Meanwhile, this guy.

[Subduction Zone]

Look at my "edit" I squeezed in before this post I ninjaed your pointing out of your ninjaing

Only because my tablet's autowrong feature would not accept "Hee hee". Oddly enough it just did right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I doubt he even knows New Zealand exists. Even assuming he does, I can't imagine him feeling any need to comment on the incident, there were no white, protestant, Americans involved.

Isn't New Zealand a suburb of Queensland?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Isn't New Zealand a suburb of Queensland?

Normally I'd pretend to be outraged that anyone would try to lump them in with the state I live in, but in the spirit of ANZAC solidarity after their tragedy, I'll acknowledge them as at least the equal of South Australia.

 

[serp777]

So you don't think that fifty innocent civilians dying unnecessarily and a senior politician effectively blaming them for their own attack doesn't make that senior politician a piece of trash?

Maybe put less effort into defending apologists for mass murder in future.

Yeah it makes them trash but it doesn't mean I have to start going crazy and saying he's basically equivalent to Hitler. Its unnecessarily hysterical and its one of the problems I see in society today. People are eager to go from 0 to 60 in 0.1 seconds. Its the same thing as people calling Trump orange Hitler. I mean its just ridiculous.

Trash also doesn't mean utterly utterly irredeemable. Like in my view he admits he's wrong and he's redeemed. Wow we didn't need 10 layers of emotional baggage and moral outrage either.

I also don't see how spending 1 minute to make a post means i'm spending a lot of effort.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yeah it makes them trash but it doesn't mean I have to start going crazy and saying he's basically equivalent to Hitler.

Nobody here brought up Hitler until you came in.

Its unnecessarily hysterical and its one of the problems I see in society today.

You think it's wrong for people to express outrage at people saying pointedly ignorant, hateful, racist rhetoric?

People are eager to go from 0 to 60 in 0.1 seconds. Its the same thing as people calling Trump orange Hitler. I mean its just ridiculous.

Have you maybe considered that sometimes ire is necessary when directed against something you believe to be actually reprehensible? Or are you under the impression that only YOUR outrage should matter?

Trash also doesn't mean utterly utterly irredeemable. Like in my view he admits he's wrong and he's redeemed. Wow we didn't need 10 layers of emotional baggage and moral outrage either.

Maybe don't get so hung up on words and actually try expressing an actual opinion instead.

I also don't see how spending 1 minute to make a post means i'm spending a lot of effort.

I didn't say you spent a LOT of effort, I just said you should put LESS effort into defending apologists for mass murder. I.E spend the ideal amount of effort, which is none.

 

[serp777]

Nobody here brought up Hitler until you came in.


You think it's wrong for people to express outrage at people saying pointedly ignorant, hateful, racist rhetoric?


Have you maybe considered that sometimes ire is necessary when directed against something you believe to be actually reprehensible? Or are you under the impression that only YOUR outrage should matter?


Maybe don't get so hung up on words and actually try expressing an actual opinion instead.


I didn't say you spent a LOT of effort, I just said you should put LESS effort into defending apologists for mass murder. I.E spend the ideal amount of effort, which is none.

Nobody here brought up Hitler until you came in.

Its an expression. I was never suggesting anyone besides me brought up Hitler. Just that your kind of intense emotion and language usually gets applied to people like Hitler or Stalin, etc.

You think it's wrong for people to express outrage at people saying pointedly ignorant, hateful, racist rhetoric?

No, I don't think its wrong. You can implement whatever outrage you want. I just think your outrage is excessive and a bit ridiculous. Also Muslim is not a race so this can't be racist. Its not like this guy was talking about black or brown people. I mean i can agree with ignorant, but hateful is also excessive. Disgruntled or maybe controversial is a lot closer to reality.

Maybe don't get so hung up on words and actually try expressing an actual opinion instead.

I already did express an actual opinion: I think you're being very over dramatic about a fairly mundane comment from a mostly irrelevant politician. Also words are very important so the things words mean are equally important. I mean do you think words and the meaning of words isn't important?

I didn't say you spent a LOT of effort, I just said you should put LESS effort into defending apologists for mass murder. I.E spend the ideal amount of effort, which is none.

First of all where did he apologize for a mass murderer? I mean that seems to be a massive strawman of his position. In fact isn't his literal first sentence aimed at condemning the attack? Also my objective is not to defend him but to point out how people are getting really hysterical and are attaching a lot of emotion to something that does not deserve it. The outrage is not warranted.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Its an expression. I was never suggesting anyone besides me brought up Hitler. Just that your kind of intense emotion and language usually gets applied to people like Hitler or Stalin, etc.

It's a "saying"? I must have missed that one. You alleged people compared him to Hitler, which is something nobody has done. It was just a strawman, admit it?

No, I don't think its wrong. You can implement whatever outrage you want. I just think your outrage is excessive and a bit ridiculous.

"No, I don't think it's wrong to express outrage. Unless I determine arbitrarily that the outrage being expressed by you is more than I believe is necessary based on my personal criteria while ignoring any contributing factors in yours."

Also Muslim is not a race so this can't be racist.

So you never noticed that the vast majority of Muslims share a very specific race, and you don't believe this a contributor in how people talk about them? Especially which this individual not criticising any specific religious practice, just attacking "Muslims" for immigrating into their country and their "culture" not being compatible with it. Islam isn't a race, but neither is it a "culture" - yet this person clearly linked the two.

Its not like this guy was talking about black or brown people.

See above. Most racists nowadays don't go out of their way to signpost their racism, so they hide it behind criticism of "cultures" or "religions". As someone who is a critic of religions in various forms, I can tell the difference between honest criticism and racism masquerading as honest criticism. This is the latter.

I mean i can agree with ignorant, but hateful is also excessive. Disgruntled or maybe controversial is a lot closer to reality.

You're not the sole judge of reality, and your perception of it is clearly lacking if you fail to understand the connection between Islamophobia and racism.

I already did express an actual opinion: I think you're being very over dramatic about a fairly mundane comment from a mostly irrelevant politician.

A "mundane" comment? What the hell is your barometer of "mundane"? In what Universe is blaming victims for their own mass murder and justifying it with racist rhetoric "mundane"? Why are you allowing this guy the benefit of any kind of doubt?

Also words are very important so the things words mean are equally important. I mean do you think words and the meaning of words isn't important?

Strawman.

First of all where did he apologize for a mass murderer? I mean that seems to be a massive strawman of his position.

You don't understand what an apologist is, do you?

In fact isn't his literal first sentence aimed at condemning the attack? Also my objective is not to defend him but to point out how people are getting really hysterical and are attaching a lot of emotion to something that does not deserve it. The outrage is not warranted.

The moment you let hateful bigots like this any kind of leeway, you're enabling them. Maybe it's okay to feel angry when people say things like this, and maybe the scoffing "Oh, you're all just being so EMOTIONAL and IRRATIONAL" attitude is actually a large part of the problem. Maybe, just maybe, it's actually rational to react against something strongly and, maybe, just maybe, giving these types of people any kind of credit is actually irrational.

Like how you're using strawmen and misunderstandings to argue against our position while avoiding a strong position of your own. "Oh, what he said was bad, but what he said wasn't OVERTLY racist, so let's not get angry at him". I mean, do you seriously think that's a reasonable position to take? "This senior politician said something obviously ignorant and racist, but because he didn't specifically acknowledge it being racist, it can't possibly be racist"?

Maybe try another perspective, and maybe devote less effort and time to defending racists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, a sitting Australian senator, Fraser Anning, had some views about the recent shootings in New Zealand:

“I am utterly opposed to any form of violence within our community, and I totally condemn the actions of the gunman.
"However, while this kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified, what it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence.
"As always, left-wing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views but this is all clichéd nonsense.
"The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.
"Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an industrial scale."
SOURCE: Senator’s ‘appalling’ NZ comments

I just wanted to post this here in the hopes that no matter what your political or religious ideology, or your personal beliefs concerning religion or immigration, we can all come together to condemn this utter, utter, irredeemable piece of trash.

It would be unwarranted unless he perchance had actual statistics to back up what he said.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, I don't think its wrong. You can implement whatever outrage you want. I just think your outrage is excessive and a bit ridiculous.

what level of outrage at someone victim blaming people after 50 violent deaths is appropriate, in your mind?

First of all where did he apologize for a mass murderer? I mean that seems to be a massive strawman of his position. In fact isn't his literal first sentence aimed at condemning the attack? Also my objective is not to defend him but to point out how people are getting really hysterical and are attaching a lot of emotion to something that does not deserve it. The outrage is not warranted.

And his second sentence started with the word "however". Ever hear the expression "everything you say before the word 'but' is meaningless"? It's sort of like that.

Anning is very much a hate monger and rable rouser, and he is more than capable for using "imply then deny" ad hoc justifications on his own behalf, you don't need to come in playing the "well ackshually, Islam isn't a race..." card for him. We all know Islam isn't a race. But when his entire election campaign is built on anti-Muslim anti-immigration dogwhistles, his followers are literal avowed white supremacists and Islamophobes, and his entire parliamentary history consists of anti Muslim and anti immigrant measures, feigning the vapours over someone saying "racism" when "xenophobic" would be technically more accurate seems kind of disingenuous.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It would be unwarranted unless he perchance had actual statistics to back up what he said.

Go ahead Sparky. Look up the statistics of New Zealander non-Muslims killed in Islamic motivated violence vs. number of New Zealand Muslims killed by anti-Muslim motivated violence.

 

[serp777]

It's a "saying"? I must have missed that one. You alleged people compared him to Hitler, which is something nobody has done. It was just a strawman, admit it?


"No, I don't think it's wrong to express outrage. Unless I determine arbitrarily that the outrage being expressed by you is more than I believe is necessary based on my personal criteria while ignoring any contributing factors in yours."


So you never noticed that the vast majority of Muslims share a very specific race, and you don't believe this a contributor in how people talk about them? Especially which this individual not criticising any specific religious practice, just attacking "Muslims" for immigrating into their country and their "culture" not being compatible with it. Islam isn't a race, but neither is it a "culture" - yet this person clearly linked the two.


See above. Most racists nowadays don't go out of their way to signpost their racism, so they hide it behind criticism of "cultures" or "religions". As someone who is a critic of religions in various forms, I can tell the difference between honest criticism and racism masquerading as honest criticism. This is the latter.


You're not the sole judge of reality, and your perception of it is clearly lacking if you fail to understand the connection between Islamophobia and racism.


A "mundane" comment? What the hell is your barometer of "mundane"? In what Universe is blaming victims for their own mass murder and justifying it with racist rhetoric "mundane"? Why are you allowing this guy the benefit of any kind of doubt?


Strawman.


You don't understand what an apologist is, do you?


The moment you let hateful bigots like this any kind of leeway, you're enabling them. Maybe it's okay to feel angry when people say things like this, and maybe the scoffing "Oh, you're all just being so EMOTIONAL and IRRATIONAL" attitude is actually a large part of the problem. Maybe, just maybe, it's actually rational to react against something strongly and, maybe, just maybe, giving these types of people any kind of credit is actually irrational.

Like how you're using strawmen and misunderstandings to argue against our position while avoiding a strong position of your own. "Oh, what he said was bad, but what he said wasn't OVERTLY racist, so let's not get angry at him". I mean, do you seriously think that's a reasonable position to take? "This senior politician said something obviously ignorant and racist, but because he didn't specifically acknowledge it being racist, it can't possibly be racist"?

Maybe try another perspective, and maybe devote less effort and time to defending racists.

It's a "saying"? I must have missed that one. You alleged people compared him to Hitler, which is something nobody has done. It was just a strawman, admit it?

Which specific users here did I say compared him to hitler? I didn't point out any particular people. I mean saying "God its like people think he's Hitler or something" doesn't mean someone literally said that he's like Hitler. I don't see why you're having such a tough time with that. Its an expression meaning that that kind of reaction is usually reserved for someone actually terrible like Hitler and Stalin.

"No, I don't think it's wrong to express outrage. Unless I determine arbitrarily that the outrage being expressed by you is more than I believe is necessary based on my personal criteria while ignoring any contributing factors in yours."

I was saying its not morally wrong. Its anything but arbitrary. But please tell me what your contributing factors are that warrant this reaction? I mean his comment is on the level of something like the someone not picking up after their dog. Its unclassy and ignorant but certainly not irredeemable trash or the scum of the earth.

So you never noticed that the vast majority of Muslims share a very specific race, and you don't believe this a contributor in how people talk about them? Especially which this individual not criticising any specific religious practice, just attacking "Muslims" for immigrating into their country and their "culture" not being compatible with it. Islam isn't a race, but neither is it a "culture" - yet this person clearly linked the two.

I have no idea what goes on in this guys head. Maybe he does secretly hate brown people and he's using Islam as a cover for racism. I'd bet that most people, not all, like him would be open to the immigration of wealthy, university educated Indian people for example. But yeah you're right its not just a culture, its a quasi culture/religion/cult/ideology/political system. Islam has many dimensions and is anything but simple. But its not racism to dislike bringing in huge numbers of people from a radically different culture that is often orthogonal to Western values. If he said that he didn't want Muslims in because they're brown and he hates brown people, then I'd agree that its racist. But the fact is that people tend to overreact against politicians they don't align with politically. You can see the same thing happening with Trump.

See above. Most racists nowadays don't go out of their way to signpost their racism, so they hide it behind criticism of "cultures" or "religions". As someone who is a critic of religions in various forms, I can tell the difference between honest criticism and racism masquerading as honest criticism. This is the latter.

So are you a mind reader or something? Do you have evidence that any of this is true? How do you tell that these people are secret racists? I'm sure at least a tiny number of people do this, but unless someone says something actually racist then we shouldn't jump to conclusions. The racism accusation has lost its weight because its been abused so much.

Strawman.

Incorrect. I didn't say that you said that. I asked if you agreed with it. I specifically phrased it as a question. Asking if you agree with something cannot possibly be a strawman.

You don't understand what an apologist is, do you?

I didn't say anything inconsistent with the definition of an apologist.

You're not the sole judge of reality, and your perception of it is clearly lacking if you fail to understand the connection between Islamophobia and racism.

Who said i'm the sole judge of reality? Nobody. Also that's a nice assertion but its total nonsense. The fact that black people, white people, asian people, etc can be Muslims means that inherently Islamophobia has nothing to do with race. Maybe someone somewhere hates Islam because most Muslims are brown, but I haven't seen any evidence that thats the case. people are Islamophobic because they dislike the core tenants and sociopolitical aspects of Islam.

The moment you let hateful bigots like this any kind of leeway, you're enabling them. Maybe it's okay to feel angry when people say things like this, and maybe the scoffing "Oh, you're all just being so EMOTIONAL and IRRATIONAL" attitude is actually a large part of the problem. Maybe, just maybe, it's actually rational to react against something strongly and, maybe, just maybe, giving these types of people any kind of credit is actually irrational.

Actually I think the opposite is true. The more crazy reactions that someone can stir up, the more that you're enabling them. it makes their comments become exponentially more popular due to social media sharing and strong emotions. That's how trump won the election--say things he knew would cause outrage and spin up the regressive left and media. In fact the overreaction on this thread is what lead me to even know who this guy was in the first place. I'm sure that's the case for many others here as well. The world would certainly be a much better place if people in general did not react as much. I certainly wish more people would take a cool, calm and collected perspective. In fact Islam tends to be the most reactionary religion of all time ironically enough.

Maybe try another perspective, and maybe devote less effort and time to defending racists

I've seen no evidence that he's a racist and i'm only willing to try another perspective if there's a good argument to do so. Maybe you should try devoting less effort since you're contributing to the popularization and spread of this politicians comments.

 

[Shaul]

I am afraid Annings comments are becoming more and typical of the xenophobic right. We should all condemn such attitudes as being a prime mover in acts of terrorism.

I am afraid your comments are becoming more and typical of leftists trying to wrongly hang albatrosses of lunatics on conservatives. We should all condemn such such attitudes as being a prime mover in acts of poor argumentation.

 

[Shaul]

There is zero evidence of any connection between this idiot and President Trump. Yet the “usual suspects” act like there is. Kismet.

 

[ChristineM]

I am afraid your comments are becoming more and typical of leftists trying to wrongly hang albatrosses of lunatics on conservatives. We should all condemn such such attitudes as being a prime mover in acts of poor argumentation.

The facts speak for themselves. People were killed, there is misery and you try to gain points for it, now that is poor argument

If Annings (and your) comments are anything to go by i am proud and glad to be a leftist

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which specific users here did I say compared him to hitler? I didn't point out any particular people. I mean saying "God its like people think he's Hitler or something" doesn't mean someone literally said that he's like Hitler.

Your first comment was " you're making him sound like Hitler", which - while an obvious hyperbole - would be justified by this line of argument. However, your next comment was " it doesn't mean I have to start going crazy and saying he's basically equivalent to Hitler". Since nobody in this thread ever said he was equivalent to Hitler, yet you're trying to imply they did, this was a strawman.

I don't see why you're having such a tough time with that. Its an expression meaning that that kind of reaction is usually reserved for someone actually terrible like Hitler and Stalin.

I never had a "tough time with it" until you accused people of "saying he's basically equivalent to Hitler", which nobody did, and nobody on here has ever made anywhere close to a comparable judgement.

I was saying its not morally wrong. Its anything but arbitrary. But please tell me what your contributing factors are that warrant this reaction? I mean his comment is on the level of something like the someone not picking up after their dog. Its unclassy and ignorant but certainly not irredeemable trash or the scum of the earth.

You see nothing utterly reprehensible about blaming victims for their own massacre?

Seriously? You think it's just "unclassy" and "ignorant"?

I have no idea what goes on in this guys head. Maybe he does secretly hate brown people and he's using Islam as a cover for racism. I'd bet that most people, not all, like him would be open to the immigration of wealthy, university educated Indian people for example. But yeah you're right its not just a culture, its a quasi culture/religion/cult/ideology/political system. Islam has many dimensions and is anything but simple. But its not racism to dislike bringing in huge numbers of people from a radically different culture that is often orthogonal to Western values. If he said that he didn't want Muslims in because they're brown and he hates brown people, then I'd agree that its racist. But the fact is that people tend to overreact against politicians they don't align with politically. You can see the same thing happening with Trump.

He essentially justified their massacre as a reaction to their immigration into New Zealand. He argued that them simply living in the country should be considered a cause of their own murder. Whatever way you try and spin this, it is clear and blatant racism.

So are you a mind reader or something?

You don't have to be a mind reader. Just... Y'know... A reader.

Anybody who read his comments and doesn't see the clear and obvious undertone of racial bigotry is illiterate.

Do you have evidence that any of this is true? How do you tell that these people are secret racists?

There's nothing "secret" about it. You can literally read it.

Incorrect. I didn't say that you said that. I asked if you agreed with it. I specifically phrased it as a question. Asking if you agree with something cannot possibly be a strawman.

Except it is, because I never made an argument about the importance of words, and yet you change the subject while implying that I didn't think words were important. That's a strawman.

I didn't say anything inconsistent with the definition of an apologist.

You seem to think an apologist is someone who literally apologizes for something:

"First of all where did he apologize for a mass murderer?"

Who said i'm the sole judge of reality? Nobody.

So stop acting like it.

Also that's a nice assertion but its total nonsense. The fact that black people, white people, asian people, etc can be Muslims means that inherently Islamophobia has nothing to do with race.

Ridiculous. You honestly believe that the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are middle-Eastern plays NO role whatsoever in Islamophobia? I have an Asian friend who gets all sorts of anti-Islam abuse thrown his way all the time, despite the fact that he is Hindu. To ignore the racial aspect of Isalmophobia is pure, wilful ignorance.

Maybe someone somewhere hates Islam because most Muslims are brown, but I haven't seen any evidence that thats the case. people are Islamophobic because they dislike the core tenants and sociopolitical aspects of Islam.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of people have no idea what the core tenets or "sociopolitical aspects" of Islam are. Stop giving credit to racists.

I've seen no evidence that he's a racist and i'm only willing to try another perspective if there's a good argument to do so. Maybe you should try devoting less effort since you're contributing to the popularization and spread of this politicians comments.

All I did was post his comments here and remark that he was scum - that's it. Then you roared in and started acting smugly superior because, for some bizarre reason, you think being an apologist for bigotry makes you rational. The real reason the far-right are rearing up at the moment has nothing to do with the reaction against them, but the normalization of them and their attitudes - something that you are engaged in right now by comparing comments that essentially blamed 50 civilians for their own massacre (while also blaming a broad, cultural group) to "not picking up dog poop". The moment you stop seeing hateful rhetoric for what it is, and start thinking "meh, it's nothing worth condemning, just ignore it" is where radicalism starts to thrive. That's the attitude that lead to the rise of the alt-right; not the fury against them, but the apathy towards their seizing of control and talking points.

 

[Shaul]

The facts speak for themselves. People were killed, there is misery and you try to gain points for it, now that is poor argument

If Annings (and your) comments are anything to go by i am proud and glad to be a leftist

Actually just the opposite has happened in this thread. People were murdered in New Zealand and some here want to capitalize on their deaths by attempting to score political points against President Trump. Even though he had nothing to do with this tragedy. I’m not the one attempting to gain points. The anti-Trump crowd are.

You should not be proud of attempting to exploit the murder of people for your own dubious purposes. Yet it is something liberals do at times.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually just the opposite has happened in this thread. People were murdered in New Zealand and some here want to capitalize on their deaths by attempting to score political points against President Trump. Even though he had nothing to do with this tragedy. I’m not the one attempting to gain points. The anti-Trump crowd are.

You should not be proud of attempting to exploit the murder of people for your own dubious purposes. Yet it is something liberals do at times.

Who gives a damn about gropy boy? This thread is not about trump

I was not, i was criticising Fraser Anning for attempting to gain political points from murder while promoting project fear. A stance taken by the right wing,

 

[serp777]

Your first comment was " you're making him sound like Hitler", which - while an obvious hyperbole - would be justified by this line of argument. However, your next comment was " it doesn't mean I have to start going crazy and saying he's basically equivalent to Hitler". Since nobody in this thread ever said he was equivalent to Hitler, yet you're trying to imply they did, this was a strawman.


I never had a "tough time with it" until you accused people of "saying he's basically equivalent to Hitler", which nobody did, and nobody on here has ever made anywhere close to a comparable judgement.


You see nothing utterly reprehensible about blaming victims for their own massacre?

Seriously? You think it's just "unclassy" and "ignorant"?


He essentially justified their massacre as a reaction to their immigration into New Zealand. He argued that them simply living in the country should be considered a cause of their own murder. Whatever way you try and spin this, it is clear and blatant racism.


You don't have to be a mind reader. Just... Y'know... A reader.

Anybody who read his comments and doesn't see the clear and obvious undertone of racial bigotry is illiterate.


There's nothing "secret" about it. You can literally read it.


Except it is, because I never made an argument about the importance of words, and yet you change the subject while implying that I didn't think words were important. That's a strawman.


You seem to think an apologist is someone who literally apologizes for something:

"First of all where did he apologize for a mass murderer?"


So stop acting like it.


Ridiculous. You honestly believe that the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are middle-Eastern plays NO role whatsoever in Islamophobia? I have an Asian friend who gets all sorts of anti-Islam abuse thrown his way all the time, despite the fact that he is Hindu. To ignore the racial aspect of Isalmophobia is pure, wilful ignorance.


Despite the fact that the vast majority of people have no idea what the core tenets or "sociopolitical aspects" of Islam are. Stop giving credit to racists.


All I did was post his comments here and remark that he was scum - that's it. Then you roared in and started acting smugly superior because, for some bizarre reason, you think being an apologist for bigotry makes you rational. The real reason the far-right are rearing up at the moment has nothing to do with the reaction against them, but the normalization of them and their attitudes - something that you are engaged in right now by comparing comments that essentially blamed 50 civilians for their own massacre (while also blaming a broad, cultural group) to "not picking up dog poop". The moment you stop seeing hateful rhetoric for what it is, and start thinking "meh, it's nothing worth condemning, just ignore it" is where radicalism starts to thrive. That's the attitude that lead to the rise of the alt-right; not the fury against them, but the apathy towards their seizing of control and talking points.

Your first comment was " you're making him sound like Hitler", which - while an obvious hyperbole - would be justified by this line of argument. However, your next comment was " it doesn't mean I have to start going crazy and saying he's basically equivalent to Hitler". Since nobody in this thread ever said he was equivalent to Hitler, yet you're trying to imply they did, this was a strawman.

From the statements you literally quoted, I never said anybody in this thread said he's equivalent to Hitler. You even admitted you understood the hyperbole from the first comment. Its a clear continuation of the original hyperbole. The use of the word basically should also give that away.

You see nothing utterly reprehensible about blaming victims for their own massacre?

Which part of his statement blames the victims for the massacre? I can see that the statement is used to score political points but the statement "his kind of violent vigilantism can never be justified," is completely opposite to victim blaming for the massacre.

You don't have to be a mind reader. Just... Y'know... A reader.

Anybody who read his comments and doesn't see the clear and obvious undertone of racial bigotry is illiterate.

Nope you're definitely a mind reader. You know this guys thoughts and know he's secretly inserting racial undertones into his comments. The other possibility is that this guy just finds Islam distasteful and orthogonal to western values. A completely non racist reason and one that wouldn't be surprising. You're not actually reading the words to determine this, so literacy has nothing to do with it, you're making assumptions in between the lines. You're making big assumptions. Also an ad hominem isn't an argument and just saying its obvious doesn't make it so.

He essentially justified their massacre as a reaction to their immigration into New Zealand. He argued that them simply living in the country should be considered a cause of their own murder. Whatever way you try and spin this, it is clear and blatant racism.

Again you have no idea if he secretly finds brown people inferior/or hates them and is just using Islam as a cover for it. All he was really saying was that the introduction of Islam has lead to an increase in violence due to the conflicting worldviews. I'm not assuming what's in his head and I don't know why you are. The fact is you don't know whats happening in this guys head.

There's nothing "secret" about it. You can literally read it.

Where lol? Give me a quote. Something. Don't just keep asserting it. Please show me where he's saying brown people are inferior or something equivalently racist.

You seem to think an apologist is someone who literally apologizes for something:

What? No my comments clearly imply an apologist is someone who defends something with reason and argument. Apologize is just the verb form.

Ridiculous. You honestly believe that the fact that the vast majority of Muslims are middle-Eastern plays NO role whatsoever in Islamophobia? I have an Asian friend who gets all sorts of anti-Islam abuse thrown his way all the time, despite the fact that he is Hindu. To ignore the racial aspect of Isalmophobia is pure, wilful ignorance.

Maybe some super small minority does, but I haven't seen any evidence that the reason people dislike Islam is because they secretly just dislike brown people, specifically brown people from the middle east. To use an anecdote as a slam dunk is pure willful ignorance. I mean this idea that people use Islam as a cover to hate on brown people is just absurd. These aren't 4D chess players who are using subterfuge and cleverness to hide their racism behind Islamophobia. Ocam's razor is that most of these people just don't like Islam because Islam contradicts western values. And again, Islam INHERENTLY is independent from race. Anyone from any race can be a Muslim. Muslim is not a race and therefore by basic logical axioms you cannot be racist against Islam.

Except it is, because I never made an argument about the importance of words, and yet you change the subject while implying that I didn't think words were important. That's a strawman.

Again, a question cannot possibly be a strawman. Let me emphasize that another time: questions aren't strawmen The implications you choose to interpret from it aren't a strawman from me. Your own interpretations might be a strawman but your interpretations aren't my statement. if i'm asking you whether words are important to you, i'm looking for agreement that words are important to you. it was a reductio ad absurdum to your statement "Maybe don't get so hung up on words". Since words are important, its a good idea to get "hung up" on them. You're the one who made that complaint that I was getting hung up on words, so i didn't change the subject, i was just addressing your red herring ironically.

All I did was post his comments here and remark that he was scum - that's it. Then you roared in and started acting smugly superior because, for some bizarre reason, you think being an apologist for bigotry makes you rational. The real reason the far-right are rearing up at the moment has nothing to do with the reaction against them, but the normalization of them and their attitudes - something that you are engaged in right now by comparing comments that essentially blamed 50 civilians for their own massacre (while also blaming a broad, cultural group) to "not picking up dog poop". The moment you stop seeing hateful rhetoric for what it is, and start thinking "meh, it's nothing worth condemning, just ignore it" is where radicalism starts to thrive. That's the attitude that lead to the rise of the alt-right; not the fury against them, but the apathy towards their seizing of control and talking points

How did I act smug or superior? I simply commented that this politician's comment did not warrant such a strong emotional response, not that it would be relevant even if that was the case. And actually we have direct evidence that the screaming hysteria from certain liberals have absolutely contributed to the popularity increase of the right. The left leaning media in the United States and the far left twitter mob lost their minds about all of the alleged racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, ableist, etc things that trump had done. Millions of angry retweets and news stories constantly flooded social media platforms and gave Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in free advertisement. He played them like a fiddle and he's not even that smart. Its likely this politician is doing the exact same thing. He knows he can trigger people like you, for lack of a better word, which causes people to make posts in social media and forums therefore giving free advertisements and popularizing his position. The goal of these people, including the shooter in New Zealand, is to invoke and very strong emotional reaction. So the people who react strongly are getting played. Radicalism often grows in proportional response to the attention it gets. It thrives off attention, especially negative attention. if you look at the shooter's insane manifesto you'll see this kind of reaction was exactly his objective. And yeah the comment is the equivalent of not picking up dog poop; its really not a big deal and I think you're blowing it out of proportion. Its distasteful but certainly isn't hateful bigotry IF you're just looking at the actual words.