Race and Mass Shootings

[Revoltingest]

Robert Matthew's, Randy weaver and Timothy McVeigh were all portrayed in the media with ties to white nationalist/supremacist groups. Wherein the threat of these groups were emphasized and blamed.

The man who drove a car into the people at Charlottesville was portrayed as being part of the white nationalist group. President Trump was publicly criticized for not condemning the white nationalists.

So the media does sometimes portray white supremacists as bad groups based on the actions of their individual members.

When some white extremists act it is covered as white supremicist extremism. Would you agree with this statement?

I'll add that George Zimmerman engendered the new classification, "white Hispanic".
Prior to his killing Trayvon Martin, Hispanics were considered different from "white".
News coverage involving race is a mess.

 

[Curious George]

I'll add that George Zimmerman engendered the new classification, "white Hispanic".
Prior to his killing Trayvon Martin, Hispanics weren't considered "white".
News coverage involving race is a mess.

Hispanic is actually a term that was created by the USA to distinguish regular white people from the not black people or clearly native American people to the south. So, some chicano/latints were considered white for quite some time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hispanic is actually a term that was created by the USA to distinguish regular white people from the not black people or clearly native American people to the south. So, some chicano/latints were considered white for quite some time.

Of course, some Hispanics are "white" in appearance.
But the distinction was a new one in the media.
It's possible.....just possible, that this was done to
avoid potential demonization of Hispanics.
And it's back again with Cruz....
What Is A "White Hispanic"? | HuffPost
If the distinction is important, then I wonder why there is
no "non-white Hispanic" description of perps in the news?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Robert Matthew's, Randy weaver and Timothy McVeigh were all portrayed in the media with ties to white nationalist/supremacist groups. Wherein the threat of these groups were emphasized and blamed.

The man who drove a car into the people at Charlottesville was portrayed as being part of the white nationalist group. President Trump was publicly criticized for not condemning the white nationalists.

So the media does sometimes portray white supremacists as bad groups based on the actions of their individual members.

When some white extremists act it is covered as white supremicist extremism. Would you agree with this statement?

Of course the media covers it because there are some instances where it becomes unavoidable. But when we talk about reasons why crimes were committed, the labeling is there are you not seeing the discrepancy? You named several individuals I can name several mor black kids who were perceived differently

 

[Curious George]

Of course, some Hispanics are "white" in appearance.
But the distinction was a new one in the media.
It's possible.....just possible, that this was done to
avoid potential demonization of Hispanics.
And it's back again with Cruz....
What Is A "White Hispanic"? | HuffPost
If the distinction is important, then I wonder why there is
no "non-white Hispanic" description of perps in the news?

I am not sure if it was a new one in the media. We are talking about specific instances. Were the Menendez brothers referred to as "white hispanics?" Were they referred to as "white" were they referred to as "hispanic?" I am not sure. I know that the term "hispanic" is not new and has never precluded race. The additional adjective white is interesting if it is a recent addition. But if someone has any Chicano/Latino background can they not be referred to as "white" in the press? This sounds a lot like "a person is only white if they are purely white."

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not sure if it was a new one in the media.

I've searched, & found no instance before Zimmerman.

 

[Curious George]

Of course the media covers it because there are some instances where it becomes unavoidable. But when we talk about reasons why crimes were committed, the labeling is there are you not seeing the discrepancy? You named several individuals I can name several mor black kids who were perceived differently

This is not a urinating contest about who can name drop the most. This is a matter of accepting that if you want to point to the disparate treatment it is important to use qualifiers. Instead you are now rationalizing the instances that don't prove your point as "unavoidable."

This is why qualifiers are important. You are creating the position that only instances of unfair treatment of issues exist. That is very different than saying unfair treatment exists.

You move from a point of recognizing a bias exists to only seeing that bias. While I think your points are very important and believe more people should read your posts, you are missing part of the equation. And failing to acknowledge it makes it seem like you are afraid any instances of equal treatment means all the disparate treatment disappears as well. That is not the case. Point out the bad, acknowledge the good.

 

[Srivijaya]

Interesting...Weren't the Goths of Germanic origin?

Indeed they were. The boot was on the other foot back then, which makes it so ironic. Being an 'Africanus' was fine for the Romans - a hallmark of a civilized, cultured person. A Germanic on the other hand was good to exploit but needed to be handled like a dangerous dog, which could turn on you at any moment. There was zero trust or respect.

It seems there's nothing new in racism.

 

[Srivijaya]

X is a decentralized movement, not so much an organization.
A does Y in outspoken support (i.e. in the name of) X, so in essence - yes, in essence - X is responsible for Y, because X is an idea and a political stance, carried out and represented by every single individual of A.

So are you responsible for Dylan Roof?

He did it for the "white race". Just sayin'.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Can you name someone who killed either en mass, or name someone who killed in the name of the group? I'll wait.....Oh if you're going to cite the Dallas shooter that was debunked already:

His support of BLM was not debunked, and all you've provided is the organizers of that rally condemning the actions. It's akin to saying that because Catholic Bishops condemn pedophilia, Catholic priests don't rape kids. It doesn't work.

Yet my objection wasn't the specifics of shootings en masse, it was the statement that BLM proponents haven't killed anyone. They have, as shown. Even excluding Micah Johnson, there remains Joseph Johnson Shanks, Tyrone Harris, Jeffrey Williams, Gavin Long, and unnamed individuals who shot at police in Ferguson, MO.

However unrelated to BLM I do remember the actions of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo all too vividly, speaking of killing en masse.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

So are you responsible for Dylan Roof?

He did it for the "white race". Just sayin'.

Is the "white race" an ideology or political movement? Were I a white supremacist (or even upheld a notion of "white race"), yeah I would have a hand in that pie, and share some level of responsibility for actions carried out in the name of supremacist ideologies.

 

[Enoch07]

First and foremost, let us be honest about gun control and and not allocate the problem with a specific community. but address it as a national problem not treat it as an endemic. Gun laws are to mitigate, not to cure any current problems because obviously you cannot get rid of all the guns off the streets.

I agree 100%.

Two, like my job, have re-certification of permits every year (along with taking an 8-hour class/including hours at the shooting range). In addition these classes not only consist of gun safety as well as state and federal laws, but also the dangers of gun mismanagement. Failure to do so makes your permit suspended as well as suspend your CCW-this makes people accountable regardless if you're responsible gun owner or not. Any gun buyers under the age of 21 must supply an identification card and must be cataloged in a national data base.

As gun owner and current CCW license holder. I see this as an extremely reasonable and well thought out idea.

I support this idea 100%. I think this is a fantastic idea and should be put into place.

We have to continually challenge the notion of responsibility. Being a responsible gun owner does not just mean that you wont commit violent acts with a gun or mishandle a weapon, but also can you maintain an updated license to own and carry.

You are 100% correct. We need more people like you to help bring these ideas to fruition.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This is not a urinating contest about who can name drop the most. This is a matter of accepting that if you want to point to the disparate treatment it is important to use qualifiers. Instead you are now rationalizing the instances that don't prove your point as "unavoidable."

This is why qualifiers are important. You are creating the position that only instances of unfair treatment of issues exist. That is very different than saying unfair treatment exists.

You move from a point of recognizing a bias exists to only seeing that bias. While I think your points are very important and believe more people should read your posts, you are missing part of the equation. And failing to acknowledge it makes it seem like you are afraid any instances of equal treatment means all the disparate treatment disappears as well. That is not the case. Point out the bad, acknowledge the good.

Well because I'm a living proof of said demographic and am a living proof that these biases exist. You want me to see your point but you are suggesting qualifiers. I supplied a video and I don't think that is not how the world works. You don't ask me to use qualifiers why not ask the Caucasian lead media that influences public opinion? you're asking the wrong person. I don't need to do anything except stay black and die, as my mother used to say.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Indeed they were. The boot was on the other foot back then, which makes it so ironic. Being an 'Africanus' was fine for the Romans - a hallmark of a civilized, cultured person. A Germanic on the other hand was good to exploit but needed to be handled like a dangerous dog, which could turn on you at any moment. There was zero trust or respect.

It seems there's nothing new in racism.

Of course Africanus was somewhat acceptable, it was to commemorate Scorpio Africanus to replace its original name "Alkebulan." I suppose, which is what is told

 

[Curious George]

Well because I'm a living proof of said demographic and am a living proof that these biases exist. You want me to see your point but you are suggesting qualifiers. I supplied a video and I don't think that is not how the world works. You don't ask me to use qualifiers why not ask the Caucasian lead media that influences public opinion? you're asking the wrong person. I don't need to do anything except stay black and die, as my mother used to say.

I would ask anyone to use qualifiers. Why would you be an exception?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

His support of BLM was not debunked, and all you've provided is the organizers of that rally condemning the actions. It's akin to saying that because Catholic Bishops condemn pedophilia, Catholic priests don't rape kids. It doesn't work.

Yet my objection wasn't the specifics of shootings en masse, it was the statement that BLM proponents haven't killed anyone. They have, as shown. Even excluding Micah Johnson, there remains Joseph Johnson Shanks, Tyrone Harris, Jeffrey Williams, Gavin Long, and unnamed individuals who shot at police in Ferguson, MO.

However unrelated to BLM I do remember the actions of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo all too vividly, speaking of killing en masse.

Dude he never said he supported them...I asked for proof not what you think. If you are going to postulate a claim back it up don't simply give me what you think. That is not how this works especially in debates.

See Example:

Dallas Shooter Was Not Associated With BLM

Dallas Shooter Was Not Associated With BLM

Black Lives Matter: Don't blame movement for Dallas police ambush

Black Lives Matter: Don't blame movement for Dallas police ambush

Don’t Blame Black Lives Matter For The Deaths Of Dallas Cops


Don’t Blame Black Lives Matter For The Deaths Of Dallas Cops

See how that works?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I would ask anyone to use qualifiers. Why would you be an exception?

But I'm not up to be the challenge I'm highlighting a discrepancy. You see, the problem when discussing race relations as a whole is the other side's unwillingness to listen. Assuming you not being African-American and not having to live with the labels perpetuated by the media as I and millions upon millions of others who look like me have. I'm the one who created the thread highlighting the discrepency but you want to focus on what I should do. The problem that many young African-Americans in college like myself get frustrated at is when some whites like to tell others how they should perceive the world.....

I'm not assuming your ethnic heritage but the comments you've made are indicative of the perpetual attitudes many white Americans have. There is a tendency to tell others how to feel which is why I made the Lebron James post. We (African-Americans) cannot have an opinion therefore we should mind our business or in James' case, dribble a basketball. Instead of addressing the issue you want to address how I ought to approach the situation. You have not disproven the video. funny how the FBI can call black organizations like BLM "black extremist organizatioons" yet we need qualifiers when we call white people with extreme views into account. You have yet to address the "elephant in the room" which is that discrepancy.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I agree 100%.



As gun owner and current CCW license holder. I see this as an extremely reasonable and well thought out idea.

I support this idea 100%. I think this is a fantastic idea and should be put into place.



You are 100% correct. We need more people like you to help bring these ideas to fruition.

Thanks I literally just pulled that out of my a** really. I'm not politician, I just think getting people to re-certify their permits "forces" people to be responsible. I just look at how my job does us every year. There is always a damn certification we need to have or some competency class we must complete, if we don't we get suspended and/or lose our job. This is the company's way of being sued for not supplying competency courses for its employees....In other words if you royally screw up and get fired, you don't go back and sue the company and say you didn't know. We must hold the same for gun owners. A gun is a weapon for offense and defensive purposes. It has the ability to take life. I think we forget the nature of the weapon. Wielding a weapon with the ability to incapacitate bipedal living organisms like human beings and animals should not be taken lightly. I also think a yearly course at the gun range is not a bad idea, I don't want people praying and spraying their bullets like they're playing call of duty.

 

[gnomon]

Inspired by:

I know the “diverse” group of RF members are concerned about mass shootings lately due to the school shooting but let us address the elephant in the room. I made a thread alluding to the fact that race place an important factor of perception.

We are not a color blind society no matter how much we convince ourselves. Growing up, I never met a person who did not perceive me as strictly a human being and not perceive my skin pigmentation.

I have always been the subject of questioning when BLM protest. But look it hear. White guys shoot up schools and we want to discuss mental health. The frustrating part in discussing gun control is when it happens in affluent white areas we want to discuss mental health yet not in the impoverished communities.

People forget the reason why my state is so strict on gun laws it had nothing to do with us being a Dem state, it was because of the black panther movement and their push for second amendment and the fact they took guns to the state capital. We have gun laws because of minorities. If the NRA was composed of purely Latinos, blacks and Arabs in the U.S do you honestly think they would have so much political influence?

I read the online comments on my off time, and some people tried to clean up Cruz’s action because of his name. I recall the same about a man named Barack Hussein Obama, people thought he was Arab because of his name and that because of his name he is by default Muslim.

People often deflect because nobody wants to address the subconscious racial bias’ we have even from our so called color blind people. There are actual studies that indicate that despite color blindness, people still hold subconscious racial biases.

Cruz killed 17 people. The man before him in Vegas killed 59. BLM killed nobody yet we are ready to ostracize them as “black extremist” but when white nationalists kill we want to look at mental health or as #45 says they're "good people on both sides," or we simply deflect to antifa. For those of us who have been labeled most of our lives it seems like a miscarriage of justice and a misappropriation of labeling.

Word salad.

Idiotic comparisons.

Tired of useless threads that have no factual basis.

Don't like my response...then repose yourself in Alien connections on the History channel with the wild hair guy.

Let useless conjecture rule!

 

[Srivijaya]

Is the "white race" an ideology or political movement? Were I a white supremacist (or even upheld a notion of "white race"), yeah I would have a hand in that pie, and share some level of responsibility for actions carried out in the name of supremacist ideologies.

I don't think It's as simple as that. Extremists can hijack any cause; political, religious or whatever without necessarily implicating everyone who has any connection with it. The way I see it there are roughly four stages, obviously real life is more nuanced:

1. Passive agreement/ belief. Non-violent but you vote, pray, choose or incline this way, without causing harm or wishing to.
2. "Heavy" online/social media agitation. Can involve abusive speech, skewed or fake news and 'justifying' nasty acts.
3. Activist. Threats, violence, criminal damage, graffiti, intimidation etc.
4. Radical. Acts of terrorism, mainly killing.

In my opinion, if a person has moved onto stage 2, there is incitement and some guilt for sure, as these are the war drums already. By stage 3 there is definite guilt, as the activist is in many cases acting outside of the democratic consensus. In my opinion, there is no connection between 1 & 4 beyond what is falsely imputed by outsiders.

Think of a situation where some fool kills in the name of paganism or anything else you agree with. What has that got to do with you? Did you incite it or appalud it? Were you able to prevent it? If not then you are a bystander like everyone else. Just that some people will be pointing a finger at you from now on.