Agreed. This line in particular struck me as silly nonsense:
“at this time, the one that we are living in, the one that we are affected by and the one that we can effect, the most likely motivator to initiate world ending nuclear exchanges is white supremacy.”
It’s just stupid on its face. If we’re going to have a nuclear “exchange” with anyone big enough to be considered “world-ending”, the only candidate is Russia, a country full of white people. How is “white supremacy” supposed to figure into two predominately-white countries having a world-ending nuclear exchange (not to mention that if there’s even a half-truth behind the Dems incessant howling of “Russia! Russia! Russia!” since the 2016 election, then President Trump should be exactly the least-likely president to nuke Russia that we’ve had for as long as we’ve had nukes).
That’s because it works its way into nearly everything. That’s my point. It is infectious and insidious. I see plenty of hateful and dehumanizing language right in this very thread that is a result of white supremacy influence. Your steeping in it, and you don’t even know or care.
Is it really necessary for you bring out so much hostility in order for you to participate in an online discussion? :dubious:
Anyway, moving on…
I said initiate. And yes, dropping a “small” tactical nuke on Iran is initiating a nuclear weapon escalation. Do you really think that Russia is going to appreciate us detonating nukes in their backyard?
Putin did not help Trump get into office because they were pals, he helped him get into office to destabilize our country.
That seems an awfully low number, to be honest. I’m guessing you aren’t going by deaths, but put that in for impact? I was thinking of ideologies that caused deaths, so I did a quick google search. Know how many Americans die each year from vaccine preventable diseases? It’s almost 4 orders of magnitude more…and this doesn’t even touch on how many die in other countries because Americans push for no vaccines there. I was a bit surprised on the magnitude (50k-90k is the estimate).
Anyway, I do think that nationalism is on the rise, and it’s certainly dangerous. White supremacist’s though? I did another quick google search on this and found that the FBI says there is around 1100 (and a cross check by civil rights organizations seem to corroborate that with estimates from 900-1000) such groups in the US in 2018 with an average of 100 in each (this is up btw since 2016…wonder why?..where it was less than 700). That’s 110000 people. Even if that’s off by an order of magnitude, it seems a pretty small number of folks to be the greatest ideological threat to the US, unless you are using a very loose definition of ‘white supremacist’ (I only read the OP, so you might have later clarified).
Nationalism, though…yeah, I could see that as being a big threat to US ideology depending on your perspective. Of course, what is or isn’t a threat is going to depend on the view point of the person making the judgement. But, world wide, I think nationalism is on the rise, and Trump’s own brand certainly has a lot of followers and is certainly a threat.
ETA: I think the biggest threat to the US isn’t from an ideology, even one as toxic as white supremacists’. I think ignorance is the biggest threat to the US, and I think that Trump and his supporters exemplifies this issue perfectly.
For this board, “silly nonsense” and “stupid on its face” are incredibly tame. If you want to start making a habit of calling out “hostility” though, I could probably point you in the right direction.
The source for that “murdered 73” figure appears to be this ADL report:
Parkland seems like a weird inclusion in that list. There’s rather scant evidence that the Parkland shooter was a white supremacist (the most I’ve found is this CNN article which says “A user going by the name of Nikolas Cruz also included slurs against blacks and Muslims in his posts.”) and virtually nothing that indicates that his motive for shooting up the school was racial animosity. In the creepy-as-hell videos he recorded the day of the shooting, the closest he gets to offering a motive was “I’ve had enough being told what to do and when to do.” Seems like more than a stretch to claim his attack was “clearly” motivated by white supremacy.
“Police said that he held “extremist” views; social media accounts that were thought to be linked to him contained anti-black and anti-Muslim slurs.”
“Items recovered by police at the scene included gun magazines with swastikas carved in them. One student reported that Cruz had drawn a swastika and the words “I hate niggers” on his backpack.”
“CNN reported that Cruz was in a private Instagram group chat where he expressed racist, homophobic, antisemitic, and anti-immigrant (xenophobic) views. He said he wanted to kill gay people and Mexicans, and talked about keeping black people in chains. He said he hated black people “simply because they were black,” and Jewish people because he believed “they wanted to destroy the world.” He also referred to white women who engaged in interracial relationships as traitors.”
I’ve wondered if killing Osama bin Laden was worth it due to this effect. Since there’s nothing to fuel a conspiracy theory like the conspiracy theory occasionally turning out to be true, the CIA finding bin Laden through a fake vaccination campaign certainly fed the anti-vax flames in Pakistan, leading to who knows how many deaths, versus the possible deaths that bin Laden could have organized.
Even if we grant their numbers.
In a country with 330 million people a rally with 330 attendees is no big deal. 36 people killed a year is no threat either. More people are killed by lightning, stinging insects, and lawn mowers.
We didn’t really care that they were fascist, either. We only cared that they wanted to take over everything else. It wouldn’t have mattered if they were theocratic, fascist, communist, imperialistic or even democratic until they started rolling tanks into areas we actually cared about.
The very first sentence of the OP makes this clear.
The OP makes it amply clear that he is not discussing common crime, but is discussing ideologically motivated murder, e.g. terrorism. Common crime isn’t an “ideology.” ** It is literally in the title of this thread,** and you know it, so your attempts to deflect it back into “black people are violent” stuff is obviously disingenuous nonsense.
Democracy is by far the most dangerous ideology. The number of people jailed by democratic governments in the US far exceeds the white supremacists damage. Also the number of killings by democratic agents (the coppers) exceeds the number of killings by these open white supremacists.
Your OP deftly evades the damage done by the federal democratic government overseas. Is this due to a nationalistic impulse?
Do you think anyone , anywhere is responsible for their own actions and not directly the fault of the US government (or in this case the white supremacists ) ?
I find this a lot in all talks about just about everything. Liberals tend to blame (or excuse ) everyone else but the person for whom the blame should lie with.
In addition to democracy doing much more damage than any other ideology, it is also wholeheartedly endorsed by a huge majority of the public and is preached as gospel in schools. It has control over the most powerful military apparatus in human history. It is in control of a government which confiscates more wealth than any organization in human history.
There really is no equal to democracy as a dangerous ideology besides perhaps communism or real-deal socialism, both of which are relatively non-influential today.
Your response deftly avoids the OP by introducing criminal/penal laws and ongoing wars that have nothing to do with what’s being discussed. Let’s stay on topic, shall we?
Any chance that a large proportion of those killed by police were killed during the commission of an actual crime? Or have you accounted for that in your well cited argument?