New Zealand shootings.

chris_bass

drlodge wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why would an Australian chose to try and stop all immigration by emigrating to NZ and shooting people who were born in NZ. Am I missing something, is he of Maori descent?

Because he believes in a twisted ideology?

This!

why would a White Supremacist choose to live somewhere that isn't inherently white? Messed up people do messed up things!

kingstongraham

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why would an Australian chose to try and stop all immigration by emigrating to NZ and shooting people who were born in NZ. Am I missing something, is he of Maori descent?

I think it's because he's a fucking idiot.

veronese68

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why would an Australian chose to try and stop all immigration by emigrating to NZ and shooting people who were born in NZ. Am I missing something, is he of Maori descent?

I think it's because he's a ******* idiot.

Yep, that pretty much covers it.

surrey_commuter

drlodge wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

why would an Australian chose to try and stop all immigration by emigrating to NZ and shooting people who were born in NZ. Am I missing something, is he of Maori descent?

Because he believes in a twisted ideology?

But surely the easiest immigrant to shoot was himself

sgt.pepper

Tangled Metal wrote:

Have you actually discussed this terrorist and his motives and how his outlook on things is twisted? Have you spent as much effort doing that as you have on doing it for Islamic terrorism?

Actually, yes. The cynic in me thinks that many have wished to repress his manifesto because it contains kernels of truth, between the evil, insanity and memes.

Look at how little coverage the attack in the Netherlands has received (I appreciate that it had a smaller body count, and is perversely normalised now).

Look at how being 'white' is now an insult by many who consider themselves 'right on.' It's insipid, and it's common. Even many hardline feminists have been getting attacked for it recently, things have gotten very strange. Identity politics is far stronger here in NZ and Australia (and the USA), than the UK which is still predominantly based in class issues.

Look at the migrant crisis, and the denial that it contributed to the wave of sexual assaults and violence. Look at the active attempts by the establishment to repress this - Sweden is patient zero for this. Why do you think the far Right is on the rise? These things aren't happening in a vacuum - people turn to extremes when the centre fails them - which it indisputably has.

Now, does massacring 50 innocent people who have actually gone through a far more vigorous immigration process than exists in Europe make sense in this context? Obviously not in the slightest - but unless people want to keep being baffled by the rise of extremist politics, they need to start facing up to some hard questions.

rjsterry

Sgt.Pepper wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Have you actually discussed this terrorist and his motives and how his outlook on things is twisted? Have you spent as much effort doing that as you have on doing it for Islamic terrorism?

Actually, yes. The cynic in me thinks that many have wished to repress his manifesto because it contains kernels of truth, between the evil, insanity and memes.

Look at how little coverage the attack in the Netherlands has received (I appreciate that it had a smaller body count, and is perversely normalised now).

Look at how being 'white' is now an insult by many who consider themselves 'right on.' It's insipid, and it's common. Even many hardline feminists have been getting attacked for it recently, things have gotten very strange. Identity politics is far stronger here in NZ and Australia (and the USA), than the UK which is still predominantly based in class issues.

Look at the migrant crisis, and the denial that it contributed to the wave of sexual assaults and violence. Look at the active attempts by the establishment to repress this - Sweden is patient zero for this. Why do you think the far Right is on the rise? These things aren't happening in a vacuum - people turn to extremes when the centre fails them - which it indisputably has.

Now, does massacring 50 innocent people who have actually gone through a far more vigorous immigration process than exists in Europe make sense in this context? Obviously not in the slightest - but unless people want to keep being baffled by the rise of extremist politics, they need to start facing up to some hard questions.

You mean the incident in Utrecht? It wasn't terrorism related. The gunman knew one victim and then shot two others when they tried to intervene.

I'm not convinced anyone is baffled by the rise of the far right or the populist left. But I think there was certainly quite a bit of complacency from the mainstream parties on a whole raft of issues.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

The argument has to go back to the ideology, in this case that it's OK to jump a red light when its clearly not.

Call out the idea, not the people.

Call out Red Light Jumping

Call out the White Supremacist ideology.

Call out the Islamist Ideology.

Don't blame all people who are associated with some aspect linked to the ideology (Cyclists, white skinned people, Muslims).

...but don’t call out stuff that is aimed at you, right?

Is it me or is there any logic to his argument that it is Islam that he hates not muslims

Yes I think there is logic in saying you can hate certain things a person believes without hating the person. I strongly disagree with private education - maybe not hate - but I don't hate all privately educated people or all people who disagree with me on the issue - I don't even have a dislike of them.

The only real difference with religion is that it can become so much a part of their identity that they see an attack on the ideology as an attack on them.

robert88

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

The argument has to go back to the ideology, in this case that it's OK to jump a red light when its clearly not.

Call out the idea, not the people.

Call out Red Light Jumping

Call out the White Supremacist ideology.

Call out the Islamist Ideology.

Don't blame all people who are associated with some aspect linked to the ideology (Cyclists, white skinned people, Muslims).

...but don’t call out stuff that is aimed at you, right?

Is it me or is there any logic to his argument that it is Islam that he hates not muslims

Yes I think there is logic in saying you can hate certain things a person believes without hating the person. I strongly disagree with private education - maybe not hate - but I don't hate all privately educated people or all people who disagree with me on the issue - I don't even have a dislike of them.

The only real difference with religion is that it can become so much a part of their identity that they see an attack on the ideology as an attack on them.

Islam and Christianity are not so very different. However each has become predominant in different regions and thus become a way in which individuals who are hungry for power can make base for themselves.

One of the aims of the Trump-supporting New Zealand murderer was to foment civil war in the USA. A possibility that is hinted at by the POTUS himself as he comes under increasing pressure.

rick_chasey

Meanwhile U.K. head of anti terrorism wags the finger at mainstream press.

Oof.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... -neil-basu

Britain’s counter-terrorism chief has said far-right terrorists are being radicalised by mainstream newspaper coverage, while also criticising the hypocrisy of outlets such as Mail Online, which uploaded the “manifesto” of the gunman in the Christchurch terror attack.

robert88

Neil Basu, warned those circulating the footage made by the attacker of the killings could be subject to criminal prosecution.

“Sharing terrorist propaganda serves only to cause harm and is seized upon by extremists seeking to divide communities. Furthermore dissemination of such material may result in a criminal investigation,” he said.

“Mainstream media companies should also consider very carefully whether it is truly in the public interest to host anything that might inspire hate crime.”

I guess that includes forums such as this.

nickice

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes I think there is logic in saying you can hate certain things a person believes without hating the person. I strongly disagree with private education - maybe not hate - but I don't hate all privately educated people or all people who disagree with me on the issue - I don't even have a dislike of them.

The only real difference with religion is that it can become so much a part of their identity that they see an attack on the ideology as an attack on them.

Yes, of course it's possible. I don't hate people I know who are communists, for example. With religion it's even easier to draw line as there are often different interpretations of the same text (which is why most Muslims don't support ISIS, for example).

Your final point is important as that is a problem. People have a tendency to take things personally.

nickice

Robert88 wrote:

Neil Basu, warned those circulating the footage made by the attacker of the killings could be subject to criminal prosecution.

“Sharing terrorist propaganda serves only to cause harm and is seized upon by extremists seeking to divide communities. Furthermore dissemination of such material may result in a criminal investigation,” he said.

“Mainstream media companies should also consider very carefully whether it is truly in the public interest to host anything that might inspire hate crime.”

I guess that includes forums such as this.

A dangerous game he's playing. You could very easily class all the Abrahamic religious texts as encouraging hate.

surrey_commuter

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

Have to agree with KG here. It's the same as after an article about a cyclist being knocked over and idiots starting about how they saw a cyclist jump a red light once, the implication being that means a completely different cyclist deserved to die. Do those people have a justifiable point or are they biased against cyclists? Pretty strong evidence for bias in my opinion.

The argument has to go back to the ideology, in this case that it's OK to jump a red light when its clearly not.

Call out the idea, not the people.

Call out Red Light Jumping

Call out the White Supremacist ideology.

Call out the Islamist Ideology.

Don't blame all people who are associated with some aspect linked to the ideology (Cyclists, white skinned people, Muslims).

...but don’t call out stuff that is aimed at you, right?

Is it me or is there any logic to his argument that it is Islam that he hates not muslims

Yes I think there is logic in saying you can hate certain things a person believes without hating the person. I strongly disagree with private education - maybe not hate - but I don't hate all privately educated people or all people who disagree with me on the issue - I don't even have a dislike of them.

The only real difference with religion is that it can become so much a part of their identity that they see an attack on the ideology as an attack on them.

Let’s run with your example of private education. What is it you disagree with, the buildings, the focus on sport, methods of teaching?

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Neil Basu, warned those circulating the footage made by the attacker of the killings could be subject to criminal prosecution.

“Sharing terrorist propaganda serves only to cause harm and is seized upon by extremists seeking to divide communities. Furthermore dissemination of such material may result in a criminal investigation,” he said.

“Mainstream media companies should also consider very carefully whether it is truly in the public interest to host anything that might inspire hate crime.”

I guess that includes forums such as this.

A dangerous game he's playing. You could very easily class all the Abrahamic religious texts as encouraging hate.

Not really no.

That's the kind of thing someone who wanted to discriminate against muslims would do.

That's not you, is it?

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Neil Basu, warned those circulating the footage made by the attacker of the killings could be subject to criminal prosecution.

“Sharing terrorist propaganda serves only to cause harm and is seized upon by extremists seeking to divide communities. Furthermore dissemination of such material may result in a criminal investigation,” he said.

“Mainstream media companies should also consider very carefully whether it is truly in the public interest to host anything that might inspire hate crime.”

I guess that includes forums such as this.

A dangerous game he's playing. You could very easily class all the Abrahamic religious texts as encouraging hate.

Not really no.

That's the kind of thing someone who wanted to discriminate against muslims would do.

That's not you, is it?

You are such an incredibly dishonest actor. I read through the pages of discussion here and, sure enough, it wasn't long before you popped up calling people bigots. Of course, whenever anyone challenges you to actually provide any evidence someone is a bigot or racist, you tend to disappear or change the topic.

With regard to Abrahamic religious texts, you absolutely could classify parts of them as promoting hate. Have you ever actually read any of them? The easy way to avoid it would be recognise hate speech as free speech, like in the USA.

rick_chasey

I have and if you read it in any normal context you would understand that you're on the wrong side of the argument. Monotheism is rather mainstream, after all.

It is curious how you pop up only when people are discussing Muslims - I remember you were very on point during the london attacks but in this instance you're very happy to wait until the discussion turns to Muslims.

Are you advocating legalising hate speech in this instance? or just advocating banning religious texts?

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

I have and if you read it in any normal context you would understand that you're on the wrong side of the argument.

It is curious how you pop up only when people are discussing Muslims - I remember you were very on point during the london attacks but in this instance you're very happy to wait until the discussion turns to Muslims.

Are you advocating legalising hate speech in this instance? or just advocating banning religious texts?

I have read them all, especially as I was brought up by a devoutly Christian mother. They can easily be interpreted as promoting hatred and that's not even controversial to say that. I don't believe you've ever really studies them or you would know that. I noticed that someone said that ISIS follow a literal, plausible interpretation of Islam and you accused them of lying. I'd be curious to know where you think ISIS got their ideology from.

And it's interesting to see how hypocritical you, and others, are when it comes to a white-supremacist attack. Suddenly any journalist who criticises Islam is partly to blame. Yet, after an Islamic terror attack, it's always just a 'nutter' who had nothing to do with religion. Make your minds up. Unless there is a direct call for violence, there is no blame to be assigned to anyone other than the killer.

Of course hate speech should be legal. It's part of free speech. If you knew your history, you'd know why.

rick_chasey

You want to legalise hate speech?

I wonder why....

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

And it's interesting to see how hypocritical you, and others, are when it comes to a white-supremacist attack. Suddenly any journalist who criticises Islam is partly to blame. Yet, after an Islamic terror attack, it's always just a 'nutter' who had nothing to do with religion. Make your minds up. Unless there is a direct call for violence, there is no blame to be assigned to anyone other than the killer.

In fairness, I haven't said any of that.

Try again.

What I've actually said is nutters will hang their hat on whatever ideology justifies their interest in being nutters.

I don't for a minute say that radicalisation doesn't happen and that radicalisation does not happen in isolation.

But there are people willing to use those nutters for their own nefarious means.

rick_chasey

The argument is that texts from a religion followed by 1.8 billion people is plainly not the radicalising text you want it to be.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

You want to legalise hate speech?

I wonder why....

You're embarrassing yourself now.

If you think legalising hate speech is some sort of extreme position, maybe you should read some of the cases that have come before the US Supreme Court.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

And it's interesting to see how hypocritical you, and others, are when it comes to a white-supremacist attack. Suddenly any journalist who criticises Islam is partly to blame. Yet, after an Islamic terror attack, it's always just a 'nutter' who had nothing to do with religion. Make your minds up. Unless there is a direct call for violence, there is no blame to be assigned to anyone other than the killer.

In fairness, I haven't said any of that.

Try again.

What I've actually said is nutters will hang their hat on whatever ideology justifies their interest in being nutters.

I don't for a minute say that radicalisation doesn't happen and that radicalisation does not happen in isolation.

But there are people willing to use those nutters for their own nefarious means.

Yet more bad faith. Hardly surprising. I thought you claimed to have studied history. If so, you should know perfectly well that normal people can do terrible things given a certain context. It has very little to do with their just being 'nutters'. Terrorists are very rarely spoken of as being nutters before they become radicalised.

rick_chasey

What you really ought to ask is what makes someone susceptible to radicalisation in the first place.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

What you really ought to ask is what makes someone susceptible to radicalisation in the first place.

Blame the factors that lead to radicalisation but don't look at the ideology? That's trying to solve half a problem. Especially as there isn't one determining factor.

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What you really ought to ask is what makes someone susceptible to radicalisation in the first place.

Blame the factors that lead to radicalisation but don't look at the ideology? That's trying to solve half a problem. Especially as there isn't one determining factor.

There is enough evidence that terrorism occurs in pretty much in the name of any ideology.

Ideology is not a differentiating factor.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

The argument is that texts from a religion followed by 1.8 billion people is plainly not the radicalising text you want it to be.

That depends on-

a) what branch of Islam you're talking (You're forgetting the different Hadith)

b) what you class as radical

c) whether you actually think that I think all Muslims follow the ISIS or Al Qaeda interpretation of Islam which, as I've stated on multiple occasions, I don't.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What you really ought to ask is what makes someone susceptible to radicalisation in the first place.

Blame the factors that lead to radicalisation but don't look at the ideology? That's trying to solve half a problem. Especially as there isn't one determining factor.

There is enough evidence that terrorism occurs in pretty much in the name of any ideology.

Ideology is not a differentiating factor.

Nobody is suggesting that Islamic terrorism is the only form of terrorism. However, for example, do you think all IRA terrorists were destined to be terrorists even if they had grown up somewhere else?

rick_chasey

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What you really ought to ask is what makes someone susceptible to radicalisation in the first place.

Blame the factors that lead to radicalisation but don't look at the ideology? That's trying to solve half a problem. Especially as there isn't one determining factor.

There is enough evidence that terrorism occurs in pretty much in the name of any ideology.

Ideology is not a differentiating factor.

Nobody is suggesting that Islamic terrorism is the only form of terrorism. However, for example, do you think all IRA terrorists were destined to be terrorists even if they had grown up somewhere else?

I thought you were suggesting that there was something innate in islamic text that makes terrorism more likely?

I think what we can say is that castigating groups of people based on their faith or ideology *does* often create the intellectual argument for people to do things like genocides, some war crimes etc etc.

DeVlaeminck

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Let’s run with your example of private education. What is it you disagree with, the buildings, the focus on sport, methods of teaching?

Without wanting to avoid answering your question it's not really the thread for it so I don't want to get into a debate on that here if at all.

Suffice to say while I recognise there are issues around individual freedom to spend your money how you like when it comes to something as fundamental to equality of opportunity as education my view is that private education as it exists currently at least is a bad thing for our wider society.

I'm not critical of people who choose private education for their kids they are just living in the world as it is and doing the best for their own as they see it - a bit like Denis Healey's response when he was criticised for his wife (another debate around why he should then be criticised) choosing private health for some condition she had.

nickice

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

nickice wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

What you really ought to ask is what makes someone susceptible to radicalisation in the first place.

Blame the factors that lead to radicalisation but don't look at the ideology? That's trying to solve half a problem. Especially as there isn't one determining factor.

There is enough evidence that terrorism occurs in pretty much in the name of any ideology.

Ideology is not a differentiating factor.

Nobody is suggesting that Islamic terrorism is the only form of terrorism. However, for example, do you think all IRA terrorists were destined to be terrorists even if they had grown up somewhere else?

I thought you were suggesting that there was something innate in islamic text that makes terrorism more likely?

I think what we can say is that castigating groups of people based on their faith or ideology *does* often create the intellectual argument for people to do things like genocides, some war crimes etc etc.

There is a plausible interpretation of Islam that encourages terrorism. It also pits Muslims against non-Muslims. If people are going to say that criticising a faith encourages attacks against followers of that faith, then they also have to accept that that faith can encourage attacks against non-followers of that faith.