Maybe I’m doing a poor job conveying this thru a message board. There are a couple different things running thru my head with all of this. One deals with disgust and borders and such which I haven’t got into. There is some really interesting psychological studies on it. Those ideas are kind of passing thru my thoughts as I’m discussing this stuff. The other part which I have been discussing is relating to what he wrote about his ideology. I don’t think his writing was some incoherent madman talking. There have been many people in power in the past that have shared his ideology including in America in the past 80 years. His ideas and thoughts were not insane ramblings. My best friend growing up had a schizophrenic, manic depressive mother so I fully understand what it’s like to listen to a mentally ill person talk. The guy was coherent and sane even though he was a mass murderer. I don’t know what else to say. I guess what I’m trying to say is there really that much difference between what this guy says or what Steve King or Steve Bannon says or even with what the Chinese are doing currently?
Would like to see these quotes ... go ahead and post them. Do you have no problem with lyrics that incite hate crimes against police, white people and women? Particularly lyrics targeted towards poor people with no local role models, nothing to lose? Or video games based on killing innocent people, targeted towards teens?
Was American Manifest Destiny mentally ill? Or our dealings with the Indians in general mentally ill? What about Europeans trying to save the indigenous people through religious conversion? Was that mentally ill? What about the Vietnam War? Was that a mentally ill war to stop the spread of communism? Or was it a fear that was miscalculated and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. I keep editing my post to add stuff btw. I guess there is another line of thought running through what I'm thinking and it's that humans have become more peaceful generally with greater connection to other human groups but we are still not that much different from 500-1000 years ago.
There's a huge difference: he said explicitly "I am going to go murder people." And he did. And his acolytes on the internet cheered him on before it happened. A whole ton of what he was saying "I am the best Navy SEAL sniper...." and the threats that followed are just blatantly false ******* internet kid talk, but that doesn't make them any less accountable. He's an eco-whatever, yet loves the "values" of the PRC, the most polluting nation on earth? I'm sure he loves the "we can jail whomever we want" part of it though. One of the creepiest things he said was that he was only in NZ for "training", but decided to stay there because it was so easy to find targets (i.e. "invaders") and guns. It sounded to me like the US, given his talk about the 2nd Amendment and creating political chaos here, would have been his preferred place to make this attack.
Yeah that navy seal bs was the only true ranting I saw in there. I get your points but I am just saying I see the points that the murderer was making and I am applying his points of view to people who are prominent figures in mainstream society. I guess that's what I'm trying to convey if that makes sense?
His basic point was: not enough white babies, too many brown/black babies. White genocide, so I'm gonna start this race war here and hope it spills over into other countries. Lots of white nationalist types have justified their murders in the same way. I don't see that as a valid point of view, and I'm not sure who these "prominent figures in mainstream society" are? Not sure I make sense either.
Been trying to stay away from this topic but whatever... The Shooter’s Manifesto Was Designed to Troll Significant portions of the manifesto appear to be an elaborate troll, written to prey on the mainstream media’s worst tendencies. As the journalist Robert Evans noted, “This manifesto is a trap … laid for journalists searching for the meaning behind this horrific crime. There is truth in there, and valuable clues to the shooter’s radicalization, but it is buried beneath a great deal of, for lack of a better word, ‘shitposting.’” ... That doesn’t mean the racism expressed throughout the 74-page manifesto isn’t genuine. But the complexities of the crime are still unfolding, and as the New York Times journalist Kevin Roose cautioned, “The NZ shooter’s apparent manifesto is thick with irony and meta-text and very easy to misinterpret.” Unfortunately, when journalists report on these horrific acts, the shooter’s hateful messages are sometimes amplified in the process. But the origins of that hate and the shooter’s public postings do need to be examined, even when taking them at face value is difficult. In the land of the Pepe meme and chicken **** ancel alt-righters who like stringing along their tru identity...this makes the most sense.
From what I read, it was pretty obvious when he was trying to troll people and incite ****. It was also pretty obvious what he believed.
Well Buck if I ever see you for a beer we can discuss this, but I think whatever I'm saying has hit a dead end online. As an aside I feel like the majority of the disagreements/misunderstandings that occur in D&D are a function of this being online.
With all due respect, what do all those things you posted (I particularly liked the Vietnam War mention, since I protested against that war at the time) have to do with a White terrorist killing and wounding just shy of 100 innocent men, women, and children at two houses of worship? I would also suggest that we have changed a bit over the last 500 to 1,000 years. In some ways, we are less violent. There used to be far more violence, in general, between people then than there is now. What has changed is that it is far easier to kill, to slaughter people in their dozens, in their hundreds, in their hundreds of thousands, in their millions now. There are far more people now than there were then, but a much smaller percentage today face violence during their lives. The big difference is technology. Had that White terrorist been armed with a sword and spear, a lance or a bow, powder and ball, he wouldn't have been able to kill and maim nearly so many before he would have been stopped dead. In my humble opinion. Something needs to be done about the advanced weapons of death and their easy accessibility that we see in this country, and that New Zealand, to her sorrow, is discovering. They will do something about it. Unlike this country, where so many of our politicians are frightened of the gun lobby, seemingly helpless to take the most humble steps towards controlling the access to the most dangerous weapons available to civilians, New Zealand will act, and they will be better off for having acted, in my opinion.
Our views and mindsets should change as civilization progresses and we have history as our marour. I can also randomly pull historical norms to justify my bullshit. Beating children without reason was acceptable here until only recently. Maybe I'd have a 'coherent' point about how not beating children makes us weaker, that is, until I start killing people over it to strengthen our stock and cull the weakest.
China is an ethno-nationalist state, ruled by a supreme leader with a state capitalist system. Ergo It's a fascist ethnostate.
I get that. China's environmental record doesn't really jibe with this shitbag's manifesto, was my point.
