So the unwillingness to admit that bad info was used in the immediate wake of a breaking news story has come to outright asserting, with a straight face: - Arabs are considered white, period, to everyone, even to white supremacists, and to question this notion or analyze where the idea of being "considered “white” comes from is to be a racist.
I await your excellent analysis of how the 9/11 hijackers were an example of white fragility run amok and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is a toxic organization promoting white supremacy.
“Arabs are considered white even to white supremacists”
I’m sure you won’t have any trouble pointing to the post that provided the straw for this… thing you’ve created?
And frankly, it’s past time we addressed the patriarchal implications of white person Muhammad’s propensity for conquest, not to mention noted toxic white malebro Saddam Hussein’s actions. On the other hand, perhaps white heroes such as Avicenna and Ahmed Zewail should be celebrated more. The role of other famous white people such as Yasser Arafat and Gamel Abdel-Nasser is much more controversial…
It is hilarious that you’ve written this line into your fantasy story. I’ll buy elves, horizontal lightning bolts, worms the size of a freight train–but this? This is just implausible. Nobody talks like that.
I realise the discussion has disappeared down some sort of train wreck/pile-on at this point but to come back to this point of yours, I have to say I disagree.
From what I can tell, plenty of paranoid nutters randomly latch on to whatever issue happens to be in their environs at the time they wig out. Whether it be a family problem/ religion/ideology/conspiracy theory/overheated political debate/sexual inadequacy etc
To put such people in the political/ideological basket doesn’t seem to me to be usefully descriptive if you consider (as I do) that they could probably just as easily have ended up in some other basket if they happened to latch onto some other nonsensical motivation.
If they are pushing their radicalism onto the vulnerable, yes.
But I think much of the time that’s not what’s happening.
If some insane massacre-ists are just hooking into whatever controversy is passing through, it doesn’t make any particular sense to blame the protagonists in the controversy.
If a crazy paranoid guy hangs around a shelter for beaten wives and decides he’s going to go to a mall and shoot every man he can see wearing a wedding ring because he believes they are all wife beaters does that mean the massacre should be attributed to the campaigners against wife beating?
I disagree. The particular kind of ideology I’m talking about does particularly target itself at the emotionally and mentally vulnerable, IMO. Not exclusively, but not by pure chance, either. Or a better phrasing than “target” would be “render itself particularly attractive to”.
Only if the anti-wife-beating campaign was associated with an entire movement that glorified violence and gun-based solutions to ideological differences, the way anti-vax and anti-mask and racist ideologies are.
I know we’ve talked about family liability in the past, but the paper the other day said a family member described seeing the suspect, [paraphrase]playing around with what looked like a machine gun recently.[/paraphrase].
Then today they talk about his history of violent behavior, and family members are claiming some unspecified (untreated?) mental illness.
Sure, there are limits regarding what a family member ought to be required to do, but it is so troublesome when a cohabiting family member thinks there is nothing needing to be done when a fucked up family member starts acquiring guns.
Ya, this has been a big question for me especially given that Colorado has a much publicized Red flag law that enables families to have guns removed from loved ones. Maybe it’s due to them being uncomfortable with law enforcement or because they didn’t want to live with the guy after having his guns taken away but figuring out why existing laws that should have stopped this didn’t will be a big thing in the coming months.
Why dont cops shoot white guys who are actually known to be armed and have actually shot people??
Black guy, shoot first because we are in fear for our lives. White guys, lets try to talk him down because he must be troubled.
“At that point the suspect put the gun to his own neck. Buffalo police personnel – two patrol officers – talked the suspect into dropping the gun. He dropped the gun, took off some of his tactical gear, surrendered at that point. And he was led outside, put in a police car,” he said.