Analysis: 15 Mar 2019: Christchurch NZ Mosque Shootings

[Kat Stevens]

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?

 

[brihard]

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 shit, 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.

 

[Kat Stevens]

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 shit, 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.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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

 

[brihard]

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 shit, 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.

 

[Kat Stevens]

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 shit, 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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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 shit.
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.

 

[Navy_Pete]

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.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Is it German Nazis or just Nazis? 

 

[Kat Stevens]

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.

 

[brihard]

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.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

 

[brihard]

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.

 

[FJAG]

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:

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>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.

 

[Furniture]

>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.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

 

[Jarnhamar]

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.