There is one (arguable) reason to treat the manifesto seriously: to point out just how much of it sounds like a lot of conservatives these days, and as a demonstration of what Trumpian Fox News rhetoric leads to.
Earlier this evening, a witness was interviewed on MSNBC, and referred to him as “that evil Satan thing.” I think she summed it up completely this way.
As a recent adherent of The Satanic Temple, I have to object to that mischaracterization of Satan.
I actually found the manifesto to be surprisingly heavy on left-wing themes: rantings about the evils of corporations, automation, basic universal income, environmentalism, etc.
No one ever said a racist couldn’t want a better life for white people. But his solutions show that that better life should be just for them. And there he parts ways with those who want a better life for everyone. I don’t believe anyone on the left has ever proposed just eliminating entire populations to achieve their goals.
“Achieving ambitions social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of dependents are removed.”
“So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”
Wonderella has a better suggestion on those lines…
While I agree we don’t want to glamorize these assholes when it comes to their manifestos I don’t want all access blocked. Why should I rely on some reporter’s summary of what these guys say? Maybe I want to see for myself so I can draw my own conclusions.
It’s a dilemma of wanting one thing at the same time as wanting another.
Draw what conclusions? That the guy is a hateful, deranged, lunatic criminal? I’m not saying the content has to be “blocked.” A link, fine, if you really have to know the details, not that the details are original or surprising. I just don’t want to see his message on the (virtual) front page of every (virtual) publication going. That accomplishes his goals for him. From Hell, he can cry out, “Mission accomplished!” (Poetically speaking, of course.) It isn’t really a dilemma, because you KNOW what the “manifesto” (what a glorified term to apply to something that’s only good for wiping shit off someone’s ass) says before you even read it, don’t you? These guys shouldn’t be given the publicity they seek.
Calling him “Evil Satan Thing” is just trying to make him otherworldly and avoid asking questions about why he did what he did and why he picked the victims he picked. He also wasn’t “crazy” or mentally ill. He made intricate plans and drove 9 hours to do what he did. It was premeditated and well thought out. He was a person filled with anger and hate and easy access to guns made him deadly and an ongoing long time political strategy by one of our political parties pointed him in a very specific direction.
This isn’t the right thread for an extended discussion on this point, so I’ll just note my disagreement and leave it at that.
No; I don’t. That’s why I read them: to find out.
Right :dubious: And each of these hateful documents is quite different from all the others? And you learn something 1) new, 2) useful, 3) enlightening, and 4) something you weren’t expecting every time you read one of them, do you?
Like I said, I’m not for BLOCKING the information. But I don’t want to see the message magnified, glorified, shouted from the rooftops, and proclaimed throughout the land like the shooter intended for it to be.
Yeah, I do. Ted Kaczynski was remarkably coherent in about two-thirds of his manifesto, and completely off-the-rails in the rest. Marcus Applewhite was completely off-the-rails in his writings and teachings, like 100% of the time. Jim Jones said a lot of good things early on and advocated for things that many people wanted and liked to hear, but the crazy just kept getting ratcheed up as his paranoia and drug use took a stronger hold on him. And this idiot in El Paso is coherent but stupidly wrong, making bad a priori assumptions in every single point he tries to make.
And here’s the thing: our society is filled with people doing shit because they had incomplete information and didn’t know it, had bad information and didn’t know it and in many cases, were utterly unable to properly weigh what is good and what is bad information. From my point of view, this includes every single person who believes in a deity, so I have a vested interest in trying to understand how delusional, crazy people think and why they behave the way that they do: I am surrounded by them.
Nope, what you saw there was just the logical result of twisting environmentalism to make it say that ‘we should be against immigrants’.
This has been an already old idea and it has been used even by some misguided conservatives in the SDMB, basically it is Greenwashing gone nativist.
https://www.thenation.com/article/greenwashing-nativism/
As I noticed, in the SDMB, it seemed that many conservatives had dropped that idea, but one recent post from one recently departed right wing poster and this incident shows that the dumb idea continues to grow in the right wing disinformation sphere.
Eco-fascism is apparently a thing now, as climate change gets harder to deny while fascists want to keep their fascist beliefs. Even Richard Spencer has talked about the need to keep the planet livable (for white people.)
Dmitriy Andreychenko is one of the dumbest assholes on the planet.
Shall not be abridged
Oh yeah? Before you start ranking them, wait till you see those who will defend his actions. You may have some new contenders.
Will this excuse work, to secure only a slap on the wrist, from the US courts?
If they believe him isn’t it a mere misdemeanour? What’s he likely to get beyond a fine, in that case?
If he sticks to his story about not ‘intending’ to cause a panic, can he be held responsible if one ensues?
Just curious.