the colour designation, we might get lost in all the other opposite nationalists using the term correctly. People can be lazy and rely on dictionary definitions, but not one person, outside of canned definitions and narratives has been able to explain why white nationalism is different than black nationalism, except it was co-opted by dinks and liars, who shouldn't count. Same amount of letters, same word, different colour. If you wish those same dinks and liars to define you, that's is certainly your prerogative. However, that doesn't work with, or for, me.

I simply see this discussion as a way to shake people up and say we don't need to listen to this crap. We don't need to be defined by racist phrases and guilt because of our colour or when some uneducated cretin wishes to try perpetuate the falsehood. We can change that, but some would rather shoot the messenger than collectively looking at a way to solve it. It would also take work and time, something many won't want to do.

I don't care how anyone defines me, so long as it's honest. But if you attack me and call me something I'm not, try to put words in my mouth, intersperse your comments with innuendo, instead of reasoned discussion, you get it all back.

To the discussion.

So, the phrase white nationalist was been co-opted by supremacists and the ignorant left and turned to crap. Do we leave it? Do we accept this wrong label that defines us until it becomes cemented in literature and usage against us? Remember the old, "When they came for them, it wasn't me, so I said nothing......"

Or do we refuse to concede to their hypocritical usage. We've become afraid of a challenge and would rather let them get away with it and, well, we'll just use another word like, oh I don't know, patriot. What is your argument going to be when that word becomes a pejorative by the quacks. Look for another word to define yourself, or tell them to frig off and quit playing with the language.

Or do we forcefully take it back with education and stamina?  To where the original meaning falls in line with everyone else in civilization and not as a pejorative against a single group.

I will use the term, when challenged, I'll try educate. I don't accept the moniker as modern language. That is really, quite simply, my whole point. The current use of the term is wrong and needs to be taken back to it's original phraseology, before it was stolen for an agenda.

I think that should, as a 'white' nationalist, make my stance pretty clear.

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 16, 2019, 18:55:21
See, the problem here is that you still subscribe to the notion that "white nationalism" is a bad thing, as defined by ne'er do wells and supremacists and wiki, but any other kind of nationalism is OK. Now why would that be? You like that label? If it's not nipped in the bud, it will become the norm and everyone will wear the label.

I'm saying I won't accept one meaning for Caucasians and another for everyone else when the same wordings are used.

I'm fighting this and don't accept that we have to sit back and accept this.

In my mind, if you aren't willing to stand and say, "you are not hanging that label on me. It's wrong and racist" you are part of the perpetuation of this grievance.

I will not go quietly into this goodnight. I will not let someone label me or tell me what I have to believe.

I am not enamored with the status quo.

You guys can continue to think it's OK, and that I'm wrong, but I won't. It is wrong and I'm doing something about it in my own way. At least I'm trying, instead of bitching people out as racist and walking away. Maybe I'm just have a Don Quixote moment, who knows, but I feel strongly on this and believe it's a wrong that needs to righted.

Nationalist generally refers to someone who is strongly for their interests for their nation at the expense of nations. It is by definition a non-cooperative, Ayn Rand kind of world view of might=right. Personally I think that's self defeating, and a crab bucket kind of way to think of things.  You can see that kind of thinking in Trump, where his 'America first' trade policies includes putting huge tariffs on imports to somehow protect American jobs, while he's actually causing major damage to American industry by making them uncompetitive exporters. He's combining nationalism with a staggering ignorance of economics (which is pretty embarassing for his alma mater where his dad bought his degree from).

Patriotism is more appropriate for someone who is proud of their country, and who will defend the interests of the nation. That can mean working with other nations so that everyone gets a piece of the pie, but doesn't have the same sense of 'we're better than everyone'.

So a white nationalist, by definition, is someone who's world view divides people by race (vice geography) and will put forward their interests at the expense of other people. That is exactly what white supremacy is about. And that's if you say you are a white nationalist people take that to mean you are a nazi.

You are free to disagree, but doesn't change the fact that as soon as you combine white with nationalism, pride, or anything similar, you are using the language of white supremacists, and people will view you as such. If that's not your worldview, then you will want to reconsider your words. It's your responsibility as the person explaining themselves to communicate clearly, and not for the people listening to read your mind, and extrapolate a different meaning from what has been commonly understood across the globe for over a century.  That's not groupthink, that's how language works.

I don't buy into some kind of 'white guilt' either, but I do recognize that as a white guy growing up in Canada, working hard was enough. I'm sure I wouldn't have gotten a number of jobs or had a number of other opportunities that I did if I was black, muslim, etc.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 19:18:13
Nationalist generally refers to someone who is strongly for their interests for their nation at the expense of nations. It is by definition a non-cooperative, Ayn Rand kind of world view of might=right. Personally I think that's self defeating, and a crab bucket kind of way to think of things.  You can see that kind of thinking in Trump, where his 'America first' trade policies includes putting huge tariffs on imports to somehow protect American jobs, while he's actually causing major damage to American industry by making them uncompetitive exporters. He's combining nationalism with a staggering ignorance of economics (which is pretty embarassing for his alma mater where his dad bought his degree from).

Patriotism is more appropriate for someone who is proud of their country, and who will defend the interests of the nation. That can mean working with other nations so that everyone gets a piece of the pie, but doesn't have the same sense of 'we're better than everyone'.

So a white nationalist, by definition, is someone who's world view divides people by race (vice geography) and will put forward their interests at the expense of other people. That is exactly what white supremacy is about. And that's if you say you are a white nationalist people take that to mean you are a nazi.

You are free to disagree, but doesn't change the fact that as soon as you combine white with nationalism, pride, or anything similar, you are using the language of white supremacists, and people will view you as such. If that's not your worldview, then you will want to reconsider your words. It's your responsibility as the person explaining themselves to communicate clearly, and not for the people listening to read your mind, and extrapolate a different meaning from what has been commonly understood across the globe for over a century.  That's not groupthink, that's how language works.

I don't buy into some kind of 'white guilt' either, but I do recognize that as a white guy growing up in Canada, working hard was enough. I'm sure I wouldn't have gotten a number of jobs or had a number of other opportunities that I did if I was black, muslim, etc.

So, what is the difference with a black nationalist? And don't say it's the opposite because wiki or webster says so. Tell me why you say it's right. White nationalist is pejorative to you because you submit to the alt-definition without question. I don't.

Why should we allow, according to an article here, approx 10,000 imbecile white separatists to use the words and define a race?

The word nationalist existed long before it was co-opted by socialists, just because they used the word in a different context doesn't mean we have to ascribe to it. Nor does anyone else.

You can feel free to be counter-defined by it, but I won't.

Besides language evolves. What you consider good and proper now, might not be in five years. Bad now means good. ;)

It is groupthink.

Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupthink requires individuals to avoid raising controversial issues or alternative solutions, and there is loss of individual creativity, uniqueness and independent thinking. The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup"). Furthermore, groupthink can produce dehumanizing actions against the "outgroup".
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 16, 2019, 19:31:37
Here’s a little kero for the campfire; how can a member of the CF not describe themselves as a nationalist? It’s in your job description to put Canada’s interests first. Anyone not doing that is drawing the Queen’s Shilling under false pretences.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 19:49:42
Here’s a little kero for the campfire; how can a member of the CF not describe themselves as a nationalist? It’s in your job description to put Canada’s interests first. Anyone not doing that is drawing the Queen’s Shilling under false pretences.

No argument here from me.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 16, 2019, 20:30:48
I’m curious about some things said here.

What is it about being white that makes you proud?  Honest question.  I’m white, male.  I have never felt any “pride” in that.  I was born that way.  I have also never been systemically held back or oppressed because I am those two things.  I also at the same time feel absolutely no shame in being those two things.

I am a proud Canadian.  I am also a proud French Canadian.  But my skin colour plays no part in my sense of pride. 

So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 16, 2019, 20:34:52
I’m curious about some things said here.

What is it about being white that makes you proud?  Honest question.  I’m white, male.  I have never felt any “pride” in that.  I was born that way.  I have also never been systemically held back or oppressed because I am those two things.  I also at the same time feel absolutely no shame in being those two things.

I am a proud Canadian.  I am also a proud French Canadian.  But my skin colour plays no part in my sense of pride. 

So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?

Perhaps, for some, it's a backlash against being blamed for every perceived ill on the planet because they are white? To me people are like eggs, I don't care about the colour of the shell, rotten ones come in every colour.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 16, 2019, 20:46:25
Perhaps, for some, it's a backlash against being blamed for every perceived ill on the planet because they are white? To me people are like eggs, I don't care about the colour of the shell, rotten ones come in every colour.

Again, what is it that elicits the pride? 

Using that guess that you have posited it seems like a reaction as opposed to something to be really proud of.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 16, 2019, 21:00:44
Again, what is it that elicits the pride? 

Using that guess that you have posited it seems like a reaction as opposed to something to be really proud of.

Why? That explanation has been just fine for all the (insert adjective here) Pride movements as a reply to real or perceived mistreatment, why not for white pride? I am not particularly proud of being white, a coincidence  of genetics and geography, but neither should it be something to be ashamed of if it's beyond my control, no?
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: ballz on March 16, 2019, 21:01:46
I’m curious about some things said here.

What is it about being white that makes you proud?  Honest question.  I’m white, male.  I have never felt any “pride” in that.  I was born that way.  I have also never been systemically held back or oppressed because I am those two things.  I also at the same time feel absolutely no shame in being those two things.

I am a proud Canadian.  I am also a proud French Canadian.  But my skin colour plays no part in my sense of pride. 

So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?

What is it about language that elicits pride? I've found through travelling recently that this is more than just a Quebec thing, France and Quebec share a similar sense of pride in their language that seems odd to me. Also odd to a french girl from Switzerland who would always clarify when it came up with other travelers that even though her first language was French, she was not French (as in, from France).

I have to wonder if it is not a feeling of being on the defensive against society because of your *insert random identity here* that results in a sense of pride as a reaction to that force.

Was LGBTQ pride not born out of a feeling of being on the defensive against the rest of society because of their LGBTQ identity? Is that not still why the Pride parades continue to exist?

The fact that I am Canadian never seems to be at the forefront of my mind until someone from outside Canada starts attacking Canada which seems to rarely happen and thus I rarely feel a sense of Canadian pride. Being from Newfoundland I often felt more "pride" about that, probably because it felt like the rest of Canada looked down on Newfoundland for all of my life.


Is white nationalism on the rise? Seems so. Is it on the rise as a reaction to that perception/feeling of being on the defensive against the rest of society because you are white, and that feeling/perception is growing among white people? Seems plausible.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 21:21:17
I accept that some individuals may think I'm labeling myself, but it's quite the opposite. I don't accept that label, so it is not me.

I define white nationalism differently, is all. I define it as the original form of the word. I don't need to say 'white' nationalist, but I'm afraid without the colour designation, we might get lost in all the other opposite nationalists using the term correctly. People can be lazy and rely on dictionary definitions, but not one person, outside of canned definitions and narratives has been able to explain why white nationalism is different than black nationalism, except it was co-opted by dinks and liars, who shouldn't count. Same amount of letters, same word, different colour. If you wish those same dinks and liars to define you, that's is certainly your prerogative. However, that doesn't work with, or for, me.

I simply see this discussion as a way to shake people up and say we don't need to listen to this crap. We don't need to be defined by racist phrases and guilt because of our colour or when some uneducated cretin wishes to try perpetuate the falsehood. We can change that, but some would rather shoot the messenger than collectively looking at a way to solve it. It would also take work and time, something many won't want to do.

I don't care how anyone defines me, so long as it's honest. But if you attack me and call me something I'm not, try to put words in my mouth, intersperse your comments with innuendo, instead of reasoned discussion, you get it all back.

To the discussion.

So, the phrase white nationalist was been co-opted by supremacists and the ignorant left and turned to crap. Do we leave it? Do we accept this wrong label that defines us until it becomes cemented in literature and usage against us? Remember the old, "When they came for them, it wasn't me, so I said nothing......"

Or do we refuse to concede to their hypocritical usage. We've become afraid of a challenge and would rather let them get away with it and, well, we'll just use another word like, oh I don't know, patriot. What is your argument going to be when that word becomes a pejorative by the quacks. Look for another word to define yourself, or tell them to frig off and quit playing with the language.

Or do we forcefully take it back with education and stamina?  To where the original meaning falls in line with everyone else in civilization and not as a pejorative against a single group.

I will use the term, when challenged, I'll try educate. I don't accept the moniker as modern language. That is really, quite simply, my whole point. The current use of the term is wrong and needs to be taken back to it's original phraseology, before it was stolen for an agenda.

I think that should, as a 'white' nationalist, make my stance pretty clear.

No, see this is where you continue to try to deceive people. Calling it an 'alt-definition', claiming it has been 'co-opted', first by white supremacists, and otherwise by 'ne'er-do-wells', 'liars', etc. You talk about 'originally phraseology' as if there were such a thing for 'white nationalism', but there isn't. You are being disingenuous about that, and now that definitions from the very same dictionary you earlier relied upon no longer suit your narrative, you're rejecting that too. You are trying to create your own definition out of thin air. That doesn't make it a real thing and it doesn't negate the common and actual meaning. You're trying to suggest and to lead others to believe that there has ever been some other definition. That is factually incorrect and you know it to be. It is dishonest.

"White nationalism" doesn't have some original meaning different from what is not in use. It has never meant what you're trying to make it mean. "White nationalist" has never meant "I happen to be white. And also, separately, coincidentally, and unconnected to my whiteness, I am a nationalist for the geopolitical entity whose borders I reside in". That's not a thing no matter how much you desperately want to make it. "White nationalism" has always meant 'whiteness' as the defining identity for a nation of people - nation being a word that has several nuanced meanings, and is not solely restricted tot he narrow usage you're trying to force as a constraint here. "White nationalism" has not been co-opted into the definition you don't like, because it never had another meaning. It's not an 'alt-definition', because it's not a newly introduced alternative to something else, older, and also legitimate. That something else doens't exist and never had.

What is happening here is that you are offended by what a term means and you're trying to change it, but quite simply that's your own fiction. You can say you don't 'accept' the moniker, but if you want to reject the English language as it is actually used, if you want to reject terms as they are actually defined and commonly understood purely because you don't like it, that's just you being petulant about it.

You cannot take "White nationalism", hive off the "nationalist" part of the term and pretend that the specific definition of that word on its own can suddenly apply to the whole thing and neutralize any uglier elements that adding the ethnic identity to the term means.

I am at least reassured that you identifying as a "white nationalist" is merely your own conceited don quixote moment, and not you actually saying you believe in the advancement of the white race at the expense of others. It's still singularly unimpressive, but at least is merely sad rather than frightening.

So, what is the difference with a black nationalist? And don't say it's the opposite because wiki or webster says so. Tell me why you say it's right. White nationalist is pejorative to you because you submit to the alt-definition without question. I don't.

Why should we allow, according to an article here, approx 10,000 imbecile white separatists to use the words and define a race?

The word nationalist existed long before it was co-opted by socialists, just because they used the word in a different context doesn't mean we have to ascribe to it. Nor does anyone else.


I challenge you to find one person here who has said 'Black nationalism' is 'right', or 'good'. I do recall that earlier I myself stated quite clearly "There’s also a difference between group identities, and an exclusionary nationalism based on those identities. The latter is in my opinion morally wrong in all cases, whether it’s white nationalism in the west or similar but opposite manifestations in places like Zimbabwe." So while I did not specifically say 'Black nationalism', I made it damned clear that any ethno-nationalism is bad in my books. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say otherwise.  It seems pretty universally agreed that advancement of one race over and above, and contrary to the interests of another, is a bad thing. So what you have done is tried to get us to argue a red herring.

Your continued unwillingness to grasp that 'Nationalism' and 'White nationalism' are very different and distinct from each other, and that the latter has its own definite, widely used, and well understood meaning is not doing you any favours.

Here’s a little kero for the campfire; how can a member of the CF not describe themselves as a nationalist? It’s in your job description to put Canada’s interests first. Anyone not doing that is drawing the Queen’s Shilling under false pretences.

Very easily. What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively against the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity. One can easily be a patriot but not an outright nationalist. Many of us are, and we faithfully fulfill our oaths and duties to our country in the course of our service. One needn't be actively against other groups to generally believe in promoting the interests of ones own. So long as we are faithful to our oath/affirmation, follow the law, and carry out our duties as lawfully ordered, how can we be 'taking the queen's shilling under false pretences'? When Canada says "Go, do", as long as it's not manifestly illegal, we go and we do. Frankly it's not to you to say that we aren't faithfully serving our country merely because of how you interpret a word.

Now, of course, to firmly grip this and keep it in context: we are talking about "white nationalism[/i]", not just "nationalism". That has been the term in play. White nationalism bases its national identity - a nation as a group of like people - based purely on whiteness. Where a national identity is based on skin colour, that's a big damned problem. It's not nationalism where your nation is based on being Canadian, or whatever country or geo-political entity. It's a nation made of one group of people segregated on racial lines to the detriment of others. In practice it is difficult to find much divide between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy"; the latter is just a still-bolder manifestation of the same crap just even further on the spectrum.

A "White nationalist" is not merely a "nationalist" who happens to be "white" any more than a "Cheeseburger" is a burger made entirely of cheese.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 16, 2019, 21:28:22
No, see this is where you continue to try to deceive people. Calling it an 'alt-definition', claiming it has been 'co-opted', first by white supremacists, and otherwise by 'ne'er-do-wells', 'liars', etc. You talk about 'originally phraseology' as if there were such a thing for 'white nationalism', but there isn't. You are being disingenuous about that, and now that definitions from the very same dictionary you earlier relied upon no longer suit your narrative, you're rejecting that too. You are trying to create your own definition out of thin air. That doesn't make it a real thing and it doesn't negate the common and actual meaning. You're trying to suggest and to lead others to believe that there has ever been some other definition. That is factually incorrect and you know it to be. It is dishonest.

"White nationalism" doesn't have some original meaning different from what is not in use. It has never meant what you're trying to make it mean. "White nationalist" has never meant "I happen to be white. And also, separately, coincidentally, and unconnected to my whiteness, I am a nationalist for the geopolitical entity whose borders I reside in". That's not a thing no matter how much you desperately want to make it. "White nationalism" has always meant 'whiteness' as the defining identity for a nation of people - nation being a word that has several nuanced meanings, and is not solely restricted tot he narrow usage you're trying to force as a constraint here. "White nationalism" has not been co-opted into the definition you don't like, because it never had another meaning. It's not an 'alt-definition', because it's not a newly introduced alternative to something else, older, and also legitimate. That something else doens't exist and never had.

What is happening here is that you are offended by what a term means and you're trying to change it, but quite simply that's your own fiction. You can say you don't 'accept' the moniker, but if you want to reject the English language as it is actually used, if you want to reject terms as they are actually defined and commonly understood purely because you don't like it, that's just you being petulant about it.

You cannot take "White nationalism", hive off the "nationalist" part of the term and pretend that the specific definition of that word on its own can suddenly apply to the whole thing and neutralize any uglier elements that adding the ethnic identity to the term means.

I am at least reassured that you identifying as a "white nationalist" is merely your own conceited don quixote moment, and not you actually saying you believe in the advancement of the white race at the expense of others. It's still singularly unimpressive, but at least is merely sad rather than frightening.

I challenge you to find one person here who has said 'Black nationalism' is 'right', or 'good'. I do recall that earlier I myself stated quite clearly "There’s also a difference between group identities, and an exclusionary nationalism based on those identities. The latter is in my opinion morally wrong in all cases, whether it’s white nationalism in the west or similar but opposite manifestations in places like Zimbabwe." So while I did not specifically say 'Black nationalism', I made it damned clear that any ethno-nationalism is bad in my books. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say otherwise.  It seems pretty universally agreed that advancement of one race over and above, and contrary to the interests of another, is a bad thing. So what you have done is tried to get us to argue a red herring.

Your continued unwillingness to grasp that 'Nationalism' and 'White nationalism' are very different and distinct from each other, and that the latter has its own definite, widely used, and well understood meaning is not doing you any favours.

Very easily. What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively [/i]against[/i] the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity. One can easily be a patriot but not an outright nationalist. Many of us are, and we faithfully fulfill our oaths and duties to our country in the course of our service. One needn't be actively against other groups to generally believe in promoting the interests of ones own. So long as we are faithful to our oath/affirmation, follow the law, and carry out our duties as lawfully ordered, how can we be 'taking the queen's shilling under false pretences'? When Canada says "Go, do", as long as it's not manifestly illegal, we go and we do. Frankly it's not to you to say that we aren't faithfully serving our country merely because of how you interpret a word.

Now, of course, to firmly grip this and keep it in context: we are talking about "white nationalism[/i]", not just "nationalism". That has been the term in play. White nationalism bases its national identity - a nation as a group of like people - based purely on whiteness. Where a national identity is based on skin colour, that's a big damned problem. It's not nationalism where your nation is based on being Canadian, or whatever country or geo-political entity. It's a nation made of one group of people segregated on racial lines to the detriment of others. In practice it is difficult to find much divide between "white nationalism" and "white supremacy"; the latter is just a still-bolder manifestation of the same crap just even further on the spectrum.

A "White nationalist" is not merely a "nationalist" who happens to be "white" any more than a "Cheeseburger" is a burger made entirely of cheese.

Okay, just quickly; When you "go do", you are doing it to the detriment of another country, or just lately groups within it. You are going to their house and breaking their stuff. Does that not fit your parameter?
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 21:39:30
Okay, just quickly; When you "go do", you are doing it to the detriment of another country, or just lately groups within it. You are going to their house and breaking their stuff. Does that not fit your parameter?

Yup, totally fair question. If we were prone to being instigators in wars of aggression, I wouldn't have joined up or stayed in. I'm satisfied from my years of watching our country and her military engagements that if we're going overseas, yes it serves our national interest in some direct or indirect way, but we're also doing so in accordance with international law and generally a pretty good international consensus. We aren't deploying troops to Afghanistan, or Libya, or Kosovo, or Mali, or Iraq, or Ukraine because "Eat crap, we're Canada!" and we're taking something we want, we're doing so because generally there are pressing national or international security interests, or a consensus based humanitarian imperative for same.

With that said, absolutely we as an electorate always have to be very attentive to what the government wants to do with our military. If they day came where I no longer could feel that I was going to be used responsibly and ethically by our government, then I would be releasing ASAP. We have a pretty good rule of law and a pretty good system of political checks and balances (measured against all the others, at least), so I'm not worried about it as a likely problem. As a small country and a middle power at best, we simply don't have the clout to start much in the way of stupid fights, so at least there's that.

On your original point though, do you think I've made a fair argument for 'patriotism' versus 'nationalism' as it pertains to the legitimacy of our service? I'm not trying to be snippy, it's an honest question because what you've brought up is an important thing and worth discussing.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 16, 2019, 21:49:06
Yup, totally fair question. If we were prone to being instigators in wars of aggression, I wouldn't have joined up or stayed in. I'm satisfied from my years of watching our country and her military engagements that if we're going overseas, yes it serves our national interest in some direct or indirect way, but we're also doing so in accordance with international law and generally a pretty good international consensus. We aren't deploying troops to Afghanistan, or Libya, or Kosovo, or Mali, or Iraq, or Ukraine because "Eat crap, we're Canada!" and we're taking something we want, we're doing so because generally there are pressing national or international security interests, or a consensus based humanitarian imperative for same.

With that said, absolutely we as an electorate always have to be very attentive to what the government wants to do with our military. If they day came where I no longer could feel that I was going to be used responsibly and ethically by our government, then I would be releasing ASAP. We have a pretty good rule of law and a pretty good system of political checks and balances (measured against all the others, at least), so I'm not worried about it as a likely problem. As a small country and a middle power at best, we simply don't have the clout to start much in the way of stupid fights, so at least there's that.

On your original point though, do you think I've made a fair argument for 'patriotism' versus 'nationalism' as it pertains to the legitimacy of our service? I'm not trying to be snippy, it's an honest question because what you've brought up is an important thing and worth discussing.

And I'm not deliberately trying to inflame anything either. The definition of nationalism, given by you was "What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively against the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity." By that definition, to my eye at least, and I freely admit to being poorly educated, Loading up our stuff, going somewhere else and killing people and blowing up their things, fits nicely within that parameter. Patriotism is defined as love of country, to me, going to other places and doing something about it is nationalism. I could be wrong though, as said I'm rather poorly educated, and at the end of the day they're just words that only have the power we choose to give them.

   Anyway, I've taken this way off track, sorry.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 16, 2019, 21:59:10
Is it on the rise as a reaction to that perception/feeling of being on the defensive against the rest of society because you are white, and that feeling/perception is growing among white people? Seems plausible.

'Reactionary' is the good ol' political science term for these types of people who want to see a return to their perception of the status quo or 'good old days'. Yet another useful word provided to us by the French Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 22:04:15
And I'm not deliberately trying to inflame anything either. The definition of nationalism, given by you was "What distinguishes nationalism from patriotism is that nationalism extends to the point of not just being for one's own country, or nation, or group of people with a national identity, but actively against the interests of other countries, or nations, or groups of people with a national identity." By that definition, to my eye at least, and I freely admit to being poorly educated, Loading up our stuff, going somewhere else and killing people and blowing up their things, fits nicely within that parameter. Patriotism is defined as love of country, to me, going to other places and doing something about it is nationalism. I could be wrong though, as said I'm rather poorly educated, and at the end of the day they're just words that only have the power we choose to give them.

   Anyway, I've taken this way off track, sorry.

Nah, it's all good, this is an interesting and worthwhile sidetrack.

Um, so I guess part of what makes it work for me is that *as individuals*, we trust, love, and believe in our country and our system enough to have faith that we won't be used inappropriately. That if we're gonna go kill people and break their crap, it's for an ethically defensible reason. Stopping a genocide, defending an ally, helping to protect a minority against a violent majority, stuff like that. Hell, a few of our greatest moral failings have arguably been when we *should* have used armed force to stop things and failed to despite being in a position to. But generally Canada gets involved in the justified fights, the ones that are 'right' to take up. We don't always get it right and history will not be kind to every single thing we've done. But we've all joined first and foremost to protect Canada, and because we are at Canada's disposal, are sent to do other things too. There has to be a certain amount of trust by the soldiers in the highest levels of military and political leadership, or it just doesn't work.

The more into details we get the messier it becomes, but offhand I can't think of a case where we went in 'against' someone and weren't also doing it 'for' something that was justified in its own right. Even in Kandahar when our guys were kicking doors and shooting faces, it was in support of an elected national government there, as part of an international NATO mission there with the consent of that government, and acting under the authority of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council that most countries have signed on to allowing to make those calls.

One could argue a bit more cynically that soldiers who love their country can serve and can obey orders even if they're unsure about and maybe questioning the bigger picture- as long as their do their duty, their service is tough to question. Though I don't like that line of thinking because it gets closer to troops being amoral automatons. I like that we aren't.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 16, 2019, 22:10:46
I
Nah, it's all good, this is an interesting and worthwhile sidetrack.

Um, so I guess part of what makes it work for me is that *as individuals*, we trust, love, and believe in our country and our system enough to have faith that we won't be used inappropriately. That if we're gonna go kill people and break their crap, it's for an ethically defensible reason. Stopping a genocide, defending an ally, helping to protect a minority against a violent majority, stuff like that. Hell, a few of our greatest moral failings have arguably been when we *should* have used armed force to stop things and failed to despite being in a position to. But generally Canada gets involved in the justified fights, the ones that are 'right' to take up. We don't always get it right and history will not be kind to every single thing we've done. But we've all joined first and foremost to protect Canada, and because we are at Canada's disposal, are sent to do other things too. There has to be a certain amount of trust by the soldiers in the highest levels of military and political leadership, or it just doesn't work.

The more into details we get the messier it becomes, but offhand I can't think of a case where we went in 'against' someone and weren't also doing it 'for' something that was justified in its own right. Even in Kandahar when our guys were kicking doors and shooting faces, it was in support of an elected national government there, as part of an international NATO mission there with the consent of that government, and acting under the authority of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council that most countries have signed on to allowing to make those calls.

One could argue a bit more cynically that soldiers who love their country can serve and can obey orders even if they're unsure about and maybe questioning the bigger picture- as long as their do their duty, their service is tough to question. Though I don't like that line of thinking because it gets closer to troops being amoral automatons. I like that we aren't.

I think you and I are in violent agreement here...however.  If you go to far off exotic locales, meet interesting people from diverse cultures, and kill them, you are acting in your country's best interest, and to the detriment of theirs. That's what we did to Germany, twice, and there was no ambiguous motivation. It was to destroy evil before evil came to destroy us.  That's why home field advantage in war sucks.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 22:11:22
I’m curious about some things said here.

What is it about being white that makes you proud?  Honest question.  I’m white, male.  I have never felt any “pride” in that.  I was born that way.  I have also never been systemically held back or oppressed because I am those two things.  I also at the same time feel absolutely no shame in being those two things.

I am a proud Canadian.  I am also a proud French Canadian.  But my skin colour plays no part in my sense of pride. 

So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?

Fair question. I dont really want to use white. I tried to explain that saying nationalist without colour kinda makes the saying useless, given the polar opposite connotation as to which colour is being disussed. If everyone could stick to pride or nationalist without unnecessary colour or races, I'd be happy as crap.
We discuss the colours here because it is the colour designation that is at the heart of the disagreement. Nationalism isnt bad unless its white. Pride isn't bad, unless its white. Privilege is no problem for anyone, unless its white.

The colour is the crux.

I'm proud of who I am as a person. I'm white. Nothing I can do about it. Ergo I'm ambivalent unless you want to demean me for it. I'm also a proud (oops, almost said vanilla, mighta triggered someone 😊 ) plain old non-hyphenated Canadian.

Even so, if there's a bazzillion different 'prides', why can they exist in their state and be celebrated, but if you say white pride you're a racist?

Do you allow the divisive stereotypes to perpetuate or do you meet them head on and stop it.

I've never promised anyone a smooth journey, quite the opposite. I see stupidity and call it out, if the status quo needs grounding, I dont stare at my navel and rub my toe in the dirt until the feeling passes. I'm not a crusader of any sort, nor am I employed, worried my boss might read me here. I was always like this. And, yes, Im proud of it.

If we could all just agree to call each other nationalist,  if conversing about it, I'd near beg for it. Most of us, here, dont know colour, religion, ethic makeup of most anyone else here.

So we converse here, agree, disagree and because we love our country and serve(d) we can consider ourselves nationalists. I think we can agree on that.

Now, if you find out I'm white, do I now become a supremacist in your eyes? I would hope not.

As I say, I would prefer no colour of nationalist be part of the equation. However, if it is going to be used as a sledgehammer by the ignorant, as a reason to demean a single race, I will wear the moniker. They can challenge me, I'll willingly discuss it, as here, and hope a seed takes hold somewhere. White nationalism, in its worst connotation was stolen and bastardized by a small, truly evil group. And yet people sit back and allow the demonization of a whole race for it. Contrary to a few, all I want is to bring out in the open and correct it.

If it can be put back in it's proper, historical perspective and ignore the made up hyperbole, the term white nationalism will lose all it's evil power. As the only racial outlier, now corrected, the colour will fall to disuse because, well, hell, we're all good nationalists now, there's no need to differentiate.

Really, that's all I got. Take it how you want. You guys go ahead and tear apart whatever you want, I dont think there's a single point of my stance that's not here. I'll look at it, but I doubt it'll lead to discussion of something not already here.

You can be part of the solution or part of the problem, from where I sit.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 16, 2019, 22:14:02
So, what is the difference with a black nationalist? And don't say it's the opposite because wiki or webster says so. Tell me why you say it's right. White nationalist is pejorative to you because you submit to the alt-definition without question. I don't.

Why should we allow, according to an article here, approx 10,000 imbecile white separatists to use the words and define a race?


I don't think any nationalism is good, which is what I clearly said above, and why.  It's a 'f*** you, I'll get mine' approach to relations. It's bad at a personal level, and it's poison at a country level (especially in a globalised economy). I don't think black nationalism (or any kind of nationalism) is progress either, but I can at least understand the desire to have your own nation when you are living under a system that is institutionally racist.

But I'll put it really simply;

- White supremacists call themselves 'white nationalists'

-you are stating you are a white nationalist

-therefore, by the transitive property of equality, people take that to mean you are saying you are a white supremacist.

Brihard explained it already, but it's not something that's defined by '10k white supremacists'; that's the commonly understood meaning of the word is, and why that's the dictionary definition. Even if that's only in North America, that's hundreds of milions of people that will have that interpretation.

Using those words will continue to have that meaning until the generally accepted meaning changes. But swastikas were holy symbols for millennia, but now evoke a very strong association with the Nazis and all their evil deeds, so I wouldn't hold my breath for 'white nationalist' suddenly becoming exclusively understood as 'patriotic person who happens to be white'."

Not calling all the pundits and trolls that are hiding their hate behind thinly veiled euphemisms to try and stay mainstream is part of the problem. Being patriotic and proud of who you are are both fine, but expect to continue to get called out for being a nazi if you are going to keep arguing you are a white nationalist ("but it doesn't mean what you think").

I don't see any contradiction in not liking nationalism and being in the CAF.

Target up, that's a valid point, but I think maybe it's because you are interpreting 'nationalism' as a single event based thing, vice a general approach. A nationalists approaches interactions with other countries as a win or lose situation in everything; so extends to trade, politics, etc. A more globalised approach recognizes that cooperation is better, as we're all in this together (but may sometimes disagree, even up to the point of going to war). I guess an everyday example is that you can get in occasional punch ups without being a bully, whereas a 'nationalist' would steal your lunch money, keep you in line with threats, and occasionally beat you up. It's a consistent outlook that has a pattern of behaviour (as opposed to a single action looked at with no context).
 
For example, we've gone to war with Germany twice, and are now close allies. We can work together and do things were we both benefit, and are further ahead then if we tried to do it independently. We were also at war with the US that one time, but obviously it's not in our best interest to try and get ahead at the expense of our biggest trading partner and neighbour. Nationalism is short term, close minded thinking that relies on brute force and threats to stay ahead of 'them', while using fear and hate to unite 'us' in a common goal against 'them'. From that perspective, it's another method people use to manipulate and control others to do things they want and accumulate power, so no different in cause/effect than any other kind of extremism or cult.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 16, 2019, 22:24:08
Is it German Nazis or just Nazis? 
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 16, 2019, 22:25:38
For example, we've gone to war with Germany twice, and are now close allies.Because it's no longer in the national interest to do so. We can work together and do things were we both benefit, and are further ahead then if we tried to do it independently. We were also at war with the US that one time, but obviously it's not in our best interest to try and get ahead at the expense of our biggest trading partner and neighbour. Nationalism is short term, close minded thinking that relies on brute force and threats to stay ahead of 'them', while using fear and hate to unite 'us' in a common goal against 'them'.I don't recall seeing this in the definition provided. From that perspective, it's another method people use to manipulate and control others to do things they want and accumulate power, so no different in cause/effect than any other kind of extremism or cult.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 22:27:14
White nationalism, in its worst connotation was stolen and bastardized by a small, truly evil group. And yet people sit back and allow the demonization of a whole race for it. Contrary to a few, all I want is to bring out in the open and correct it.

If it can be put back in it's proper, historical perspective and ignore the made up hyperbole, the term white nationalism will lose all it's evil power.

Nope. That never happened. It was never a thing other than what it actually is now. You're making it up, you have literally in this discussion admitted "I define white nationalism differently, is all.". You try to claim "I define it as the original form of the word", but there has never been a different, never mind 'original' definition for "white nationalism". You're still trying to equate "I happen to be white. And I am separately a nationalist." with "I am a White nationalist". "White Nationalist" is not "I am a nationalist, who is white". It is "I am a nationalist, and the nation I envision is defined by whiteness". Logically that's then exclusive of others. "White nationalism" is invariably a racist ideology, and I have never seen "White nationalism" or "White pride" walking other than in lockstep with "White supremacy". I've never seen anyone who actively espoused pride in the accident of birth that is being white who was not also espousing bigoted views of thsoe who are not white. I'm not saying such people don't exist, but I have never seen them. For anyone to believe in a nation defined by the whiteness of its people, it is pretty much a sine qua non that they will see that nation as over and above other groups of people who do not share that whiteness.

Your own fictional definition is no more than that: your own, and fiction.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 16, 2019, 22:43:13
Is it German Nazis or just Nazis? 

Guys, I might have slipped myself in this, and I'm not pointing fingers. Bruce just provided a seque

If we're going to use that word, please only in it's true third reich format when discussing such

Not for skinheads, alt-right, etc.

Some here were alive then, during the experience and expect it to be confined to that evil group and not have it watered down to the frivolous, as to not lose the impact it had on them.

Please respect
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 16, 2019, 22:50:33
Guys, I might have slipped myself in this, and I'm not pointing fingers. Bruce just provided a seque

If we're going to use that word, please only in it's true third reich format when discussing such

Not for skinheads, alt-right, etc.

Some here were alive then, during the experience and expect it to be confined to that evil group and not have it watered down to the frivolous, as to not lose the impact it had on them.

Please respect

Amen
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 16, 2019, 22:52:30
Guys, I might have slipped myself in this, and I'm not pointing fingers. Bruce just provided a seque

If we're going to use that word, please only in it's true third reich format when discussing such

Not for skinheads, alt-right, etc.

Some here were alive then, during the experience and expect it to be confined to that evil group and not have it watered down to the frivolous, as to not lose the impact it had on them.

Please respect

I'm confident we can stay on topic without going down that particular rabbit hole, sure.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: FJAG on March 16, 2019, 22:53:10
Is it German Nazis or just Nazis?

Nazism has it's origins in inter war Germany and made its biggest foothold there, however, there were concurrently many Nazi parties in other countries such as the US, Canada, the UK, France and virtually every other country in Europe (although some were more modelled on Italian fascism).

By definition Nazism covers the wide generic term while German Nazism specifically relates to Hitler's party in Germany.

Neo-Nazism on the other hand relates to the post WW2 period and relates to various movements trying to revive and implement Nazi ideology in whole or in part. Most of those ignore the populist socialist aspects of it and focus primarily or solely on race and religion

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 16, 2019, 23:05:04
So anyone could be a Nazi just like anyone could be a Supremist. .....but like Fishbone says only one race gets to wear thier colour in the title.    Going back to just reading now because I just like to think that assholes are assholes regardless of what "tag" folks feel the need to place on them. 
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 17, 2019, 00:46:37
>So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?

People confuse culture/civilization with race - some because they don't properly comprehend the difference and/or the fact that there is no cause-effect relationship, and some because they want to smear a collection of ideals and practices with racism.

Western civilization is praiseworthy because of its ideas, not because it developed predominantly in Europe and more recently in what many now think of as "the West" (ie. where people were mostly "white").  Anyone can adopt and promote the ideas, and obviously many do.

"White nationalism" as it is currently being bandied about is more properly understood as "white supremacism", as already noted above - a baseless notion that white people are inherently better because of their DNA and should be in charge of the countries in which they are currently majorities (or perhaps merely powerful minorities).

A person isn't a white nationalist/supremacist if he's a western civilization chauvinist.  The liberal principles embedded in western civilization as it has evolved mean you can't be the former without abandoning the latter.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Furniture on March 17, 2019, 08:53:05
>So again, what is it about being white that elicits pride?

People confuse culture/civilization with race - some because they don't properly comprehend the difference and/or the fact that there is no cause-effect relationship, and some because they want to smear a collection of ideals and practices with racism.

Western civilization is praiseworthy because of its ideas, not because it developed predominantly in Europe and more recently in what many now think of as "the West" (IE. where people were mostly "white").  Anyone can adopt and promote the ideas, and obviously many do.

"White nationalism" as it is currently being bandied about is more properly understood as "white supremacism", as already noted above - a baseless notion that white people are inherently better because of their DNA and should be in charge of the countries in which they are currently majorities (or perhaps merely powerful minorities).

A person isn't a white nationalist/supremacist if he's a western civilization chauvinist.  The liberal principles embedded in western civilization as it has evolved mean you can't be the former without abandoning the latter.

I think the term you're looking for is xenophobic. People often throw racism around when in a discussion about immigration, and working with people from other countries/cultures because often the other people being discussed are of a different skin colour(IE Middle eastern, African, Asian etc.).

I think we have moved away from properly describing some of the attitudes as xenophobia for two reasons; 1) A general lack of education, and vocabulary in the population 2) Calling someone racist is considered a much more serious insult. A racist hates someone for a cosmetic reason, so are small minded and petty. A xenophobic person which hates or distrusts other people for cultural reasons, some of which might not be unreasonable reasons to dislike or distrust people. An example is the Romans and the Carthaginians, in Carthage human sacrifice was practiced and the Romans found it barbaric. The second reason in my opinion is why racist is thrown around so much.

I think one of the reasons that these "white nationalists", "racists", "nutjobs", etc. lash out is because we as a western society can't have a mature discussion about anything related to immigration, or culture without one side, or another causing it devolve into an insult laden shouting match. The internet makes the problem worse because most of the discussions are two(or more) angry people sitting hundreds of miles(or more) apart reading the worst into every word typed by their opponent, and then looking for the most effective insult to shut down the conversation while scoring "points" with their chosen tribe.

I honestly don't have a solution to the issue, but if people don't make an effort to try to see things from their opponent's point of view things will only get worse.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 17, 2019, 10:02:08
I just want to say to all involved in posting this thread that I have found it both thought provoking and (given the potentially incendiary nature of the subject) relatively polite.  There has been much attacking of ideas (fair game), but very little ad hominem, which I find refreshing for the internet.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 17, 2019, 13:10:57
I still think social media is a huge problem area and contributes to the violence happening in a number of ways.

The shooter live-streamed himself murdering people and posted links where to find it. There's a lot of shock about it but it's not really shocking- we've seen the same kind of videos posted from the middle east for years. We're obsessed with taking pictures and videos. There's videos of people reacting to videos. There's probably videos of people reacting to videos if people reacting to videos.

I wonder if it has something to do with people feeling insignificant due to how big and connected the world is and they have a need to be noticed or recognized.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 17, 2019, 14:22:31
I think:

No matter the colour, race or religion, the underlying factor in these shootings is mental instability.

Religion, colour and race are all factors that go into their addle brained plans.

No one single group or person holds a lock on evil stupidity. Just this week, while everyone concentrated on the mosque shooting, hundreds of christians were killed by antagonists.

"The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan

What they all lack though is the mental acuity to distinguish rational thought over action.

The vast majority of sane humans inherently know killing another human is wrong, but in some, the brain is not right and they don't distinguish because of what they were taught or how they feel emotionally. They aren't equipped for reasoned thought.

Whether it's white supremacists or islamic terrorists their brain is not strong enough to reason and then hate and frustration take over and all thought, every hour turns to revenge.

I'm not trying to be an apologist or anything, but every time something happens, we always end up concentrating on the killer's religious or social patterns and stopping there, instead of trying to figure out what part of the brain went wrong. Why do we stop investigating when we get to their social alliances? What they are doing is acting on outside conditioning coupled with weak intellectual skills that don't over ride those teachings.

There may be an opportunity here, because we have a live shooter. Strap him down, cut the head open and see what the frig is wrong up there. There may be just a small dust bunny that's been getting missed. I don't know. If I did, I'd be somewhere else making too much money to be here.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but I don't think that stops a reason for actual, physical and mental testing of those individuals. If we can get them alive.

There is another overriding factor in many of these shootings. They are all gun free zones. Schools, churches, mosques, nightclubs and shopping centres. All areas where the shooter knows nobody will be a threat to them.

Sucks, but maybe it's time to harden some locations.

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 17, 2019, 14:57:11
I think:

No matter the colour, race or religion, the underlying factor in these shootings is mental instability.

Religion, colour and race are all factors that go into their addle brained plans.

No one single group or person holds a lock on evil stupidity. Just this week, while everyone concentrated on the mosque shooting, hundreds of christians were killed by antagonists.

"The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan

What they all lack though is the mental acuity to distinguish rational thought over action.

The vast majority of sane humans inherently know killing another human is wrong, but in some, the brain is not right and they don't distinguish because of what they were taught or how they feel emotionally. They aren't equipped for reasoned thought.

Whether it's white supremacists or islamic terrorists their brain is not strong enough to reason and then hate and frustration take over and all thought, every hour turns to revenge.

I'm not trying to be an apologist or anything, but every time something happens, we always end up concentrating on the killer's religious or social patterns and stopping there, instead of trying to figure out what part of the brain went wrong. Why do we stop investigating when we get to their social alliances? What they are doing is acting on outside conditioning coupled with weak intellectual skills that don't over ride those teachings.

There may be an opportunity here, because we have a live shooter. Strap him down, cut the head open and see what the frig is wrong up there. There may be just a small dust bunny that's been getting missed. I don't know. If I did, I'd be somewhere else making too much money to be here.

I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else, but I don't think that stops a reason for actual, physical and mental testing of those individuals. If we can get them alive.

There is another overriding factor in many of these shootings. They are all gun free zones. Schools, churches, mosques, nightclubs and shopping centres. All areas where the shooter knows nobody will be a threat to them.

Sucks, but maybe it's time to harden some locations.

I think you're pretty much on track on a lot of that. There are a lot of lonely, angry, disenfranchised and disaffected socioeconomic failures out there. People who have not found success in the economy, in socializing, and in romance. Out of that mass of people who with good reason feel pretty down on themselves, a smaller proportion externalize it and become angry at others. Out of that cohort, some then get to the point of being vengeful. And then still from that much smaller group, a rare few will cross the threshold of actually doing something active about it.

I think that somewhere around 'vengeful/action', two things come into the picture: 'permissiveness', and potentially 'incitement'.

Most people absolutely are brought up to believe that hurting/killing others is wrong. That's a hell of a social conditioning to work past. Part of what we've seen with the rise of social media is that it's so much easier for these individuals to find communities of like minded people- they will be drawn in by finding people that at least think enough of them to not reject their thoughts outright, and then having finally found acceptance, it becomes easy to end up in a spiralling echo chamber of really toxic thinking. The really twisted crap they're thinking gets further defined; they adopt the thoughts and languages of others and identify something on which to focus their grievances; be it 'infidels', or foreigners, or a specific religion or ethnicity- they learn/are taught to blame someone more specific for what's wrong in their life. They're given permission to hate because they have found a community that normalizes hate. And then from there they also find that enough of the community can give permission to harm. For some that will be enough to then self-generate violent action.

And then finally there's the incitement. For anyone who hasn't been to some of these websites - 4chan, 8chan, and other such pages- don't, unless you really want to see humanity at their very worst. It's friggin' gross. You will find people actively encouraging others to do things like this. You'll find people egging each other on, glorifying people like Elliot Rogers or Alexandre Bisonette, or the murderer from New Zealand. They hold these people up as examples to be venerated and emulated. I absolutely believe that in some cases these individuals don't have it within themselves to step over the edge on their own, but that with enough pushing they do it. Maybe in hopes that they'll get held up and venerated the same way.

Radicalized losers, whatever the particular political, ethnic, religious, or ideological stripe. And yet, it would indeed be really interesting to get a few of these cats under an fMRI or PET machine and see if they tick differently.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 17, 2019, 15:07:36
You only need to look at those in-cel weirdos and their little online social clubs that think not getting laid is a perfectly good reason to kill Stacys, Beckys, and Chads.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 17, 2019, 15:14:47
You only need to look at those in-cel weirdos and their little online social clubs that think not getting laid is a perfectly good reason to kill Stacys, Beckys, and Chads.

Yup. Same crap, different flavour. Losers are still being given an alternative community, and a belief structure they can subscribe to that excuses or mitigates their failings and that justifies acts of retaliation. It's hard to see this as an 'ideology' per se, but for a lot of these people it's the closest thing they've got.

For anyone whp's studied sociology or criminology, basically it's 'differntial association' theory in play, just in a non-conventional criminal context. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_association
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 17, 2019, 15:43:07
Somebody mentioned social media.  The internet itself has alllowed these types to meet and congregate and share their beliefs.  It may actually be easier to act out when a group supports you and your actions. The internet has given them that.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 17, 2019, 16:15:32
Somebody mentioned social media.  The internet itself has alllowed these types to meet and congregate and share their beliefs.  It may actually be easier to act out when a group supports you and your actions. The internet has given them that.

I think that's almost unquestionable at this point. I don't think anyone who hasn't held their nose and looked at some of these sites could imagine the heinous stuff that is frequent and normal there. If you really, really want to plunge into the worst of humanity, google "8chan /pol" and look at just the first page of posts.  Bring eye bleach. That's normal to these people. That's what's normalizing these attitudes and inciting these behaviours. But it's now possible to live your entire social life in this kind of mindset if that's who you associate with and where you spend your time. That's just one site; there are quite a few like it.

It's frightening and I frankly don't see any practical way to stop it. At a minimum it would be nice to see major search engines 'delisting' hate sites like that, make them harder to stumble upon...
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: CloudCover on March 17, 2019, 17:12:58
At one point we attempted to engage in active measures (offensive information operations) and conduct DDOS and other attacks on servers hosting and allowing that crap.  But with these people using broader social media, we can hardly attack Facebook. And while it may seem that Facebook and other platforms are fighting the good fight, they are actually arseholes to deal with on criminal matters, same with Google and especially Twitter (Twitter will actually notify the end user that they have received a subpoena or similar court order for that users data).

At the same time, they also will take a bad situation like NZ and be very proactive (sans court order) and make it publicly known what they are doing. It’s all about image and profit.

This is why some governments have floated the internet kill switch, or have rearranged territorial internet to sovereign controlled gateways and filters.


 
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Furniture on March 17, 2019, 17:18:17
I think that's almost unquestionable at this point. I don't think anyone who hasn't held their nose and looked at some of these sites could imagine the heinous stuff that is frequent and normal there. If you really, really want to plunge into the worst of humanity, google "8chan /pol" and look at just the first page of posts.  Bring eye bleach. That's normal to these people. That's what's normalizing these attitudes and inciting these behaviours. But it's now possible to live your entire social life in this kind of mindset if that's who you associate with and where you spend your time. That's just one site; there are quite a few like it.

It's frightening and I frankly don't see any practical way to stop it. At a minimum it would be nice to see major search engines 'delisting' hate sites like that, make them harder to stumble upon...

You don't have to go that far to see the hate, and garbage being thrown around. There is plenty on social media as well, and being said by otherwise reasonable people.The more we call average people who hold an opinion different from our own "nazis", "snowflakes, "libtards", etc the more we normalize dehumanizing speach. For most of us we realize it's rethoric, and ignore it while we carry on with our lives.  It's not shock that those impressionable people who might not have gone down a dark path can get pointed toward it by the way "normal" people act online. Those "losers" who either have mental health issues, or some other reason they feel like an outsider seem to be drawn further into their chosen camp until, as you said they find an echo chamber.

I considered watching his video or visiting 8chan, but decided I'd not add to their site traffic and fee his "fame".

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 17, 2019, 17:23:57
>Radicalized losers

The first step on the road to correcting the problem is to stop calling them "losers" and start treating them as people whose miseries might be identified, acknowledged, and alleviated, not as people to despise and hate.  I remember a fellow from high school who was conventionally very unattractive, not particularly bright, socially inept, etc, etc.  He killed himself, not anyone else.  I don't know how directly any of those issues were connected to his suicide, but his problems were for the most part embedded in his DNA.  Not everyone is born 5'10"-6'2", conventionally attractive, bright enough to complete a four-year college or university program, capable of functioning at even an average social level, etc, etc.  People rejected by every other social circle and stratum are bound to form their own if they don't become strict loners, and that is easier to achieve with social media than it was 30+ years ago.  It follows that they will create their own values and ideals and codes if no-one else engages, or refuses to engage on any terms other than strict hostility.

I don't know the pathways to "alleviation", but "identification" and "acknowledgement" should be easy.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: AbdullahD on March 17, 2019, 17:29:41
>Radicalized losers

The first step on the road to correcting the problem is to stop calling them "losers" and start treating them as people whose miseries might be identified, acknowledged, and alleviated, not as people to despise and hate.  I remember a fellow from high school who was conventionally very unattractive, not particularly bright, socially inept, etc, etc.  He killed himself, not anyone else.  I don't know how directly any of those issues were connected to his suicide, but his problems were for the most part embedded in his DNA.  Not everyone is born 5'10"-6'2", conventionally attractive, bright enough to complete a four-year college or university program, capable of functioning at even an average social level, etc, etc.  People rejected by every other social circle and stratum are bound to form their own if they don't become strict loners, and that is easier to achieve with social media than it was 30+ years ago.  It follows that they will create their own values and ideals and codes if no-one else engages, or refuses to engage on any terms other than strict hostility.

I don't know the pathways to "alleviation", but "identification" and "acknowledgement" should be easy.

This post highlights a part of the issue, the idea that being successful is determined (for men) by being tall, dark, with s college or university degree, nice car and a nice house.

A lot of disenfranchised persons have lost sight of the reality that being successful is not a prescription. It is a state of mind.

A lot of people try to get material things, to fix emotional or social problems and it doesnt work so down a dark path they go.

Abdullah
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 17, 2019, 18:50:42
This post highlights a part of the issue, the idea that being successful is determined (for men) by being tall, dark, with s college or university degree, nice car and a nice house.

A lot of disenfranchised persons have lost sight of the reality that being successful is not a prescription. It is a state of mind.

A lot of people try to get material things, to fix emotional or social problems and it doesnt work so down a dark path they go.

Abdullah

Your last line seems to me to be an eternal truth of the human condition.

I am not sure where this leaves us.

I, too, seem to find myself leaning to the "seek to understand why" mode. After 9-11, I was firmly in the revenge/" visit violence with even more violence" camp. I have come to learn that this was a mistake and only made things worse. Seeking to understand root causes is much more difficult that revenge, but it is the only way forward to find a solution to these violent acts.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 17, 2019, 19:25:43
I'm all for punishment, bad acts need correcting, soon as possible. However, someone way smarter than me once said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: AbdullahD on March 17, 2019, 19:31:28
Your last line seems to me to be an eternal truth of the human condition.

I am not sure where this leaves us.

I, too, seem to find myself leaning to the "seek to understand why" mode. After 9-11, I was firmly in the revenge/" visit violence with even more violence" camp. I have come to learn that this was a mistake and only made things worse. Seeking to understand root causes is much more difficult that revenge, but it is the only way forward to find a solution to these violent acts.

I agree addressing the root cause is the solution, but it seems like no two people radicalize in the same way or for the same reasons.

We could address a lot of these issues, which may or may not work. But we may sacrifice liberties to do so.

So the question is, knowing that we are relatively safe in the western world.. do we opt to create more social programs or draft new laws to limit certain freedoms, in order to reduce the chance that we could die from a radicalized persons attack, knowing full well that risk is extremely low anyways?

I do not feel we need to. I think ownership of action is needed, I'm all for freedom of speech.. but some people are not mentally or emotionally capable of dealing with certain statements without negative reactions. I think if we educate the youth and general population that yes, we have all these rights and freedoms here in Canada.. but that does not mean you need to exercise them with everyone. Get to a point were we can just leave a contentious topic alone (unless both sides can handle it in a mature fashion), it's like the old saying don't discuss religion or politics at work or the dinner table. Yet, so many do not follow it anymore.

Having said all this I am far more worried that my beloved children will die from a drug overdose then to be killed by a terrorist act. Which is not very likely and wont happen inshallah. So maybe I do not take this threat serious enough and I think the status quo is ok and minor tweaking is all that's needed.

Abdullah
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 17, 2019, 19:44:05
>Radicalized losers

The first step on the road to correcting the problem is to stop calling them "losers" and start treating them as people whose miseries might be identified, acknowledged, and alleviated, not as people to despise and hate.  I remember a fellow from high school who was conventionally very unattractive, not particularly bright, socially inept, etc, etc.  He killed himself, not anyone else.  I don't know how directly any of those issues were connected to his suicide, but his problems were for the most part embedded in his DNA.  Not everyone is born 5'10"-6'2", conventionally attractive, bright enough to complete a four-year college or university program, capable of functioning at even an average social level, etc, etc.  People rejected by every other social circle and stratum are bound to form their own if they don't become strict loners, and that is easier to achieve with social media than it was 30+ years ago.  It follows that they will create their own values and ideals and codes if no-one else engages, or refuses to engage on any terms other than strict hostility.

I don't know the pathways to "alleviation", but "identification" and "acknowledgement" should be easy.

I'm open to a different term if there's something succinct and accurate. I've used it for a few years now simply because it fits really well. I'm not saying 'losers' in a sneering, unnecessarily perjorative way like you would see one teenager calling another- I'm just not really aware of a word that really fits what I'm saying as precisely as that. 'Disenfranchised' comes closest maybe, but still doesn't feel like it fits.

Aside from that I'm fully in agreement with most of what you said, as well as others in the last few replies.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 17, 2019, 22:53:41
I'm all for punishment, bad acts need correcting, soon as possible. However, someone way smarter than me once said "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I am also for punishment, in the sense that everyone is responsible for their own actions and must own the consequences of those actions. In certain circumstances, punishment probably includes death. But, they must be punished as individuals- not part of "group punishment" to a particular community, ethnic group or religion.

I have drifted this thread, I think...
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Colin P on March 17, 2019, 23:05:17
in the West if I say:

White Nationalist it is considered bad and even evil

Indian Nationalist it would be a neutral term to anyone not versed in 20th century Indian history.

Pakistani Nationalist it would be a neutral term to anyone not versed in 20th century Indian/Pakistani history.

I could find some quite distasteful quotes, events and beliefs from the latter two and have people here in the West squirm awkwardly. However they would likely jump up to support me in saying the same about the White Nationalists. I will always prefer the term White Supremacists as it is cleaner and more accurate to that problem. One does not need to be white to be anti-muslim or a Nationalist     
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 17, 2019, 23:54:54
I am also for punishment, in the sense that everyone is responsible for their own actions and must own the consequences of those actions. In certain circumstances, punishment probably includes death. But, they must be punished as individuals- not part of "group punishment" to a particular community, ethnic group or religion.

I have drifted this thread, I think...

I'm all about group punishment when required. Al Qaeda? Burn them all. Boko Haram? Crucify them upside down with their heads in a bucket of liquid crap. Daesh? Remove all trace of them from history.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Furniture on March 18, 2019, 01:40:05
I'm all about group punishment when required. Al Qaeda? Burn them all. Boko Haram? Crucify them upside down with their heads in a bucket of liquid crap. Daesh? Remove all trace of them from history.

In those instances the individual has chosen to align themselves with the group. It's quite different from believing all people with red hair need to be rounded up and killed because a ginger did something mean to your family 300 years ago.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Target Up on March 18, 2019, 02:11:11
In those instances the individual has chosen to align themselves with the group. It's quite different from believing all people with red hair need to be rounded up and killed because a ginger did something mean to your family 300 years ago.

"I'm all about group punishment when required." I thought I made that part pretty clear.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: AbdullahD on March 18, 2019, 02:19:34
"I'm all about group punishment when required." I thought I made that part pretty clear.

Wait we talking about them evil Gingers or... lol

Disclaimer: I'm part Scottish and technically a Lord too 😂😂 I'm just joking.. or am I 0.o
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 18, 2019, 10:26:53
I'm all about group punishment when required. Al Qaeda? Burn them all. Boko Haram? Crucify them upside down with their heads in a bucket of liquid crap. Daesh? Remove all trace of them from history.

The devil is very much in the details at that point. What's our limit for that when we have an organization that has controlled territory and has essentially employed bureaucrats in its administration? How about non-combatants; the logisticians, the medical staff, the information ops people? Where is the line drawn between those who actively fought, thsoe who were knowing enablers, and those who found themselves on a bad part of a map and kept living their lives just under a new occupier for whom their labour definitely gave some advantage?

The battlefield side of this stuff is easier... But once a group collapses and everyone's fleeing, figuring out who did what and what to do with them gets murkier.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 18, 2019, 13:13:53
>I'm all about group punishment when required.

There's a framework in place for setting out how conflicts are fought, and how war and humanitarian crimes are dealt with (irrespective of the roles of those involved) during and after conflict.  One beneficial feature is that it doesn't require the warfighting forces to be a deeply involved part of the judicial proceedings or the punishment/remediation.

"Group punishment", for better or worse, is a term of art that carries with it the idea that a group is punished for the actions of any of its members (eg. the platoon does pushups because one of the recruits forgot to brush his teeth).  It is an illiberal practice.  We should try and punish people for what each of them does or neglects to do.  So when we set out to hold "a group" responsible for the sum of its conduct, we should still discriminate on the basis of who did what.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Furniture on March 19, 2019, 00:41:38
"I'm all about group punishment when required." I thought I made that part pretty clear.

If it's specific to the individual it's not group punishment... so unless you're advocating punishing an entire group the same regardless of the actions of the individual you're not talking group punishment.

Sorry I wasn't more clear the first time.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Colin P on March 19, 2019, 10:54:09
The devil is very much in the details at that point. What's our limit for that when we have an organization that has controlled territory and has essentially employed bureaucrats in its administration? How about non-combatants; the logisticians, the medical staff, the information ops people? Where is the line drawn between those who actively fought, thsoe who were knowing enablers, and those who found themselves on a bad part of a map and kept living their lives just under a new occupier for whom their labour definitely gave some advantage?

The battlefield side of this stuff is easier... But once a group collapses and everyone's fleeing, figuring out who did what and what to do with them gets murkier.

Dump them at the KSA border, they are:

1. Fellow Muslims
2. The direct result of the radicalization of the Sunni Muslim world by the KSA.
3. Logistically easy
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Colin P on March 19, 2019, 10:54:57
Thoughts on the shooter's motivations and ramblings

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/radicalization-degeneration-brenton-tarrant-white-supremacist/
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: AbdullahD on March 20, 2019, 00:17:47
Thoughts on the shooter's motivations and ramblings

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/radicalization-degeneration-brenton-tarrant-white-supremacist/

That was a very enlightening read.

Kind of amazing how far we played into his hands.

Stole it and shared it to my Facebook etc.. very good read.

Thanks
Abdullah
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 20, 2019, 04:31:41
One does not need to be white to be anti-muslim or a Nationalist     

Good point - amongst other Islamic internecine conflicts, Iraq and Iran killed about a million of each other over 10 years, back in the 80s.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 12:27:06
Hundreds of Christians killed, or forced into slavery, on a running basis and nobody says anything.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/03/19/establishment-elites-silent-on-recent-massacres-of-christians-in-africa/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=ytdMUddGe-U
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 20, 2019, 12:37:48
Hundreds of Christians killed, or forced into slavery, on a running basis and nobody says anything.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/03/19/establishment-elites-silent-on-recent-massacres-of-christians-in-africa/

To be fair, they don't say much about anyone dying in Africa, Christian or otherwise.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 12:46:03
To be fair, they don't say much about anyone dying in Africa, Christian or otherwise.

Well, I guess if nobody talks about it, that makes it OK then? We are only supposed to be upset if the agenda press says so? Is that where you're going with it? :dunno:
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: AbdullahD on March 20, 2019, 13:50:21
Well, I guess if nobody talks about it, that makes it OK then? We are only supposed to be upset if the agenda press says so? Is that where you're going with it? :dunno:

I think we do care but it is a few levels removed. From what I understand, NZ is first world, nice and tourist destination etc.

Whereas Africa is third world, not many people from what I understand want to go there etc.

I'm sure someone can explain better, but we care more when they are "like" us. I see the point of Christian's dying brought up here, my Muslim buddies are talking about Israel bombing Palestine and no one is talking about either.

Kinda sad on both counts. Life is life, but apparently some life is more important then others in certain situations.

Abdullah
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 20, 2019, 13:55:15
Well, I guess if nobody talks about it, that makes it OK then? We are only supposed to be upset if the agenda press says so? Is that where you're going with it? :dunno:

No.  If a shooter had gone in to kill 40-50 Christians in Christchurch it would have still made headlines around the world.  Same as if it happened in Canada, Australia or insert any western country.

If 40-50 muslims were killed in Sudan it would get the same coverage as 40-50 Christians.

It isn't that the press or elites are ignoring Christians killings in Africa. It is largely just plain ignoring Africa.

Fernando was trying to make a point but that point is sort of off base a bit.

 
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 20, 2019, 14:01:55
I think we do care but it is a few levels removed. From what I understand, NZ is first world, nice and tourist destination etc.

Whereas Africa is third world, not many people from what I understand want to go there etc.

I'm sure someone can explain better, but we care more when they are "like" us. I see the point of Christian's dying brought up here, my Muslim buddies are talking about Israel bombing Palestine and no one is talking about either.

Kinda sad on both counts. Life is life, but apparently some life is more important then others in certain situations.

Abdullah

It is exactly due to how far removed you are and how you can relate.  Canada and New Zealand are western countries with similar governments, history etc.   it has to do with how you relate, not so much with how one values life.

A bus full of kids die on their way to a hockey game gets attention here.  Because we can relate.  It could be us or our kids.  A bus full of kids die going to work in an Indian slum factory is tragic and likely a normal thing there but we can't relate so it does not get our attention.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Blackadder1916 on March 20, 2019, 15:03:30
Hundreds of Christians killed, or forced into slavery, on a running basis and nobody says anything.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/03/19/establishment-elites-silent-on-recent-massacres-of-christians-in-africa/


Tales such as this, especially from Nigeria, always makes me think "what else is new".  However, like most stories, it's not so cut and dried as the linked article opinion would have us believe.  And, just to piss off the usual suspects, it is probably more linked to climate change than to religion.

Let's first go to Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nigeria-christians-muslims/
Quote
Did ‘Muslim Militants’ Kill 120 Christians in Nigeria in February/March 2019?

Claim

Muslim militants killed 120 Christians in Nigeria during a three-week period in February and March 2019.

What's True

Although not entirely reliable, various local news reports corroborated the incidents and deaths described in reports by Breitbart and the Christian Post website.

What's False

Religious affiliation is a secondary issue in the ongoing Nigerian herder-farmer conflict, which impartial experts consistently describe as being primarily a dispute over natural resources and land usage. Reports in the U.S. in March 2019 failed to properly explain the complexity of the conflict, and Breitbart's article did not mention a major reported atrocity perpetrated against the mostly Muslim Fula people in February 2019.


Origin

In the aftermath of the March 2019 Christchurch, New Zealand, massacre in which a white supremacist gunman fatally shot 50 people at two mosques, some right-leaning observers quickly turned their attention to atrocities allegedly perpetrated by Muslims against Christians in recent weeks.

. . .

Conclusion

The ongoing herder-farmer conflict in Nigeria has claimed thousands of lives in recent years, particularly during an escalation of the violence in 2019 and especially in Kaduna State, where dozens of mostly Christian Adara were reported to have been killed in February and March by mostly Muslim Fulani militants.

Local news reports, as recorded in the Council on Foreign Relations’ Nigeria Security Tracker, largely corroborate the incidents and deaths described by Breitbart and the Christian Solidarity Worldwide non-profit group.

However, reports by Breitbart and the Christian Post website failed readers by presenting a woefully narrow viewpoint on the conflict, emphasizing only the religious affiliations of the participants while neglecting to mention what impartial experts have highlighted as being the primary driving force behind it: a dispute over natural resources and land usage.

Furthermore, while Breitbart’s article provided details of several reported attacks by Fulani herders on farmers in Kaduna State in February and March 2019, it did not mention the attack on the mainly Muslim Fula ethnic group, which was the single largest reported atrocity during the time period in question.

Notwithstanding the fact that some local Christian leaders disputed the death toll presented in that case, Breitbart’s failure to even mention the attack on the Fula group constitutes a glaring omission in any article purporting to be a reliable or impartial examination of what is, to begin with, a volatile and complicated conflict.

And this herder-farmer dispute is not new.  From the BBC in 2016 "Making sense of Nigeria's Fulani-farmer conflict (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36139388)"

Quote
. . .

But the issue is not new - clashes between different groups of Fulani herders and farmers have killed thousands of people in Nigeria over the past two decades.  . . .

What is the fighting about?

Disagreements over the use of essential resources such as farmland, grazing areas and water between herders and local farmers are said to be the major source of the fighting.

Fulani herders can travel hundreds of miles in large numbers with their cattle in search of pasture. They are often armed with weapons to protect their livestock.

They frequently clash with farmers who consistently accuse them of damaging their crops and failing to control their animals.
The Fulanis respond that they are being attacked by gangs from farming communities who try to steal their cattle and they are just defending themselves.

The clashes used to be confined to Nigeria's central region, with the mainly Christian Berom farming community in Plateau state engaging in tit-for-tat killings with Muslim nomadic herders.

But the continued effect of climate change on grazing lands has pushed the Fulani herdsmen further forward south in search of grass and water.

This has widened the scope of the conflict with deadly incidents being increasingly reported in southern parts of the country, raising fears that the violence could threaten the fragile unity that exists among Nigeria's diverse ethnic groups.


Why is the conflict so vicious and complicated?

Apart from clashes with farmers, there have been allegations that some Fulanis have been involved in armed robbery, rape and communal violence especially in central and northern part of the country. Similar accusations have also been made against them in Ghana and Ivory Coast.

Their association with the Hausa ethnic group and their nomadic nature has also made them vulnerable to attack, and they have been caught up in ethnic clashes not of their making.

Much of the violence in central Nigeria dates back to the 2002 and 2004 clashes in the Yelwa-Shendam area of Plateau state in which thousands lost their lives.

This saw ethnic, political, economic and religious tensions overlap and the consequences are still seen with deep distrust between mainly Muslim Fulani herders and mostly Christian farming communities, who see the Hausa-Fulanis as outsiders trying to take their land.

The Fulanis are also sometimes attacked and have their animals stolen by bandits, prompting brutal reprisals. This is not unique to central Nigeria but the country as a whole.

Or these pieces from the Christian Science Monitor from 2012 and 2013.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2012/0709/Weekend-clashes-kill-200-as-Nigeria-struggles-for-control
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0504/Clashes-between-ethnic-groups-leave-at-least-30-dead-in-Nigeria

Trying to understand Africa is a monumental task and trying to make a claim such as that in the Fernando article highlights that the author is either ignorant of the facts or (more likely) is as guilty as "the establishment elites" that he attacks by deliberately ignoring the nuances of the conflict in his goal of advancing his agenda.

There is more than enough blame to go around in Nigeria's long history of regional, tribal, economic, political and religious violence.  There are undoubtedly a few others of a certain age on these means who can remember seeing the horrors of the Nigerian Civil War (aka Biafran War) on nightly TV reports 50 years ago.  At that time the Muslim Northern Hausa-Fulani mostly stayed out of the conflict, while the Southerners (including many Christians) had no problem on embarking on a campaign of eliminating those who opposed them.


(edited to correct a spelling error)

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 15:09:59
I think we do care but it is a few levels removed. From what I understand, NZ is first world, nice and tourist destination etc.

Whereas Africa is third world, not many people from what I understand want to go there etc.

I'm sure someone can explain better, but we care more when they are "like" us. I see the point of Christian's dying brought up here, my Muslim buddies are talking about Israel bombing Palestine and no one is talking about either.

Kinda sad on both counts. Life is life, but apparently some life is more important then others in certain situations.



Abdullah

Or all the muslim nations that are rocketing and attacking Israel and targeting civilians. That isn't reported either.

It is exactly due to how far removed you are and how you can relate.  Canada and New Zealand are western countries with similar governments, history etc.   it has to do with how you relate, not so much with how one values life.

A bus full of kids die on their way to a hockey game gets attention here.  Because we can relate.  It could be us or our kids.  A bus full of kids die going to work in an Indian slum factory is tragic and likely a normal thing there but we can't relate so it does not get our attention.

So again, do we just continue to ignore it? Or do we start acknowledging it, showing it and improve it.

I'm finding it increasingly hard to find sympathy for any group, who die needlessly when we ignore what is happening, to other faiths. In some cases, by the very groups we're asked to feel sympathy for.

Christians, as well as others are being murdered and sold into slavery and the, us versus them, will never be settled until we start working with a level playing field. As advances, by all sides should be lauded, equal weight has to be put on the atrocities of any group that murders, rapes, tortures and enslaves all other groups in the world for their own singular dogma. Not exposing them is simply telling lies to ourselves hoping it won't affect us and become someone else's problem. Our heads are in the sand and our asses are pointed skyward for anyone wanting to take advantage of our cowardly isolationist views of world matters and where we are placed in it.

Evil needs to be denounced where ever we find it. The world in no longer a place where it takes two years for a letter to catch up.
Communication is instantaneous. There is no excuse for hiding it, broadcasting it or not commenting on it.

I'm tired of "It's not a problem unless I see it, hear it and most of all, it has to affect me."

I'm not sure, but I'm having trouble remembering when there was so much sympathy, knee jerk government action or controversy and world condemnation, when a christian church in North America is shot up or burned.

There is a definite perceived bias and marginalizing victims of one group, while overwhelmingly supporting another. It is just a disaster waiting to boil over.

Unfortunately, perceived bias and marginalization is increasing, quickly and badly, because of lack of awareness and education and the unwillingness of the biased media in pursuing it. The 'I don't care' attitude doesn't help either



Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 20, 2019, 15:24:50
Or all the muslim nations that are rocketing and attacking Israel and targeting civilians.

So again, do we just continue to ignore it? Or do we start acknowledging it, showing it and improve it.

I'm finding it increasingly hard to find sympathy for muslims, who die needlessly when we ignore what is happening, to other faiths.

Christians are being murdered and sold into slavery and the, us versus them, will never be settled until we start working with a level playing field. As advances, by all sides should be lauded, equal weight has to be put on the atrocities of any group that murders, rapes, tortures and enslaves all other groups in the world for their own singular dogma. Not exposing them is simply telling lies to ourselves hoping it won't affect us and become someone else's problem. Our heads are in the sand and our asses are pointed skyward for anyone wanting to take advantage of our cowardly isolationist views of world matters and where we are placed in it.

You yourself are a self described Nationalist.  Why would you care what goes on elsewhere in the world?  Donald Trump is also a self described nationalist.  One you have defended on multiple occasions.  One who is essentially an isolationist.

Not a knock your position but I am trying to square that round peg.

As mentioned by Blackadder, some on the right are merely trying to minimise the events in Christchurch with that train of thought. 

"Yes that was bad but what about..."  You can apply that train of thought to anything.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Bread Guy on March 20, 2019, 15:25:54
Tales such as this, especially from Nigeria, always makes me think "what else is new".  However, like most stories, it's not so cut and dried as the linked article opinion would have us believe ...
Hard to fit all that nuance into a meme, though  :(
If a shooter had gone in to kill 40-50 Christians in Christchurch it would have still made headlines around the world.  Same as if it happened in Canada, Australia or insert any western country.
Not even that many would draw the eye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof).
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: QV on March 20, 2019, 15:30:14
Derail>  Hmm, sounds like we've identified the problem: religion.

   
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: AbdullahD on March 20, 2019, 15:37:31
Derail>  Hmm, sounds like we've identified the problem: religion.

   

I refer you to an earlier post, that highlights that religion may not be the primary driver.

Or all the muslim nations that are rocketing and attacking Israel and targeting civilians.

I am sorry, how many Islamic and/or Muslim nations are rocketing Israel, I have missed this in the news. I did hear Israel showered Palestine with rockets though and those usual issues exist.

Any rate here is a list of Islam by nation, could you please list the countries with say more the  40% Muslims and whether they are attacking Israel for me or not.

I think 2 maybe 3 will be the top, so the majority of Islamic or Muslim nations are not.

Abdullah
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 20, 2019, 15:38:30
Derail>  Hmm, sounds like we've identified the problem: religion.

   

No, that mis-identifies the problem.

The problem, at it's root, are humans.

Humans have incredible capacity to create both good and bad in the universe. Good and bad are individual, daily choices. To blame ideology, religions, objects, racial groups or gender (or any other reason) is to miss the point and lets individuals off of the hook for their actions.

Choose not to be evil. Choose not to hurt others. Those things are within everyone's control.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 15:51:38
Tales such as this, especially from Nigeria, always makes me think "what else is new".  However, like most stories, it's not so cut and dried as the linked article opinion would have us believe.  And, just to piss off the usual suspects, it is probably more linked to climate change than to religion.

Let's first go to Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nigeria-christians-muslims/
And this herder-farmer dispute is not new.  From the BBC in 2016 "Making sense of Nigeria's Fulani-farmer conflict (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36139388)"

Or these pieces from the Christian Science Monitor from 2012 and 2013.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2012/0709/Weekend-clashes-kill-200-as-Nigeria-struggles-for-control
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2013/0504/Clashes-between-ethnic-groups-leave-at-least-30-dead-in-Nigeria

Trying to understand Africa is a monumental task and trying to make a claim such as that in the Fernando article highlights that the author is either ignorant of the facts or (more likely) is as guilty as "the establishment elites" that he attacks by deliberately ignoring the nuances of the conflict in his goal of advancing his agenda.

There is more than enough blame to go around in Nigeria's long history of regional, tribal, economic, political and religious violence.  There are undoubtedly a few others of a certain age on these means who can remember seeing the horrors of the Nigerian Civil War (aka Biafran War) on nightly TV reports 50 years ago.  At that time the Muslim Northern Hausa-Fulani mostly stayed out of the conflict, while the Southerners (including many Christians) had no problem on embarking on a campaign of eliminating those who opposed them.


(edited to correct a spelling error)

Snopes has been debunked.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Colin P on March 20, 2019, 15:57:19
I refer you to an earlier post, that highlights that religion may not be the primary driver.

I am sorry, how many Islamic and/or Muslim nations are rocketing Israel, I have missed this in the news. I did hear Israel showered Palestine with rockets though and those usual issues exist.

Any rate here is a list of Islam by nation, could you please list the countries with say more the  40% Muslims and whether they are attacking Israel for me or not.

I think 2 maybe 3 will be the top, so the majority of Islamic or Muslim nations are not.

Abdullah

Hamas does
Hezbollah rarely does, but promises to with 15,000 rockets
Iran promises to wipe Israel off of the map
Syria would like to, but is incapable
Lebanon is Hezbollah sex toy and does what it's told.
PLA has the death of Israel in it's charter, but is to busy fighting Hamas
KSA, finds Israel distasteful, but trusts it more than the rest of the Muslim world.
Turkey's current government hates Israel and would like to subgate it into Ottoman Empire 2.0, although they know they need the Jews to run the administration of the new Empire.
Egypt knows it very nearly lost big time and has no interest in destroying them, embarrassing and hurting them would be nice. 
The rest of the Muslim world would like to see the destruction of Israel, as long as someone else tries the the risky bits of fighting them.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Bread Guy on March 20, 2019, 15:58:40
Humans have incredible capacity to create both good and bad in the universe. Good and bad are individual, daily choices. To blame ideology, religions, objects, racial groups or gender (or any other reason) is to miss the point and lets individuals off of the hook for their actions.
That's a big part of the story, but learning how/why people end up looking for answers/solutions in the wrong places doesn't have to let people off the hook.  That's also part of finding solutions - to help those who've made the wrong choices while they face their consequences, as well as to keep others from making similarly wrong choices.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 20, 2019, 16:02:48
Snopes has been debunked.

Source?

Here are a few that refute what you are claiming.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2235277/data-center-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-snopes-com-gets-an-a.html



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

 “We have found that since we started our project, Snopes has fact-checked opinions only 2 percent of the time. In other words, 98 percent of the time it sticks to matters of verifiable fact. Such an achievement is even more remarkable given that during this period, Snopes has produced the second-most articles of the six fact-checking outfits.”



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/02/26/snopes-is-a-least-biased-source-despite-what-you-may-have-read/

More importantly, is there anything in what Blackadder posted that is factually wrong?

Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 20, 2019, 16:03:55
That's a big part of the story, but learning how/why people end up looking for answers/solutions in the wrong places doesn't have to let people off the hook.  That's also part of finding solutions - to help those who've made the wrong choices while they face their consequences, as well as to keep others from making similarly wrong choices.

Absolutely. Agree fully.

I have lived my life, not perfectly. I have hurt others, both intentionally and incidentally. What I at least try to do is accept personal responsibility for my actions and not blame external factors.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 16:04:05
You yourself are a self described Nationalist.  Why would you care what goes on elsewhere in the world?  Donald Trump is also a self described nationalist.  One you have defended on multiple occasions.  One who is essentially an isolationist.

Not a knock your position but I am trying to square that round peg.

As mentioned by Blackadder, some on the right are merely trying to minimise the events in Christchurch with that train of thought. 

"Yes that was bad but what about..."  You can apply that train of thought to anything.

Yes I'm a Nationalist. I am not an Isolationist. I don't know why you would introduce Trump into this.

As a nationalist I care deeply what happens to and in my country. As such, when I see all this bullshit in Africa, I don't want it coming here. I want to protect my country, as I always have. Any increase in crime, racism, murder, etc is of vital interest to me and my country to try prevent.

So before it gets here, how about we pay attention and try rid ourselves of it.

Now I know that's pretty deep thought for some, but I have no problem squaring my nationalism and trying to reduce harm, nor do I find it contradictory.

I hope I rounded out your hole for you.

How am I minimizing anything? This is more discussion that we've had in quite awhile about this stuff. I certainly hope you're not trying to insinuate I'm trying to change our direction here. Or that I'm something I'm not. I think there's been more than enough of that. Move along.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 16:06:39
I refer you to an earlier post, that highlights that religion may not be the primary driver.

I am sorry, how many Islamic and/or Muslim nations are rocketing Israel, I have missed this in the news. I did hear Israel showered Palestine with rockets though and those usual issues exist.

Any rate here is a list of Islam by nation, could you please list the countries with say more the  40% Muslims and whether they are attacking Israel for me or not.

I think 2 maybe 3 will be the top, so the majority of Islamic or Muslim nations are not.

Abdullah

Don't even try that. Israel doesn't use it's Iron Dome and fire missles willy nilly for shits and giggles. It uses it to take down rockets fired at Israel.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 16:13:38
Source?

Here are a few that refute what you are claiming.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2235277/data-center-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-snopes-com-gets-an-a.html



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/

 “We have found that since we started our project, Snopes has fact-checked opinions only 2 percent of the time. In other words, 98 percent of the time it sticks to matters of verifiable fact. Such an achievement is even more remarkable given that during this period, Snopes has produced the second-most articles of the six fact-checking outfits.”



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/02/26/snopes-is-a-least-biased-source-despite-what-you-may-have-read/

More importantly, is there anything in what Blackadder posted that is factually wrong?

Forget Snopes. I can find as many links saying it's crap. Including sites where the basement dwellers were interviewed.

It's in the same category as wiki for truth. People use them when they are tenuously grasping at sources.

It's a rabbit hole and immaterial to the discussion.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 20, 2019, 16:46:55
Yes I'm a Nationalist. I am not an Isolationist. I don't know why you would introduce Trump into this.

As a nationalist I care deeply what happens to and in my country. As such, when I see all this bullshit in Africa, I don't want it coming here. I want to protect my country, as I always have. Any increase in crime, racism, murder, etc is of vital interest to me and my country to try prevent.

So before it gets here, how about we pay attention and try rid ourselves of it.

Now I know that's pretty deep thought for some, but I have no problem squaring my nationalism and trying to reduce harm, nor do I find it contradictory.

I hope I rounded out your hole for you.

How am I minimizing anything? This is more discussion that we've had in quite awhile about this stuff. I certainly hope you're not trying to insinuate I'm trying to change our direction here. Or that I'm something I'm not. I think there's been more than enough of that. Move along.

None of this was a personal attack on you.  At all.  I thought we could actually discuss. 

Where did I say you were minimising this?  I said some on the right.  To be more specific Fernando and his opinion piece.

You are a self described nationalist. 

Definition is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
"their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"


synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality; More
xenophobia, chauvinism, jingoism, flag-waving;

ethnocentrism, ethnocentricity




•advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
"Scottish nationalism"


synonyms: separatism, secessionism, partitionism, isolationism; sectarianism
"granting greater autonomy to Scotland is awakening English nationalism"

Your statement about our cowardly isolationism seems to go against what you believe. 

I bring Trump into this because he is an isolationist.  One you have defended.  Which goes against what you just posted about cowardly isolationism.

You are being passive aggressive when all I am doing is discussing the points.

Move along...right.  For someone who takes offense at personal attacks you are by definition acting as a hypocrite in this instance. I'll stay right here and defend or debunk your points and their merits all I want just like you are free to move along if you want. 

Go ahead and rant now or not.  When you want to discuss like I thought maybe we could let me know.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 20, 2019, 16:48:23
Forget Snopes. I can find as many links saying it's crap. Including sites where the basement dwellers were interviewed.

It's in the same category as wiki for truth. People use them when they are tenuously grasping at sources.

It's a rabbit hole and immaterial to the discussion.

Please do.  The links I provided from media bias fact check actually refutes the ones you are likely using.

Again, what is factually wrong about what Blackadder posted?
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: AbdullahD on March 20, 2019, 16:49:19
Hamas does
Hezbollah rarely does, but promises to with 15,000 rockets
Iran promises to wipe Israel off of the map
Syria would like to, but is incapable
Lebanon is Hezbollah sex toy and does what it's told.
PLA has the death of Israel in it's charter, but is to busy fighting Hamas
KSA, finds Israel distasteful, but trusts it more than the rest of the Muslim world.
Turkey's current government hates Israel and would like to subgate it into Ottoman Empire 2.0, although they know they need the Jews to run the administration of the new Empire.
Egypt knows it very nearly lost big time and has no interest in destroying them, embarrassing and hurting them would be nice. 
The rest of the Muslim world would like to see the destruction of Israel, as long as someone else tries the the risky bits of fighting them.

Okay 2 countries. Thanks mate.

I won't deny the hatred for Jewish people that is evident in so many Muslim countries at the political or general level sadly, that is another topic any ways and a serious one at that. Which should be addressed, supporting one part and demonizing the other is a serious problem in this particular conflict.

Don't even try that. Israel doesn't use it's Iron Dome and fire missles willy nilly for shits and giggles. It uses it to take down rockets fired at Israel.

I will read that as you do not wish to engage in a conversation to defend your points and wish to remain consumed by them. As shown in this and other posts.

But from what I understand the answer is only 2 from out of dozens of Muslim of Islamic nations.

I will take my leave now.

Have a good day.
Abdullah
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 17:23:18
Okay 2 countries. Thanks mate.

I won't deny the hatred for Jewish people that is evident in so many Muslim countries at the political or general level sadly, that is another topic any ways and a serious one at that. Which should be addressed, supporting one part and demonizing the other is a serious problem in this particular conflict.

I will read that as you do not wish to engage in a conversation to defend your points and wish to remain consumed by them. As shown in this and other posts.

But from what I understand the answer is only 2 from out of dozens of Muslim of Islamic nations.

I will take my leave now.

Have a good day.
Abdullah

Nope. You don't get to flip this on me with false allegations and other bullshit innuendo to try bolster your mistake. Since when did me being consumed (your words) with getting the right thing done become an anathema to you?

You inferred muslim countries hadn't rocketed Israel. You say you seemed to have missed all the multiple reports on international and national news and the internet. Colin effectively answered the question, showing what the muslim feeling towards Israel is, but you're still trying to win with semantics. It is you who cannot defend your points and are starting to show a narrow view of certain things.

I've defended my points. It doesn't have to be to your satisfaction. I owe you only an explanation, not agreement.

We're devolving again. I've done my best to keep things level and honest and impersonal I believe I've done pretty good sticking to the subject without projecting much bias. Try just asking a question next time without all the personal bullshit.


If it is too squeamish a topic for the site, the mods can take it away. I understand. We can just bury it and keep ignoring it because we've become programmed to feel uncomfortable with the subject. "If you disagree with me, you're a racist."

We'll have the conversation again, when it happens to the church down the block from us.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 17:52:37
None of this was a personal attack on you.  At all.  I thought we could actually discuss. 

Where did I say you were minimising this?  I said some on the right.  To be more specific Fernando and his opinion piece.

You are a self described nationalist. 

Definition is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
"their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"


synonyms: patriotism, patriotic sentiment, allegiance/loyalty to one's country, loyalism, nationality; More
xenophobia, chauvinism, jingoism, flag-waving;

ethnocentrism, ethnocentricity




•advocacy of or support for the political independence of a particular nation or people.
"Scottish nationalism"


synonyms: separatism, secessionism, partitionism, isolationism; sectarianism
"granting greater autonomy to Scotland is awakening English nationalism"

Your statement about our cowardly isolationism seems to go against what you believe. 

I bring Trump into this because he is an isolationist.  One you have defended.  Which goes against what you just posted about cowardly isolationism.

You are being passive aggressive when all I am doing is discussing the points.

Move along...right.  For someone who takes offense at personal attacks you are by definition acting as a hypocrite in this instance. I'll stay right here and defend or debunk your points and their merits all I want just like you are free to move along if you want. 

Go ahead and rant now or not.  When you want to discuss like I thought maybe we could let me know.

And once more, you prefer to paint me by your definition. Why are you so set in pigeon holing me? Is it because you feel better for it? Make you feel proud or something? Milpoints? I don't know. I'm just guessing

We just spent a whole bunch of time on this and you know what kind of nationalist I am. Why do you persist in trying to demonize me with the bastardized version. How many times must I explain it for you? You know exactly my feelings on it, but you persist.

It may sound hypocritical to you, because the more I defend, the more qualifiers to the contrary, you toss in the way. I'll never hit your constantly moving target. Your trying to define me, instead of discussing, is tiresome.

Now, if you still don't understand or can't get anyone else to explain it to you again, you'll just have to live with your misunderstanding and let your fantasies fly.

I'm done discussing me. I'd rather discuss this problem. The problem people keep trying to avoid, rather than try find a solution. Instead of questioning my ethics and, why don't you discuss what we can do to fix these problems? I'm not going back to look, but did you discuss anything of the problem, or just me?

I'll continue to discuss the problem of lopsided reporting, here, with others that wish too. I'll stop hitting 'You are ignoring this user' though.

I don't rant anymore. You're doing a pretty good job for both of us.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Remius on March 20, 2019, 18:09:32
And once more, you prefer to paint me by your definition. Why are you so set in pigeon holing me? Is it because you feel better for it? Make you feel proud or something? Milpoints? I don't know. I'm just guessing

We just spent a whole bunch of time on this and you know what kind of nationalist I am. Why do you persist in trying to demonize me with the bastardized version. How many times must I explain it for you? You know exactly my feelings on it, but you persist.

It may sound hypocritical to you, because the more I defend, the more qualifiers to the contrary, you toss in the way. I'll never hit your constantly moving target. Your trying to define me, instead of discussing, is tiresome.

Now, if you still don't understand or can't get anyone else to explain it to you again, you'll just have to live with your misunderstanding and let your fantasies fly.

I'm done discussing me. I'd rather discuss this problem. The problem people keep trying to avoid, rather than try find a solution. Instead of questioning my ethics and, why don't you discuss what we can do to fix these problems? I'm not going back to look, but did you discuss anything of the problem, or just me?

I'll continue to discuss the problem of lopsided reporting, here, with others that wish too. I'll stop hitting 'You are ignoring this user' though.

I don't rant anymore. You're doing a pretty good job for both of us.

Again with the attacks. 

I’ll be blunt.  I’m not trying to define you.  You do a good enough job of doing that yourself. 

Second you started the attacks when I pointed out the fallacy of Fernando’s position.  Then you made it about you. 

You then discredited Blackadders source with nothing factual.  When I asked what it was about what he posted that was factually wrong you ignored it.  Twice really.

Discussion goes both ways.

Notice that every time a thread derails YOU are normally a big part if not the catalyst behind it.

I’ll bow out now.  This particular discussion between us is beyond salvaging as far as I can tell.  I’ll follow Abdullah’s lead and assume that you are merely attacking and not actually defending your points because you truly are consumed by them.

I don’t play the ignore game.  I read what you post.  I don’t agree with everything. I agree with some but you really have to work on how you debate with people.  You say you want to discuss...but you rarely actually do.  Just an observation.

Later.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 18:17:03
Again with the attacks. 

I’ll be blunt.  I’m not trying to define you.  You do a good enough job of doing that yourself. 

Second you started the attacks when I pointed out the fallacy of Fernando’s position.  Then you made it about you. 

You then discredited Blackadders source with nothing factual.  When I asked what it was about what he posted that was factually wrong you ignored it.  Twice really.

Discussion goes both ways.

Notice that every time a thread derails YOU are normally a big part if not the catalyst behind it.

I’ll bow out now.  This particular discussion between us is beyond salvaging as far as I can tell.  I’ll follow Abdullah’s lead and assume that you are merely attacking and not actually defending your points because you truly are consumed by them.

I don’t play the ignore game.  I read what you post.  I don’t agree with everything. I agree with some but you really have to work on how you debate with people.  You say you want to discuss...but you rarely actually do.  Just an observation.

Later.

Too many untruths there to discuss here anymore.
Bye
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: AbdullahD on March 20, 2019, 19:40:37
Nope. You don't get to flip this on me with false allegations and other bullshit innuendo to try bolster your mistake. Since when did me being consumed (your words) with getting the right thing done become an anathema to you?

You inferred muslim countries hadn't rocketed Israel. You say you seemed to have missed all the multiple reports on international and national news and the internet. Colin effectively answered the question, showing what the muslim feeling towards Israel is, but you're still trying to win with semantics. It is you who cannot defend your points and are starting to show a narrow view of certain things.

I originally took issue when you said "all the Muslim countries rocketing Israel" or something which reads as a plethora, multiple or even many Muslim nations Israel. Which in no way, shape or form is true as evidenced by national or international media and Colin's post. But you switched your point of attacks to instead of how many Muslim nations are attacking Israel to Muslim Nations and their feelings towards Israel. Something I did address.

Quote
I've defended my points. It doesn't have to be to your satisfaction. I owe you only an explanation, not agreement.

From what I have seen you have only provided a sensationalist opinion, that in no way, shape or form addressed my issue with your view of rocket attacks on Israel.

Quote
We're devolving again. I've done my best to keep things level and honest and impersonal I believe I've done pretty good sticking to the subject without projecting much bias. Try just asking a question next time without all the personal bullshit.

No, WE are not. Look at your replies, lack of proof, use of vulgar language, relying on others to argue your point and/or other such tactics. Instead of addressing the issue you attack, instead of counter arguing on a point by point basis you supply a sensationalist narrative.


Quote
If it is too squeamish a topic for the site, the mods can take it away. I understand. We can just bury it and keep ignoring it because we've become programmed to feel uncomfortable with the subject. "If you disagree with me, you're a racist."

Since when, on this site, have I ever pulled such a pathetic and childish defence? Or..
 Hmm nvm.

Quote
We'll have the conversation again, when it happens to the church down the block from us.

I just wanted to clarify, for my own  peace of mind. To be honest I'm not even sure what conversation we are having or you think we are having anymore.

Now, I really am done unless your tone and tenor changes. I am more then happy to have an adult conversation, but I will not argue like children and swear, sling insults and act childish. Now unless I have completely misread you and I saw anger that was not actually there.

I bid you goodbye.
Abdullah
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 19:47:59
Ditto my last reply to the other one.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 20, 2019, 20:29:33
So, do we condemn this hatred anywhere it rears its head and beat it to death till the antagonists are dead or civilized or do we continue to ignore the lopsided exposure, until it lands on our doorstep? We'll only have two options when that happens.

Now, lets see if this sticks. I would give a true white supremacist a dirt nap as easily as I would a true muslim slaver. Evil has no nationality. Assholes are assholes wherever you find them. Excuse my vulgarity. Like a plague, they should be reprogrammed or put down and eradicated. It matters not to me who they are, what they look like or who they pray to.

But ignoring, denying or politicizing it is counter productive and only allows it to perpetuate and will continue to spiral us down until only one side or the other exists. Evil or good.

We need to stop playing favourites or flagellating ourselves over selective crisis' as instructed by media and politicians. We need to treat every incident equally and have the balls, oops, there it is again, the chutzpah to go in and end it with battefield justice. Wherever it is.

Some places could do this themselves, other might request help. If they refuse, they are the problem, not the solution.

Whether Alabama or Africa.
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: Brihard on March 21, 2019, 00:26:43
Snopes has been debunked.

You cannot ‘debunk’ Snopes in its entirety in this discussion. One debunks a claim, or an argument, or an analysis that is based on a factual foundation that is vulnerable. What you said was like saying “books are debunked” or “this group of people is debunked”. It don’t make sense. You yourself will rail against the dishonesty of the media seemingly in toto, but then link to stories when they suit a point you’re trying to make. What you’re doing is saying “because this (source) says a thing, that thing must be false because it comes from that source”. That’s a bit rich after a week in which you’ve rather unselfconsciously attacked at least myself and I think others for as hominems- a logical fallacy that this is a wonderful example of.

Snopes argues the particular point made, and the website does so with facts and references. Rather than attacking the source, what have you to say about the points being raised, the facts they’re based on, and the reasoning behind the analysis?
Title: Re: Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings
Post by: CloudCover on March 21, 2019, 09:20:31
deleted double post