Right Wing Terrorism

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't believe that all of the above is exactly clearly articulated.

What I will say is....I don't condone political violence, but I understand it.

Translation: You don't care about it - you give it a pass so long as your tribe are not the ones on the receiving end!

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Your belief is irrelevant. You, Zigg, and Brainster, can't articulate how self-id is an actual issue here, on this subject. You're all using it to attack people you hate, even if those people were just the subject of a terror attack.

Giving pass to political violence, as has become mainstream GOP views in the US. 'Don't do it, but I understand if you do, wink wink'.

100% nailed it

This is exactly the same as those who, after a bunch of Muslims are murdered in a mosque (as happened in my country), will loudly declare that it wouldn't have happened of they were back in their own country where they belonged.. Effectively, Zig, Brainster and Warp12 appear to hold the view that since the victims were LGBTQ+ that they have to shoulder some of the responsibility for what happened to them, i.e. if they weren't who they were, this would not have happened to them.

Of course, they are very careful to use codes and dog-whistles when they express these views, but I having read hundreds of their posts over the time I have been here, I have zero doubt this these are the views they hold.

[Stacyhs]

Some don't even bother with dog whistles anymore.

[The Great Zaganza]

"look what she's was wearing" is good and alive.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

"look what she's was wearing" is good and alive.

Exactly, especially for one of our members!

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

"look what she's was wearing" is good and alive.

Hated is Winning America's Second Civil war because if you disagree with the Religion of Americana, you hate and are Trying too destroy America and the American way of Life.
There Fore Murdering you is Justifiable even if it goes against everything America Stands for, and takes freedom away from Americans.
It's the Religion of Americana, and it's totally Anti American.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Your belief is irrelevant. You, Zigg, and Brainster, can't articulate how self-id is an actual issue here, on this subject.

Sure I can. This person is claiming to be trans (technically, "non-binary"). If true, that complicates the hate crime claim. Which may be exactly why the defense is making that claim. Not everyone believes his self-serving claim to be "non-binary". I don't. You have studiously avoided taking a position, for reasons unknown. Hell, I'm not even the first person to bring up the issue of not believing his professed identity. TGZ made it pretty explicit that he doesn't take Aldrich's claim at face value. This could easily become an issue at trial, especially if the crime is charged as a hate crime.

Quote:

You're all using it to attack people you hate, even if those people were just the subject of a terror attack.

The irony. You have never once articulated how questioning self-ID constitutes an attack on the subjects of this attack, or anyone for that matter. You want to frame it that way because you can't defend self-ID on its own terms, and your need for ideological conformity prevents you from seeing that issue as separate from the LGBTQ community at large.

Quote:

Giving pass to political violence

That's not even remotely what's happening here. If you had paid attention, you might have noticed that the first questioning of self-ID in this case, which came from TGZ, not me, was pretty obviously made in defense of the victims and against the perp.

Stop equating self-ID with the community at large. Questioning self-ID is not an attack against gay or even trans people.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure I can. This person is claiming to be trans (technically, "non-binary"). If true, that complicates the hate crime claim. Which may be exactly why the defense is making that claim.

Except it really doesn't.

Quote:

Not everyone believes his self-serving claim to be "non-binary". I don't. You have studiously avoided taking a position, for reasons unknown. Hell, I'm not even the first person to bring up the issue of not believing his professed identity. TGZ made it pretty explicit that he doesn't take Aldrich's claim at face value. This could easily become an issue at trial, especially if the crime is charged as a hate crime.

But you are one of the ones who have decided to use it as a way to drive a wedge into the lgbtq community, attacking the self-id crowd, rather than even 'just asking questions' about the trial.

Quote:

The irony. You have never once articulated how questioning self-ID constitutes an attack on the subjects of this attack, or anyone for that matter. You want to frame it that way because you can't defend self-ID on its own terms, and your need for ideological conformity prevents you from seeing that issue as separate from the LGBTQ community at large.

Because it isn't even on topic and would end up in the hate thread. Though if you had been paying attention, you'd be able to tell my position anyway.

It isn't even a problem for the trial or self-ID, as I pointed out before (in a post you have ignored). And this is trivially demonstrated by another scenario close to this one where self-ID is almost universally accepted.

Say someone murders a bunch of people in a synagogue. They have a bunch of antisemitic writings and history and followed Trump and Tucker and your friends when they libeled groups for 'replacement', bringing in caravans over the boarder to fix the vote in California. They have former friends and family come out and say all the times they used slurs against Jewish people. Their father and grandfather have a history of anti-Jewish statements.

Then the shooter says they're Jewish. Hell, it turns out their mother is both religiously and ethnically Jewish.

So, they won! ...the right to have a rabbi at their execution.

You'd be going in saying that this is a problem for the 'self-ID of Jewishness' crowd? That should be entertained as a position other than attacking Jews or freedom of religion? Naw.

Quote:

That's not even remotely what's happening here. If you had paid attention, you might have noticed that the first questioning of self-ID in this case, which came from TGZ, not me, was pretty obviously made in defense of the victims and against the perp.

Stop equating self-ID with the community at large. Questioning self-ID is not an attack against gay or even trans people.

You're not 'questioning' self-ID, you're using this attack to attack self-ID as a way to attack the community that was just attacked by a terrorist fueled by the words and deeds of your friends in the media and GOP.

What was that about studiously avoiding taking a position? Like you ignoring the people Tucker brought on, and agreed with, that the killings will continue until the 'grooming' stops? Matt Walsh making the same argument? Tim Pool? DeSantis' argument for his anti-gay laws? MTG?

You know, stuff that's actually driving this violence? Because there is zero evidence right wing terrorism is being driven by self-ID of trans gender people.

EDIT: Damn, it's a good thing Joe is suspended right now. I have a feeling he might go for a full on ban with some of the posts of people here.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

.......

EDIT: Damn, it's a good thing Joe is suspended right now. I have a feeling he might go for a full on ban with some of the posts of people here.

Ya. Good thing. Sure

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure I can. This person is claiming to be trans (technically, "non-binary"). If true, that complicates the hate crime claim. ...

First: Non-binary doesn't strictly mean trans.
https://www.dictionary.com/e/nonbinary-meaning/


Second: So far only the attorneys have made this claim. I'm not aware there is any evidence the shooter actually made the claim.

The suspect who killed five people and injured 19 others in a mass shooting at the LGBT Club Q nightclub is non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, his attorneys say.

Quote:

In a court filing obtained by the New York Times, the suspected shooter's public defenders refer to him as "Mx. Anderson Aldrich." They, in turn, ask the judge to refer to him by they/them pronouns throughout court proceedings.

"Anderson Aldrich is non-binary," the court document reads. "They use they/them pronouns, and for the purpose of all formal filings, will be addressed as Mx. Aldrich."

Third: Many sources say, regardless, he can still be charged with a hate crime. I am reminded of more than a few very prominent anti-gay gay guys as I call them.


Fourth: Which if true makes it just as likely all of the right-wing rhetoric against the LGBTQ community contributed to the shooter's actions choosing Club Q to kill people in. It could make a person who was indeed in the non-binary realm hate himself even more and acting out against the LGBTQ community would be a way of either trying to show he wasn't non-binary, and/or he might be blaming them for making him question his sexuality.
https://www.denverpost.com/2022/11/2...hooter-club-q/

Quote:

GLAAD — the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation — called the attack “unspeakable.”

“You can draw a straight line from the false and vile rhetoric about LGBTQ people spread by extremists and amplified across social media, to the nearly 300 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced this year, to the dozens of attacks on our community like this one,” GLAAD’s president and CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, said. “That this mass shooting took place on the eve of on Transgender Day of Remembrance, when we honor the memory of the trans people killed the prior year, deepens the trauma and tragedy for all in the LGBTQ community.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Third: Many sources say, regardless, he can still be charged with a hate crime. I am reminded of more than a few very prominent anti-gay gay guys as I call them.

I give you Larry Craig - a former US Senator for Idaho... a Republican (quelle surprise)

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Fourth: Which if true makes it just as likely all of the right-wing rhetoric against the LGBTQ community contributed to the shooter's actions choosing Club Q to kill people in. It could make a person who was indeed in the non-binary realm hate himself even more and acting out against the LGBTQ community would be a way of either trying to show he wasn't non-binary, and/or he might be blaming them for making him question his sexuality.
https://www.denverpost.com/2022/11/2...hooter-club-q/

This part bears repeating for the ignorant among us...

"You can draw a straight line from the false and vile rhetoric about LGBTQ people spread by extremists and amplified across social media, to the nearly 300 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced this year, to the dozens of attacks on our community like this one,” GLAAD’s president and CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis, said. “That this mass shooting took place on the eve of on Transgender Day of Remembrance, when we honor the memory of the trans people killed the prior year, deepens the trauma and tragedy for all in the LGBTQ community.

... and that straight line extends directly back to politicians like DeSantis, Taylor-Greene, Boebert, Santorum, Blackburn et al... they are the root cause of the hatred, stirring it up with their lies, their fear-mongering and their bigotry.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Your belief is irrelevant. You, Zigg, and Brainster, can't articulate how self-id is an actual issue here, on this subject. You're all using it to attack people you hate, even if those people were just the subject of a terror attack.

First I think self-identification is a joke. And so do suddenly a lot of people in this thread who would be appalled at the idea of not using Aldrich's pronouns if xi (kidding) was anybody else.

Quote:

Giving pass to political violence, as has become mainstream GOP views in the US. 'Don't do it, but I understand if you do, wink wink'.

Arguably the gays against groomers person did give an implicit pass to the violence but I don't think this is mainstream at all.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Brainster

First I think self-identification is a joke. And so do suddenly a lot of people in this thread who would be appalled at the idea of not using Aldrich's pronouns if xi (kidding) was anybody else.



Arguably the gays against groomers person did give an implicit pass to the violence but I don't think this is mainstream at all.

If its not mainstream, then how is it that 37 GOP senators voted AGAINST the The Respect for Marriage Act?

If its not mainstream, then how is it that Boebert and Taylor-Greene have both advocated for violence against LGBTQ people, and yet have never been censured, or told to wind their ******* heads in, or otherwise brought to heel by the GOP house?

If its not mainstream, then how come the Texas legislature passed the Don't Say Gay bill?

If its not mainstream, then how come over 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have surfaced in 36 Legislatures across the country?

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

My daughter wants an AR-15 for Christmas. I told her she'd just shoot her arm off.

A lot to process there.

Relevance to the thread? Even tangentially?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Benefit how? Saving lives? Disgusting, I know. If I'm wrong, in what other ways is this beneficial to gun control advocates? The majority of all Americans want stricter gun control. The benefit to me would be less people dying, perhaps even myself.

The only ones playing politics after a shooting are the right wingers by saying that addressing it is political. Go **** yourselves. Wanting less gun violence isn't politics and neither is pointing out the idiocy of our policies, ESPECIALLY after a shooting.

ETA:
I think a lot of us on both sides believe it is wrong to talk about this or that after a shooting. Utterly ridiculous. I wonder which group came up with that one?

Originally Posted by Warp12

A lot to process there.

Relevance to the thread? Even tangentially?

It was a tongue in cheek response to mgidm86 with a "A Christmas Story" reference.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

My daughter wants an AR-15 for Christmas. I told her she'd just shoot her arm off.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

It was a tongue in cheek response to mgidm86 with a "A Christmas Story" reference.

Ah, the Red Ryder BB gun "shoot your eye out" reference. Got it.

A holiday classic.

I was just intrigued that your daughter might actually want an AR-15 for Christmas.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Ah, the Red Ryder BB gun "shoot your eye out" reference. Got it.

A holiday classic.

I was just intrigued that your daughter might actually want an AR-15 for Christmas.

No way. She's too smart.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Say someone murders a bunch of people in a synagogue. They have a bunch of antisemitic writings and history and followed Trump and Tucker and your friends when they libeled groups for 'replacement', bringing in caravans over the boarder to fix the vote in California. They have former friends and family come out and say all the times they used slurs against Jewish people. Their father and grandfather have a history of anti-Jewish statements.

Then the shooter says they're Jewish. Hell, it turns out their mother is both religiously and ethnically Jewish.

So, they won! ...the right to have a rabbi at their execution.

You'd be going in saying that this is a problem for the 'self-ID of Jewishness' crowd? That should be entertained as a position other than attacking Jews or freedom of religion? Naw.

In your scenario, what is the goal of claiming religious self-ID? Getting the right to have a rabbi at their execution. I see no problem with the right to have a rabbi at their execution. You have not provided any objection to him having a right to have a rabbi at their execution.

Now, having a right to something is different than imposing that on someone else. I don't give a crap if you've got a right to have a rabbi at your execution, it's only a problem if you can force a rabbi to go. The forcing is the problem. And refusing to allow this murderer to force a rabbi to attend his execution isn't attacking the Jewish community, it's sticking up for them.

Now, does self-ID come with the ability to force things on other people? If the trans activists get their way, yes, it does (see, for example, male criminals who claim trans status to get transferred to women's prisons). Which is why it's a problem. This particular case is just another example of how absurd self-ID can get. Absent the ability to force other people to do anything, self-ID isn't an issue.

Quote:

You're not 'questioning' self-ID, you're using this attack to attack self-ID as a way to attack the community that was just attacked by a terrorist fueled by the words and deeds of your friends in the media and GOP.

I'm not attacking the community at all. You seem to have taken self-ID as axiomatically in the interests of the LGBT community, but as your own example shows, that's simply not the case. Nothing about questioning self-ID constitutes any actual attack against the LGBT community. Claiming it is is just an appeal to emotion, a way to support self-ID without having to argue its merits.

Quote:

What was that about studiously avoiding taking a position?

Yeah, I'm not taking a position on things I'm not discussing. You don't want to take a position on self-ID? No problem. Stop talking about it, and stop attacking people who do talk about it. See how that works?

Quote:

You know, stuff that's actually driving this violence? Because there is zero evidence right wing terrorism is being driven by self-ID of trans gender people.

I never claimed that the attack was motivated in any way by self-ID. The fact that he's exploiting it after the fact doesn't mean that it played any part in the attack itself. I never made that claim, it makes no logical sense, there's no evidence for it, why are you trying to make it on my behalf?

Oh, that's right, because straw men are easier to knock down.

As for what actually motivated this attack, clue for the clueless: we still don't know. Could it have been hatred of gays? Maybe. Could it be something completely unrelated, as for example Jared Loughner. I still remember all the attempts to blame Palin for that, and it turned out that the shooting wasn't political at all. You are assuming a motive that has not yet been established. Hell, you're assuming a motive that neither the perp nor the authorities have even claimed.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In your scenario, what is the goal of claiming religious self-ID? Getting the right to have a rabbi at their execution. I see no problem with the right to have a rabbi at their execution. You have not provided any objection to him having a right to have a rabbi at their execution.

Now, having a right to something is different than imposing that on someone else. I don't give a crap if you've got a right to have a rabbi at your execution, it's only a problem if you can force a rabbi to go. The forcing is the problem. And refusing to allow this murderer to force a rabbi to attend his execution isn't attacking the Jewish community, it's sticking up for them.

Now, does self-ID come with the ability to force things on other people? If the trans activists get their way, yes, it does (see, for example, male criminals who claim trans status to get transferred to women's prisons). Which is why it's a problem. This particular case is just another example of how absurd self-ID can get. Absent the ability to force other people to do anything, self-ID isn't an issue.

You're just proving my point here. You're attacking self-ID to attack the lgbtq community. You're pretending it's to 'stand up' for them, but that's just plainly not true.

And you prove it by ignoring that in this case the only ask has been that the shooter is referred to by the judge as 'they/them'. This is the sin you're saying is akin to forcing a rabbi to attend an execution (which wasn't even part of the scenario). Attacking this is only attacking self-ID and the community.

Quote:

I'm not attacking the community at all. You seem to have taken self-ID as axiomatically in the interests of the LGBT community, but as your own example shows, that's simply not the case. Nothing about questioning self-ID constitutes any actual attack against the LGBT community. Claiming it is is just an appeal to emotion, a way to support self-ID without having to argue its merits.

No, you're attacking the community with this. You're trying to focus on self-ID as a problem not only in a place where it absolutely isn't in any meaningful way a problem but while ignoring the actual problems of the shooting.

You are not being subtle. You are not being clever. Your deniability is implausible.

And no, it isn't an appeal to emotion. My argument doesn't require self-ID be the same as the community. You know what else has some detractors inside the lgbtq community? Drag events. There are some who don't think drag should be part of the community at all and that it causes real harm. You know what would be a ******, vile, and obviously transparent attack on the community right now? Citing there being a drag event at Club Q as being a problem for this shooting. There are many such disagreements in the community, almost all of them exaggerated by people outside the community for puerile digs at the community, that could be cited right now but just do not matter.

Quote:

Yeah, I'm not taking a position on things I'm not discussing. You don't want to take a position on self-ID? No problem. Stop talking about it, and stop attacking people who do talk about it. See how that works?

Your failure to deal with the right wing terrorism of this right wing terrorist attack in the 'Right Wing Terrorism' thread is not a problem with my arguments. I'll keep talking about the problems with your 'arguments' thanks.

Quote:

I never claimed that the attack was motivated in any way by self-ID. The fact that he's exploiting it after the fact doesn't mean that it played any part in the attack itself. I never made that claim, it makes no logical sense, there's no evidence for it, why are you trying to make it on my behalf?

Oh, that's right, because straw men are easier to knock down.

Because that's one of the only ways your 'point' would be salient and it is what anti-trans activists have been saying.

Quote:

As for what actually motivated this attack, clue for the clueless: we still don't know. Could it have been hatred of gays? Maybe. Could it be something completely unrelated, as for example Jared Loughner. I still remember all the attempts to blame Palin for that, and it turned out that the shooting wasn't political at all. You are assuming a motive that has not yet been established. Hell, you're assuming a motive that neither the perp nor the authorities have even claimed.

The shooter who has a history of anti-lgbtq statements including wishing violence on people in that community whose father has shown hate to the same community and whose grandfather is a MAGA politician like you defend consistently who has supported anti-lgbtq laws, his shooting of the only lgbtq club in Colorado Springs on the eve of Trans Rememberance day isn't driven by anti-lgbtq ideas?

That you can't even provisionally accept it as far and away the best explanation is because of your politics, and not skepticism.

Were you similarly withholding judgement on the motivations of the Buffalo Tops right wing terrorist until today when he plead guilty and outright stated what drove him to do it (the same group of GOP and pundits lying about White Replacement as lie about the lgbtq community)? Or are you still holding out for the 'real' reasons for that one too?

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Wedge issues: Issues where the logical consequence of liberal ideals produces a conflict with other liberal ideals. Conservatives are big meanies for pointing these out.

So by self identifying as jews, the jews were at fault for the holocaust.

This is after all the logical conclusion to your post.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Gulliver Foyle

So by self identifying as jews, the jews were at fault for the holocaust.

This is after all the logical conclusion to your post.

Logical via modus foyle? Because it's certainly not logical via modus tollens or modus ponens.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Your failure to deal with the right wing terrorism of this right wing terrorist attack in the 'Right Wing Terrorism' thread is not a problem with my arguments. I'll keep talking about the problems with your 'arguments' thanks.

The shooter who has a history of anti-lgbtq statements including wishing violence on people in that community whose father has shown hate to the same community and whose grandfather is a MAGA politician like you defend consistently who has supported anti-lgbtq laws, his shooting of the only lgbtq club in Colorado Springs on the eve of Trans Rememberance day isn't driven by anti-lgbtq ideas?

That you can't even provisionally accept it as far and away the best explanation is because of your politics, and not skepticism.

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Were you similarly withholding judgement on the motivations of the Buffalo Tops right wing terrorist until today when he plead guilty and outright stated what drove him to do it (the same group of GOP and pundits lying about White Replacement as lie about the lgbtq community)? Or are you still holding out for the 'real' reasons for that one too?

An excellent question, but unfortunately, one to which you will never get an honest answer.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

You're just proving my point here. You're attacking self-ID to attack the lgbtq community.

You keep saying this, but there's no actual logic or substance to the accusation. It's just argument from emotion.

Quote:

No, you're attacking the community with this.

Repeating this claim doesn't make it true.

Quote:

And no, it isn't an appeal to emotion. My argument doesn't require self-ID be the same as the community.

Sure it does. Otherwise, attacking self-ID isn't an attack on the community.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You keep saying this, but there's no actual logic or substance to the accusation. It's just argument from emotion.

What is "it", your whole accusation that self-ID is just a way to force people to do things? Yeah, selfishness is certainly an emotion, and "wah, I can't call that person whatever I want to without looking like an *******" is certainly just an argument from emotion.

Right now, your assertion that trans people shouldn't be allowed to self-ID because the lawyers for someone who murdered a bunch of them claim the murderer is self-Id'ing is transparently nonsense.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Repeating this claim doesn't make it true.

No, the fact that it's true is what makes his claim true. His having to repeat the obvious to you doesn't make it not true, it just speaks more about how seriously one should take your attacks, er...claims? JAQ's? What, if not attacks, do you think you're doing by using the murderer's claims as a reason to mistreat the victims?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Sure it does. Otherwise, attacking self-ID isn't an attack on the community.

Using one thing to attack another thing doesn't in any way imply or claim that those two things are the same thing. In fact, it plainly states that those two things are different things.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

What, if not attacks, do you think you're doing by using the murderer's claims as a reason to mistreat the victims?

What on earth are you even talking about? I haven't mistreated anyone.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What on earth are you even talking about? I haven't mistreated anyone.

Please reread the sentence you quoted. The statement was not that you had mistreated anyone, but that you were using the murderer's (lawyer's) statements as a reason to mistreat.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What on earth are you even talking about? I haven't mistreated anyone.

I would consider it "victim blaming" (i.e. a form of mistreatment) to apportion ANY blame, no matter how small, to the victims of a mass shooting for what happened to them, because of who they are...

And make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

No way. She's too smart.

I still have my Red Ryder B.B. gun in my closet. Only gun I own. Found it at my Dads. I cocked it and put my hand over the barrel to see if a BB would shoot out. It did and hurt my hand, haha. Little rusty old BB.

Just realized, I almost shot MY arm off!

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I would consider it "victim blaming" (i.e. a form of mistreatment) to apportion ANY blame, no matter how small, to the victims of a mass shooting for what happened to them, because of who they are...

And make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing.

Well, the bold must make it true, because otherwise it's not. What you really object to is any attempt not to blame Republicans for the shooting, even though we have heard nothing from the authorities as to the motivation of the shooter.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Well, the bold must make it true, because otherwise it's not. What you really object to is any attempt not to blame Republicans for the shooting, even though we have heard nothing from the authorities as to the motivation of the shooter.

In political terms, hate directed towards the LGBTQ community comes all but exclusively from Republicans and the far right, and as a result of their actions. When mainstream politicians start making public statements to the effect that gays and trans people are trying to "groom your children" to become gay or trans, then that becomes a problem for society. When Republican legislatures pass laws such as the Don't Say Gay law and anti-gay marriage laws that intentionally discriminate against the LGBTQ community, then that also becomes a problem for society.

- They KNOW FULL WELL that their words will be taken as God's Gospel by the crazies in their base.
- They KNOW FULL WELL that it will result in hatred and violence being directed at gay and trans people.

- Furthermore, the violence... this sort of shooting, is EXACTLY what people like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert, Ron DeSantis, Rick Santorum Marsha Blackburn and others WANT to happen. This is the result they have been hoping for. They want these shootings to happen in order to help them to drive their anti-gay agenda, and to give them additional opportunities to attack gays ...and people like you and Warp12 and Ziggurat are their enablers.

If you had bothered to address the question I asked you in post #293 instead of dodging it, you would have understood this fact.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I would consider it "victim blaming" (i.e. a form of mistreatment) to apportion ANY blame, no matter how small, to the victims of a mass shooting for what happened to them, because of who they are...

And make no mistake, that is exactly what you are doing.

The mistake is yours. That is precisely NOT what I am doing. Never once did I say that any of the victims has any blame whatsoever. Never once did I even suggest that any of them did anything wrong. Hell, I didn't even suggest that self-ID played any role in motivating the killer in any way, shape, or form. As far as I can tell, it's only an after-the-fact issue, exploited by the killer (or his lawyer), and I have no reason to even believe, let alone claim, that any of his victims are even proponents of self-ID. Everything else here is what you have invented without any basis, in order to engage in an ad hominem attack.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I still have my Red Ryder B.B. gun in my closet. Only gun I own. Found it at my Dads. I cocked it and put my hand over the barrel to see if a BB would shoot out. It did and hurt my hand, haha. Little rusty old BB.

Just realized, I almost shot MY arm off!

"You'll Shoot Your Eye Out, Kid".......

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Well, the bold must make it true, because otherwise it's not. What you really object to is any attempt not to blame Republicans for the shooting, even though we have heard nothing from the authorities as to the motivation of the shooter.

Do you deny that there is a concerted effort by the right wing to demonize the LGTBQ+ community?

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You keep saying this, but there's no actual logic or substance to the accusation. It's just argument from emotion.

Your failure to deal with the presented reasoning doesn't mean it wasn't there. Likewise the rational reaction to your argument being judgmental, because it's horrible, doesn't mean it's an argument from emotion.

You can't make a vile argument then pretend that it's a flaw in the people who notice. That 'Trump' tactic only works when people are not paying attention and they trust you.

Neither is likely to be true here.

Quote:

Repeating this claim doesn't make it true.



Sure it does. Otherwise, attacking self-ID isn't an attack on the community.

You are using it as an attack on the community, as shown already. There is no actual problem with self-ID here, so you have to pretend it makes some difference in order to attack the community, specifically by trying to drive a wedge. You want the community to turn on itself, over an issue you have a cargo-cult understanding of at best. All you've thought about is how to attack it.

Still going to pretend the Buffalo Tops terror attack wasn't caused by the same people who caused this one? It's so unknowable right?

Or it's blood libel and not even a sly use of it. It's literally the 'think of the children!' logical fallacy. You don't like appeals to emotion? Then you don't like DeSantis, Abbot, Tucker, et al, but you do like them.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Do you deny that there is a concerted effort by the right wing to demonize the LGTBQ+ community?

Maybe among parts of the wackadoodle right pushing the whole groomer bit, but that doesn't matter here because nobody has established that the shooter in this instance's motivation was anti-LGBTQ+. Remember the Pulse nightclub shooting? A Muslim shot up a gay bar and killed 49 people, obviously a hate crime, right? Except it turned out he wanted vengeance for US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, and there is no evidence that he even knew it was a gay bar.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

In political terms, hate directed towards the LGBTQ community comes all but exclusively from Republicans and the far right, and as a result of their actions. When mainstream politicians start making public statements to the effect that gays and trans people are trying to "groom your children" to become gay or trans, then that becomes a problem for society. When Republican legislatures pass laws such as the Don't Say Gay law and anti-gay marriage laws that intentionally discriminate against the LGBTQ community, then that also becomes a problem for society.

Yes.

Quote:

- They KNOW FULL WELL that their words will be taken as God's Gospel by the crazies in their base.
- They KNOW FULL WELL that it will result in hatred and violence being directed at gay and trans people.

- Furthermore, the violence... this sort of shooting, is EXACTLY what people like Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert, Ron DeSantis, Rick Santorum Marsha Blackburn and others WANT to happen. This is the result they have been hoping for. They want these shootings to happen in order to help them to drive their anti-gay agenda, and to give them additional opportunities to attack gays ...and people like you and Warp12 and Ziggurat are their enablers.

No. Are you and Tyr competing to see who can be the most ridiculous? One of the problems in the Republican Party is that the lunatics are running the asylum. Politicians are clowns pandering to an increasingly paranoid base, not maestros orchestrating the masses. Their rhetoric is irresponsible and stupid, but it's difficult to reconcile the weapons-grade nincompoopery of Boeberts and Greenes with "KNOWING FULL WELL"... anything. Those window-lickers?? How do they benefit, or, how do they think they benefit, from a nightclub shooting? People normally benefit from being perceived as victims. A more parsimonious explanation is that these performative demagogues are throwing caution to the window as they compete for attention. Normally, I'd say a politician wants power, but it's not clear to me that the MAGA types are interested in governing.

I saw a car last night dangerously threading through traffic. If he ended up killing a family of four, should I have concluded, "Well, that's what he WANTED to happen"? We are morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, but we're also glorified monkeys prone to self-deception and rationalization. When it comes to tribal politics, people are particularly susceptible to fundamental attribution error.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Maybe among parts of the wackadoodle right pushing the whole groomer bit…

Republican members of Congress in good standing and prime time Fox News personalities are the ones pushing that, while the rest of the GOP says nothing to dispute or discredit it. To call it something born of the “wackadoodle right” is disingenuous because the wackadoodles have been welcomed into the mainstream.

Quote:

….but that doesn't matter here because nobody has established that the shooter in this instance's motivation was anti-LGBTQ+.

To be clear, it won’t ever matter to Republicans. Regardless of the shooter’s motive, the result is exactly what Republicans want.

Quote:

Remember the Pulse nightclub shooting? A Muslim shot up a gay bar and killed 49 people, obviously a hate crime, right? Except it turned out he wanted vengeance for US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, and there is no evidence that he even knew it was a gay bar.

I have my fingers crossed that you’ll once again find enough plausible deniability to not have to take accountability for the hate and ugliness in the ideology to which you subscribe.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Cain

No. Are you and Tyr competing to see who can be the most ridiculous? One of the problems in the Republican Party is that the lunatics are running the asylum. Politicians are clowns pandering to an increasingly paranoid base, not maestros orchestrating the masses. Their rhetoric is irresponsible and stupid, but it's difficult to reconcile the weapons-grade nincompoopery of Boeberts and Greenes with "KNOWING FULL WELL"... anything. Those window-lickers?? How do they benefit, or, how do they think they benefit, from a nightclub shooting? People normally benefit from being perceived as victims. A more parsimonious explanation is that these performative demagogues are throwing caution to the window as they compete for attention. Normally, I'd say a politician wants power, but it's not clear to me that the MAGA types are interested in governing.

I saw a car last night dangerously threading through traffic. If he ended up killing a family of four, should I have concluded, "Well, that's what he WANTED to happen"? We are morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, but we're also glorified monkeys prone to self-deception and rationalization. When it comes to tribal politics, people are particularly susceptible to fundamental attribution error.

Was the person driving the car a religious fanatic who hated pedestrians and viewed them as an abomination in the eyes of their god? If so, then yes, I would say they definitely wanted to kill pedestrians.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Maybe among parts of the wackadoodle right pushing the whole groomer bit, but that doesn't matter here because nobody has established that the shooter in this instance's motivation was anti-LGBTQ+. Remember the Pulse nightclub shooting? A Muslim shot up a gay bar and killed 49 people, obviously a hate crime, right? Except it turned out he wanted vengeance for US airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, and there is no evidence that he even knew it was a gay bar.

That "whackadoodle right" you speak of includes Ron DeSantis, another "Trump", but one who is far more intelligent and far more capable and has a very good chance of becoming the next POTUS... he has seen the mistakes The Fat Orange Turd and his minions made and he will not repeat them.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

That "whackadoodle right" you speak of includes Ron DeSantis, another "Trump", but one who is far more intelligent and far more capable and has a very good chance of becoming the next POTUS... he has seen the mistakes The Fat Orange Turd and his minions made and he will not repeat them.

I agree, but I think that Donald Trump's popularity in the party is being underestimated and that he's still a shoe-in for the GOP nomination. DeSantis or any other candidate who attempts to "steal" the nomination will quickly be demonised by the Trump faithful regardless of what policies or messages they are promoting.

That's the thing about a personality cult, unless the person is the object of the cult or their anointed successor then they won't be accepted.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by The Don

I agree, but I think that Donald Trump's popularity in the party is being underestimated and that he's still a shoe-in for the GOP nomination.

I don't see that at all.