Indeed. And the problem is that there’s a huge sector of America heavily invested in believing that racism is a negligible part of the country. If we view this guy as a terrorist, we have to figure out what his political aims were; if we see that they’re racist aims, it may shake faith in the idea that racism has little effect in our culture.
As I said earlier, there’s a difference between Al Qaeda and this guy. A lunatic motherfucker who wants to murder people in Pakistan is likely to join Al Qaeda. A lunatic motherfucker who wants to murder people in South Carolina uses his birthday gun. It’s the difference between infrastructure terrorists and lone wolf terrorists–but both are bad, and both are byproducts of their cultures, and it’s worth figuring out what we can do to eliminate (or at least minimize and irrelevantize) both.
This is circular.
What is the definition of terrorism?
Do you have to be “affiliated” with someone who is not in your brain?
If you are a nutjob who acts alone can you be a T-word?
The victims’ families, at the bail hearing, showed a remarkable amount of Christian charity. One after another, they told the suspect, “I forgive you.”
They wept, and chastized him for the slayings. But they forgave.
That’s actually a salient point. First of all, we do have laws specifically against terrorism, so that would matter if this guy gets charged to the max or not. Although, I’m not thinking a terrorism addendum is going to lock this guy up any longer, but it is a legal point. And there could be some issue with insurance (sorry, you’re insured against terrorism, but this was racism, so no payout to you.)
But… that’s a matter for the local law enforcement agency, and maybe for the FBI. Machs nicht whether some random politician calls it terrorism.
To be implicit in the wording is important. The President is charged with keeping his country and its citizens safe from threats and acts of terrorism. This is domestic terrorism and therefore the government must act. Ergo the investigation at the federal level.
John Mace, you’re fighting the good fight against ignorance. I’d help you out if I was half as eloquent as you have been on the matter.
This is completely bat-shit insane. He used a word–which you think is racist–to describe a white man and you’re upset? I…I don’t get it. And if he did it on purpose (about which I have no opinion) you fell right into his plans by getting upset.
I think the objection is more along the lines of, “You’re just using ‘thug’ so that you can in a self-serving way hold up your own usage of the word in this setting to score a point in the debate over whether ‘thug’ is being used as a racial slur.”
I am studiously taking no position on the debate, just trying to indicate what I think is going on. I could be wrong, too, as I haven’t been paying a whole lot of attention to this.
He’s running for president therefore he needs to withhold comment or he’ll jeopardize due process? C’mon. That argument doesn’t even pass the smell test, John. There’s nothing inconsistent with due process about people wholly outside the judicial process commenting on the crime.
Because it’s an important event. This is the biggest white supremacist killing in decades, in a state that proudly flies the flag of white supremacy. And it happened at a time when racism is re-emerging as a national political issue through the #blacklivesmatter movement (including as the consequence of a bad police killing in that state). Citizens deserve to know what these leaders think about the issues, all the more so because those leaders are competing to win South Carolina, so this is a chance to see whether they have any integrity or not.
I understand, as someone whose audience potentially includes the grieving families, not saying anything immediately–especially if your policy message is “tough luck.” But the suggestion that politicians ought not address such events is saying they ought not be leaders. You may want that. I don’t want that.
This is a terrible interpretation of Obama’s comments–based solely on your baseless supposition that he really thought this didn’t happen elsewhere but qualified his comments because it sounded bad (or whatever). But, in any event, advocating for a policy is not “scoring points.” That’s what leaders are supposed to do. You may not like the policy. Hell, I don’t like the policy. But it’s beyond cynical to say that calling for a policy change in response to a tragedy is scoring points. Especially when that policy is unpopular.
Having re-read this entire thread, I have to conclude that some people are simply looking to use the event to push their own agendas, and, in this case it is not the politicians.
No one in this thread has provided a single instance of any politician denying that the attack was racist. The closest we got, 20 posts into the thread, (after a series on “No, you do it” posts), was a link to a left-leaning blogger who cherry picked a number of GOP politicians who had not happened to have included the word “racism” in their selected remarks. (And, counter to one claim, Jeb Bush did say he thought it was racism.) We do have one idiot from Fox News trying to shift the motive away from racism to anti-Christian beliefs, but Doocy barely counts as a “mainstream figure” except among the few people who actually watch his routine nonsense.)
This is manufactured outrage that serves no purpose.
Was Roof motivated by racism? Undoubtedly. Does his action indicate that racism is still a problem in this country? No.
No one who has followed my posting history could possibly believe that I am unaware of the serious problems of racism in this country. However, Roof appears to be a lone nut. No one in this thread has identified any group whom he represented. No group has been cited applauding, or even defending, his actions. The behaviors of lone nuts are simply not a good barometer of the issues that a society faces.
Even the Doocy claim is being blown out of proportion by the bloggers on the Left. Most of the headlines make the claim that Fox News was trying to deny the racism. That is not so. Doocy’s comment came in an interview in a “let’s find a sidebar issue to discuss” approach common to all round-the-clock news outlets. The discussion was with a black pastor in which anti-Christian beliefs and the need for pastors to arm themselves was raised. Two common themes from Fox, of course, but typical of discussions looking for a new slant on any story. Of the three Fox commentators, none declared that racism was not involved. Doocy made a typically stupid comment that he was not sure why it was being called a hate crime, but that it was probably because it involved a white attack on blacks, but that he had not yet seen the explanations. Really stupid. Really Doocy. Not a Fox position. Not a primary thrust of the interview.
Tomndeb, your deliverance seems not to deal with the issue I raised in the following, quoted from a previous post:
In the above-quoted, I explain why many of the quotes in post 20 are in fact indications of “doubt or denial” that the shooter’s motivations are racial in character.
However I have also restated my concern–you might even say walked it back to some extent–as follows:
If James Holmes told his friends, “Hey, I’m going to shoot up a movie theater,” they would have recoiled in horror and told the police.
If Adam Lanza told his friends, “Thinking maybe I shoot up a school and I have the gun right here,” his friends would have recoiled in horror and told the police.
Dylann Roof did tell multiple people that he was going “do something big” and “start a race war.” He said this while armed. He spouted racist theories and went into rants. His friends did not do a damned thing.
That’s enough tacit support for his plans to suggest a racist culture, in a state that celebrates its racist slave-owning “heritage” by flying a confederate flag at their courthouse and names everything after confederate generals. It also suggests that his friends didn’t disagree with him that much, except on the shooting part, and that it is not that out of the mainstream for white people to talk as Dylann talked.
It is very much, obvious to anyone, a racial problem, not an outlier or a peculiar “accident” to use Rick Perry’s term. If you are re-reading this like Tomndebb and not seeing denial, it is because you are denying it, you are making excuses and looking away and averting your eyes. You are denying the racism and denying the denial.
Roof had a deadpan sense of humor, according to the neighbor, Christon Scriven, the New York Daily News reported. It was that sense of humor that kept Scriven from taking the threats seriously. Scriven, who is black, said that Roof had moved close to a trailer park just a couple of months ago. “He flat out told us he was going to do this stuff,” Scriven said. “He’s weird. You don’t know when to take him seriously and when not to.”
Kinda blows your “racist culture” theory out of the water. Unless Christon Scriven is part of it, and “tacitly supported” Roof’s plans.
I haven’t been following this too closely, but it sounds like politicians, particularly Republicans and Fox News have been conspicuously NOT using terms like “racism” and “terrorism”.
To me, this would seem to play into a Republican narrative that “racism no longer exists”. Which by extension, implies that incidents like this, the various police shootings of unarmed black men, and even the existence of poor black communities (really poor people in general) are the products of “bad choices” or just random chance (or Liberal policies). Not the by-product of centuries of institutionalized and systematic racism and classism that still exists to this day.
By pretending racism doesn’t exist, it allows Republicans and their conservative middle-American constituents to ignore societal issues that they have largely benefited from.
Also, by ignoring the racist component to this tragedy, it allows Conservatives to address more important issue - ignoring the gun control component.