Page 109 of 123

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:15 pm UTC
by elasto
I for one wasn't speaking of socialism, because that isn't hard-left. Nor was I speaking of communism or Nazism - both of which are a mix of hard-left and hard-right.

I was speaking of today's hard-left - the activists you find everywhere in the media, in politics and so on. They are extremely keen to use the state to impose their worldview on the majority, and tick off many of the items on your list.

That is little different to today's hard-right - the activists you find everywhere in the media, in politics and so on. They are also extremely keen to use the state to impose their worldview on the majority, as well as ticking off many of the items on your list.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:23 pm UTC
by Thesh
Please point out the "hard-left" you are referring to, then. Left vs right is pretty much about socialism vs capitalism. I'm guessing you are just talking about centrists. Also, Nazism is not a mix of left and right, it's extremely far-right and used Marxist as a synonym for "Jew" (hence "first they came for the communists"). They were not socialist by any definition, and much like fascism in America it was largely about protecting the wealth and power of capitalists.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:25 pm UTC
by natraj
elasto wrote:I was speaking of today's hard-left - the activists you find everywhere in the media, in politics and so on. They are extremely keen to use the state to impose their worldview on the majority, and tick off many of the items on your list.


do you actually know what the hard left is, or are you one of those people who applies that term to aoc wanting to tax billionaires?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:27 pm UTC
by Mutex
elasto wrote:I was speaking of today's hard-left - the activists you find everywhere in the media, in politics and so on. They are extremely keen to use the state to impose their worldview on the majority, and tick off many of the items on your list.

Could you give examples of some of these people, and the worldviews they're trying to impose?

While we have a state that imposes laws on people, people are going to have someone's worldview imposed onto them, so your description is pretty vague and could basically apply to anyone not advocating anarchy.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:28 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
The Nazis were more Right than Left, far more, but they did have elements of the left and viewed themselves as having a third position, at least until 1934 in the night of the long knives.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:49 pm UTC
by elasto
Natraj: What does 'aoc' mean?

Let me point out that I don't consider Bernie to be hard-left, for example. I am a European, and in my political terms he's still pretty right-wing. I'd consider myself to be to the left of him despite having voted for the 'right-wing' choice in my own country...

No, it seemed to me that Thesh was talking about right-wing activists when they said 'everything on the right makes more sense when you remember they are fascists' (since many on the right are not authoritarian at all, believing in a small state and freedom of the individual to choose etc.)

Likewise, there are many on the left that are not authoritarian at all; I agree with Thesh that socialism does not equate to authoritarian, say. But there are also many left-wing activists that are authoritarian; They are the ones deplatforming, shouting down speakers, demanding laws towards equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity etc.

When I talk of moderates vs extremists, I very much want to belong to the moderate group: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2013-04-07

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:30 pm UTC
by Zamfir
elasto wrote:Almost all of those points equally apply to the hard left though. Which makes sense because the hard left and the hard right are both inclined to authoritarianism.
[...]

I was speaking of today's hard-left - the activists you find everywhere in the media, in politics and so on. They are extremely keen to use the state to impose their worldview on the majority, and tick off many of the items on your list.

elasto, I am somewhat suprised by this. "Fascism" can become just another word for a dictatorship, but Eco's list is not that. He is setting out an archetype that is more general than the Italian capital-F Fascism of his youth, but he is still trying to capture a recognizable flavour of fascism.

On the one hand, he talks about the trappings of dictatorship, or the claim to speak for the People, like many non-fascist dictators do. On the other hand, he also talks about nationalism, contempt for the weak and a sexualized machismo, a preference for blood-and-soil tradition over modernism. And about the middle classes fearing the lower orders - hardly the stuff of hard-left ideology.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:05 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
elasto wrote:Natraj: What does 'aoc' mean?


AOC is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Let me point out that I don't consider Bernie to be hard-left, for example. I am a European, and in my political terms he's still pretty right-wing. I'd consider myself to be to the left of him despite having voted for the 'right-wing' choice in my own country...


I think in this case the things that you would consider to be "hard-left" are so far outside of the American experience of politics that they may as well not exist. Remember, this is a country where wanting universal public healthcare is "far left".

No, it seemed to me that Thesh was talking about right-wing activists when they said 'everything on the right makes more sense when you remember they are fascists' (since many on the right are not authoritarian at all, believing in a small state and freedom of the individual to choose etc.)


Classical libertarians in this sense are likewise quite rare in American politics. There's plenty of people who will talk about small government, but by that they usually just mean cut taxes for rich people + cut services for poor people. But when it comes to things like, say, what you can put into your body, or whom you can have sex with or marry, or what sorts of medical decisions you can make, or whatnot, they tend to be on the authoritarian side.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:10 pm UTC
by sardia
Are there really that many libertarians in power to purity test? Like there's Rand Paul and maybe some half ass tea party congressman? AOC is a shortcut to a freshman in Congress who's savvy with social media.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:35 pm UTC
by cphite
elasto wrote:I for one wasn't speaking of socialism, because that isn't hard-left. Nor was I speaking of communism or Nazism - both of which are a mix of hard-left and hard-right.


Left versus right tends to be an oversimplification. It ends up being a circle... you have the left and right, obviously. But you actually have two "center" positions... one is centrist, where the reasonable left and the right can meet and coexist; and the other side of the circle is where the most extreme lunatics from left and right eventually meet. This position will be authoritarian.

I was speaking of today's hard-left - the activists you find everywhere in the media, in politics and so on. They are extremely keen to use the state to impose their worldview on the majority, and tick off many of the items on your list.


The folks on the fringes tend to be very keen on imposing their positions via force of law; and if they can't get the law, they'll often settle for violence.

That is little different to today's hard-right - the activists you find everywhere in the media, in politics and so on. They are also extremely keen to use the state to impose their worldview on the majority, as well as ticking off many of the items on your list.


Sadly, the media tends to give the most airtime to the folks at the edges, as they bring better ratings. Rational debate and compromise just aren't compelling television. The unfortunate side effect of this is that people start to believe that the far-right loons actually represent the right, and that the far-left loons actually represent the left; when the reality is that most people are not only in the middle, but are comfortably distant from the goofy assholes who end up on television.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:53 pm UTC
by Thesh
cphite wrote:
elasto wrote:I for one wasn't speaking of socialism, because that isn't hard-left. Nor was I speaking of communism or Nazism - both of which are a mix of hard-left and hard-right.


Left versus right tends to be an oversimplification. It ends up being a circle... you have the left and right, obviously. But you actually have two "center" positions... one is centrist, where the reasonable left and the right can meet and coexist; and the other side of the circle is where the most extreme lunatics from left and right eventually meet. This position will be authoritarian.


That's horseshoe theory and it comes from the oversimplification of politics to labels, rather than breaking down and understanding the ideology. In reality, centrists tend to be the most authoritarian since they don't really have ideological underpinnings, and see everything in terms of rules while typically just wanting sides to compromise and get stuff done (decisiveness good, deliberation bad). They support violence against anyone who breaks the rules, while the extremes do not support violence in some cases but support violence in others (although at the far-left, you have actual pacifists, which pacifism is not compatible with capitalism but is compatible with socialism). The Soviet Union was not socialist, it was a centrist position between socialism and monarchism.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... cracy.html

As for the extremes, what you get in the media is well-dressed fascists who get plenty of time to promote their extreme far-right views, and you get a caricature of the left cherry-picked from social media. It's just that in America, Bernie Sanders is considered far left, when he is center-right in global politics. The Republican party is pretty extreme far-right, and the only way you can get further right is by identifying as a white nationalist or fascist.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:53 pm UTC
by elasto
Mutex wrote:
elasto wrote:I was speaking of today's hard-left - the activists you find everywhere in the media, in politics and so on. They are extremely keen to use the state to impose their worldview on the majority, and tick off many of the items on your list.

Could you give examples of some of these people, and the worldviews they're trying to impose?

While we have a state that imposes laws on people, people are going to have someone's worldview imposed onto them, so your description is pretty vague and could basically apply to anyone not advocating anarchy.

Let me explain what I mean by the term 'hard' then - I mean basically two things.

Firstly, something is 'hard-left' if it's so left-wing even most left-wingers would find it too extreme.

If we stick to economics, while most left-wingers might be happy with core utilities like water being socialised, they might baulk at the food supply being socialised, say - and even those who might be happy with that might baulk at the IT sector being socialised. So someone advocating all those would be 'hard-left'.

A random right-wing example might be that, while most right-wingers might be happy with schools being privatised, some might feel like privatising all prisons might be a step too far, and of those that were happy with even that, some might baulk if you suggested the judiciary being privatised. Someone advocating all of that would be 'hard-right'.

But I also use the label to mean something else: If someone is centre-left, that basically means they think the left has the better ideas in general but the right has some good ideas too. In contrast, if someone is hard-left, it means they think the left has basically all the good ideas, and people who follow right-wing ideology are either misguided or evil. Ditto for the right.

The combination of those two things means that the hard-left/right will tend towards authoritarianism since (a) most people disagree with their policies (even people on their own wing) and/or (b) those on the opposite wing are either 'misguided' or 'evil', so must be suppressed; They are therefore likely to want to turn to the power of the state to impose the position of the tiny minority (them) upon the majority.

Those in the centre, by contrast, are much more likely to be able to deliver their policies by majority-consensus, which may or may not necessitate state imposition. I therefore strongly disagree with Thesh that pragmatic, consensus-driven politics is more likely to turn to violence than ideological extremism. I would also strongly disagree with them that centrists are more likely to be decisive and less likely to deliberate than ideological extremists. I'd argue that ideologues are much more likely to be closed-minded and knee-jerk almost by definition.

Zamfir: I don't want to go through it point by point, but I'll repeat that, when it comes to the extremists on both the left and right in Twitter political discussions, say, I see distinct parallels.

As a random example, while the extreme right tend to elevate nationalist-group-identity over individual identity, the extreme left tend to elevate social-group-identity over individual identity (eg. membership of a protected group). You have to draw back to the calmer waters of the centre-left and centre-right for individuals to be treated truly as individuals.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:32 pm UTC
by Thesh
elasto wrote:If we stick to economics, while most left-wingers might be happy with core utilities like water being socialised, they might baulk at the food supply being socialised, say - and even those who might be happy with that might baulk at the IT sector being socialised. So someone advocating all those would be 'hard-left'.


Those are either social democrats or democratic socialists, which are centrist positions between liberalism and socialism; the government taking control over a vital resource isn't that uncommon in liberal democracies today, especially municipal utilities. The far left calls for social ownership of the means of production and worker self-management. Social ownership of food means that the people who have a social relationship to the farm (workers and consumers) have control over the farms.

People who support something like the government taking control over food supplies are people who generally think society is structured okay, but resources just need to be redistributed. The extremes are people who are willing to accept more radical changes, like completely throwing out our system of law and radically restructuring society.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:36 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
In other news:

GOP LAWMAKERS SLAMMED FOR WEARING PEARLS TO GUN LEGISLATION HEARING: 'FOR SOME, GUN SAFETY IS A JOKE'

Lawmakers sparked controversy by wearing pearl necklaces as they listened to activists share stories of gun violence at the New Hampshire House of Representatives on Tuesday.

Widely condemned for invoking “clutching at pearls” imagery—a phrase used to mock outraged activists and women in particular—gun safety campaigners blasted the politicians online.

[...]

“This callous display of disdain for their own constituents as well as for the rest of us is extremely disturbing,” said Dawn Johnson. “We are talking about human beings killed by guns. Fathers, mothers, children. On what planet is this snide mockery acceptable?”

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:12 pm UTC
by addams
ObsessoMom wrote:In other news:

GOP LAWMAKERS SLAMMED FOR WEARING PEARLS TO GUN LEGISLATION HEARING: 'FOR SOME, GUN SAFETY IS A JOKE'

Lawmakers sparked controversy by wearing pearl necklaces as they listened to activists share stories of gun violence at the New Hampshire House of Representatives on Tuesday.

Widely condemned for invoking “clutching at pearls” imagery—a phrase used to mock outraged activists and women in particular—gun safety campaigners blasted the politicians online.

[...]

“This callous display of disdain for their own constituents as well as for the rest of us is extremely disturbing,” said Dawn Johnson. “We are talking about human beings killed by guns. Fathers, mothers, children. On what planet is this snide mockery acceptable?”
What??
Oh...Shame on us.
We keep getting worse.
According Watts, 10 of the 13 lawmakers presiding over the hearing were men, and around half of them wore pearl necklaces.
So...Five of the Far Right lawmakers were men dressed inappropriately.
Or; The people speaking out for enforcement of good sense laws are too sensitive to gender norms.

What could it be?
What could it be?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:29 pm UTC
by gd1
If (Climate_change_has_not_killed_us_first == True)
{
Cout << "What will future generations think ";
Cout << "about what is happening now?";
}

Just finished a c++ assignment.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:19 am UTC
by commodorejohn
gd1 wrote:If (Climate_change_has_not_killed_us_first == True)
{
Cout << "What will future generations think ";
Cout << "about what is happening now?";
}

Just finished a c++ assignment.

Code: Select all

gd1.cpp:1:4: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before ‘(’ token
 If (Climate_change_has_not_killed_us_first == True)
    ^

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:08 pm UTC
by KittenKaboodle
commodorejohn wrote:

Code: Select all

gd1.cpp:1:4: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before ‘(’ token
 If (Climate_change_has_not_killed_us_first == True)
    ^


Well, the existence of that message is certainly dark news.

Why would one need a "constructor, destructor, or type conversion between "if" and a Boolean comparison? now I could understand if one got an "undefined" for "True" as I'm reasonably sure the standard headers define 'true". But that aside, a Boolean comparison should return a value "if" can handle shouldn't it?

Back in the good old days of BASIC "True" would have been automatically "defined" (as "TRUE" eliminating the case issue), and initialized to 0 eliminating the "undefined" problem, but c demands a bit more from the programmer

Code: Select all

10 IF FALSE = TRUE THEN PRINT "TRUMP 2020"

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:19 am UTC
by Coyne
The Department of Justice has issued subpoenas for a federal grand jury investigation into allegations of election fraud in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District.

Federal investigators issue subpoenas in NC-9 investigation

From the subpoena to North Carolina State Board of Elections:

Documents to be Produced

All documents related to the investigation of election irregularities affecting counties within the 9th congressional district.


Am I weird to wonder why the federal government would demand to take every single document related to the NC District 9 investigation, from the State Board of Elections? Burial at sea?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:08 am UTC
by gd1
KittenKaboodle wrote:
commodorejohn wrote:

Code: Select all

gd1.cpp:1:4: error: expected constructor, destructor, or type conversion before ‘(’ token
 If (Climate_change_has_not_killed_us_first == True)
    ^


Well, the existence of that message is certainly dark news.

Why would one need a "constructor, destructor, or type conversion between "if" and a Boolean comparison? now I could understand if one got an "undefined" for "True" as I'm reasonably sure the standard headers define 'true". But that aside, a Boolean comparison should return a value "if" can handle shouldn't it?

Back in the good old days of BASIC "True" would have been automatically "defined" (as "TRUE" eliminating the case issue), and initialized to 0 eliminating the "undefined" problem, but c demands a bit more from the programmer

Code: Select all

10 IF FALSE = TRUE THEN PRINT "TRUMP 2020"


On codeblocks it just refused to compile:
...Test\testnonsense.cpp|14|error: 'True' was not declared in this scope|

That sounds like undefined to me. It misunderstood it for a variable name I think.

On the issue of subpoenas... I wonder if deutsche bank will turn over any information about Trump? More importantly, if they are connected with Russia, would the be above falsifying it? How would we even know?

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:27 pm UTC
by commodorejohn
Coyne wrote:Am I weird to wonder why the federal government would demand to take every single document related to the NC District 9 investigation, from the State Board of Elections? Burial at sea?

I admit I'm not up on the process, but I don't think a subpoena for documents requires you to hand over all existing copies if you can just, y'know, make more copies. More likely it's because election fraud is a federal-level offense what needs investigatin'.

As far as Deutsche Bank goes, I'm genuinely curious about that. As an institution that's widely believed to be more than slightly involved with large-scale international money laundering, I wouldn't imagine they'd be too forthcoming, but they have seemed fairly willing to cooperate in regards to Trump and associates thus far. Might have something to do with the fact that they somehow got suckered into lending him large sums of money repeatedly over the years despite the repayment prospects continually looking worse and worse as time rolled on.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:33 pm UTC
by Coyne
But, as written, the NC subpoena would require such things as meeting minutes, time sheets, reports, travel vouchers, and such. Certainly some of the documents produced might be evidentiary against the people who committed the fraud, but more would have no evidentiary value at all. Well, unless it is the board being investigated...

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:07 pm UTC
by cphite
Coyne wrote:But, as written, the NC subpoena would require such things as meeting minutes, time sheets, reports, travel vouchers, and such. Certainly some of the documents produced might be evidentiary against the people who committed the fraud, but more would have no evidentiary value at all. Well, unless it is the board being investigated...


They don't actually need or even want every single document related to the NC District 9 investigation... but by saying "every single document" they make it clear that every relevant document damn well better be produced; and any that are missing will be a violation of the subpoena. It's basically to preempt any attempt by the folks under investigation from using the ole' "Oh, we didn't know you meant THOSE documents..."

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:42 pm UTC
by Quizatzhaderac
Apropos of nothing, does anybody hear this thread title in their mind as if read by emperor Palpatine?

commodorejohn wrote:I admit I'm not up on the process, but I don't think a subpoena for documents requires you to hand over all existing copies if you can just, y'know, make more copies.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty confident if you mean "all copies of a document" you need to actually say "all copies", and likewise with "original copy of document".

Also I think (by the nature of a discovery), all involved parties have a right to a copy of all subpoenaed documents.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:28 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Mass murder at mosques in NZ. link More to come.

Tabloid newspapers claiming at least one of the gunmen was trump supporting neo nazi. Sounds plausible, but waiting for major media to confirm.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 4:56 am UTC
by natraj
from this ap story "Authorities have not said who they have in custody. But a man who claimed responsibility for the shootings left a 74-page anti-immigrant manifesto in which he explained who he was and his reasoning for his actions." "The man who claimed responsibility for the shooting said he was 28-year-old white Australian who came to New Zealand only to plan and train for the attack."

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:20 am UTC
by Angua
The article has been updated since you posted presumably. 40 dead, 20 injured so far, two mosques involved. Being reported as a terrorist attack and apparently one of the shooters was livestreaming at some point.

Absolutely awful.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:31 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
Angua wrote:The article has been updated since you posted presumably. 40 dead, 20 injured so far, two mosques involved.

Now 49 dead, 48 injured, and both counts expected to climb. A third mosque was apparently on the shooter's hit list, but he was stopped first.
Angua wrote:Absolutely awful.

Yes. And likely to inspire copycats elsewhere, I'm very sorry to say.

[Edited to say: I've never been more pleased to be wrong--the death total is holding firm at 49. 39 people are in hospital, 11 are in intensive care, ranging from children to the elderly.]

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:46 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
On the plus side, this would make people more sympathetic to muslims rather than less, ultimately being counterproductive to the shooters' goal of eliminating Islam from the western world. So, yay for that I suppose.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:52 pm UTC
by Zohar
CorruptUser wrote:On the plus side, this would make people more sympathetic to muslims rather than less, ultimately being counterproductive to the shooters' goal of eliminating Islam from the western world. So, yay for that I suppose.

1. That's a very bizarre and twisted way of looking at this.
2. I'm not sure where you're getting that from? Other people are also likely to think this is legitimate action, and I guarantee if you go to the comments on some of these articles you'll see people asking why they're investing energy in investigating this or that they had it coming.
3. Even if there's a brief rise in short-term sympathy towards Muslim people, that doesn't mean it will last or get translated into political action.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:00 pm UTC
by Mutex
And there's a very big risk this will convince some Muslim guy who's on the edge of radicalisation that he should carry out a revenge terror attack, resulting in a never ending escalating tit-for-tat. Which is exactly what the extremists on either side of the Islamist/White Far Right coin want.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:23 pm UTC
by sardia
Zohar wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:On the plus side, this would make people more sympathetic to muslims rather than less, ultimately being counterproductive to the shooters' goal of eliminating Islam from the western world. So, yay for that I suppose.

1. That's a very bizarre and twisted way of looking at this.
2. I'm not sure where you're getting that from? Other people are also likely to think this is legitimate action, and I guarantee if you go to the comments on some of these articles you'll see people asking why they're investing energy in investigating this or that they had it coming.
3. Even if there's a brief rise in short-term sympathy towards Muslim people, that doesn't mean it will last or get translated into political action.

CU, that's not how the media works, especially Fringe media. They'll cover it for now, and then go back to demonizing immigrants and minorities. Just like when that white guy shot up a bunch of black church people. Or the Charlottesville Nazis car killings.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:11 pm UTC
by Mutex
I didn't want to go onto the Daily Mail website to confirm, but this is apparently their take on it.

Spoiler:
Image

I don't remember Islamist terrorists getting photos of them as children in the papers. Oh and he was blonde, how could he have ended up being bad. Oh right, he went to North Korea and Pakistan once, that must have caused it.

On the plus side at least they're calling him far right. I've literally seen people on Twitter dispute this.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:18 pm UTC
by Sableagle
They're actually acknowledging that it was murder? They have made progress!

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:11 pm UTC
by Thesh
Mother Jones will have a nice long profile on how he wore normal white person clothes and ate normal white person food, with the family life and job you would expect a normal white person to have, and didn't run around in the streets all day yelling about how much he hated Muslims while doing some sort of job involving dirt like you would expect from one of those racist white people.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 8:05 pm UTC
by Plasma_Wolf
sardia wrote:
Zohar wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:On the plus side, this would make people more sympathetic to muslims rather than less, ultimately being counterproductive to the shooters' goal of eliminating Islam from the western world. So, yay for that I suppose.

1. That's a very bizarre and twisted way of looking at this.
2. I'm not sure where you're getting that from? Other people are also likely to think this is legitimate action, and I guarantee if you go to the comments on some of these articles you'll see people asking why they're investing energy in investigating this or that they had it coming.
3. Even if there's a brief rise in short-term sympathy towards Muslim people, that doesn't mean it will last or get translated into political action.

CU, that's not how the media works, especially Fringe media. They'll cover it for now, and then go back to demonizing immigrants and minorities. Just like when that white guy shot up a bunch of black church people. Or the Charlottesville Nazis car killings.


Like this? https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1106641548740100097

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:28 am UTC
by CorruptUser
I dont have Twitter. Can you post a transcript or image?


As for my comment, just trying to find some way in which the murderers dont "win". These nutjobs know they are getting caught or killed and think they are martyrs, ironically just like the jihadis, so if we could convince them it is counterproductive to their goals...

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:41 am UTC
by ijuin
Nearly any form of convincing them that their methods are counterproductive involves first convincing them that the majority of their own society does not share their views.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 2:45 am UTC
by CorruptUser
But their views arent quite as fringe as you might think. In most European countries, the Xenophobic party gets 20% of the vote. And given that most people find it disturbing to say such things out loud, or they prefer labor issues or whatnot, and you'll find that its probably far more than 20% of Europe that is significantly anti Islamic.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:31 am UTC
by ijuin
There is indeed a significant population who want the “outsiders” to leave, but the portion of them who would condone murder is usually small unless the society has been whipped into the kind of frenzy usually only seen in wars and civil wars.