I'd say a better framing would go this way. Many conservatives think whites are being marginalized in American society and don't like it. A significant subset of those think there is a group of people working actively to make that happen and they should be thwarted. And a tiny, tiny subset of those believe they should take immediate and violent action to stop it. Likewise, many Muslims believe there is a struggle between Islam and Christendom in which Islam should ultimately prevail. A significant subset believe America is a primary opponent that is actively persecuting Islam. And a tiny subset of those believe they should take immediate and violent action against America. To be in either of the largest groups is fairly innocuous but contains the oppositional framing that makes the more extreme positions possible. The second tier don't believe violence is the solution, but they have the conspiratorial mindset that can justify violence. That leaves just a few bad actors to actually fight for their cause, but they are fellow travelers with those that agree an enemy is actually besetting them and merely disagree on how to respond, and they're cousins to those who believe there is a problem to be fixed (even if they haven't yet taken the red pill and discovered there is an enemy causing it). It's not right to say all Americans or all Muslims have the "same ideology" as these extremists. It's also not quite fair (though closer to being right) to say that of those merely concerned with the marginalization of their respective communities. But, I do think its fair to say so of people who believe there is an enemy actively persecuting them that must be opposed. When a sheikh says so in the mosque or Tucker Carlson says so on Fox, they're complicit.
Basically, there is "connected tissue" as Bill Maher calls it. It's a spectrum. I just find it disingenuous by the Left to blanket blame conservatives but refuse to apply the same logic when it comes to Islam.
We've seen this kind of radicalization before with extremists. Where groups such as ISIS would use social media to radicalize apparently moderate people and get them to commit heinous terrorist attacks. It seems now those tactics are being applied by White Nationalists to radicalize people as well. Same kind of tactics of victimhood, misinformation, conspiracy theories, and this kind of nebulous threat that's been created.
My understanding is that this isn't new and White Nationalists groups have long been using social media to organize and radicalize. What I recall is that "The Rally for the Right" in Charlottesville was largely organized online.
‘Eco-fascist’ violence targets old scapegoats for new fears https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...iolence-targets-old-scapegoats-for-new-fears/ excerpt: Mass shooting suspects, including the man arrested for the recent Buffalo, N.Y., grocery store massacre, are increasingly invoking the so-called eco-fascist movement, which launders racist and anti-immigrant conspiracy theories through the lens of environmentalism. The Buffalo suspect, who has been charged with the murder of 10 predominantly Black shoppers at a grocery store, identified as an eco-fascist. Similar sentiments can be found in the writings of shooters in New Zealand and El Paso, Texas, who targeted Muslims and Latinos, respectively. As the climate crisis intensifies and leads to increased migration and political instability, experts say the problem is likely to get worse. more at the link
Hope that guy isn't in trouble. Should have let him have at it. If it's going to help him heal, he deserves five minutes to get at that kid and do what the needs.
I can't imagine the pain the victims family are feeling and how it must feel like to have to sit in the same room with the murderer. He's going to be sitting in jail for the rest of his life. He's not only killed those people he's also destroyed his own life at 19. All because he go wrapped up in hate and couldn't deal with improving his own life.
I am so ignorant. So they were letting victims families rant at the guilty gunman during sentencing, right? Is that normal? Not passing any judgment -- I've just never been at a sentencing round like that. My juries have (thankfully) never involved mass murderers.
she was giving an impact statement…it’s pretty normal, especially in murder cases One purpose of the statement is to allow the person or persons most directly affected by the crime to address the court during the decision making process. It is seen to personalize the crime and elevate the status of the victim. From the victim's point of view it is regarded as valuable in aiding their emotional recovery from their ordeal. It has also been suggested they may confront an offender with the results of their crime and thus aid rehabilitation. Another purpose of the statement is to inform a court of the harm suffered by the victim if the court is required to, or has the option of, having regard to the harm suffered by the victim in deciding the sentence. In cases of crimes resulting in death, the right to speak is extended to family members. In some jurisdictions there are very different rules on how victim impact statements from family members may be regarded. This is because it is seen as unprincipled that different punishments for death are given according to the how much the victim is missed, or conversely that someone's death is relatively less harmful if they have no family. In the circumstance of death, some jurisdictions have described victim impact statements from family members as 'irrelevant' to sentence but not 'unimportant' to the process: they are valued for restorative purposes but cannot differentiate punishment for causing death. In general terms, the person making the statement is allowed to discuss specifically the direct harm or trauma they have suffered and problems that have resulted from the crime such as loss of income. Some jurisdictions allow for attaching medical and psychiatric reports that demonstrate harm to the victim. They can also discuss the impact the crime has had on their ambitions or plans for the future, and how this also impacted their extended family. Some jurisdictions permit statements to express what they deem to be an appropriate punishment or sentence for the criminal.
Thank you -- it makes good sense. Incredibly intense. Hard to blame someone for getting swept up in the pain and acting out.
I don't understand how this guy gets life in prison, how do you kill 10 innocent people and not get the death sentence? I am sure it's a plea deal but F a plea deal in these instances. The only saving grace is this kid is young and he`ll have 50+ years to live in misery.........in these open and shut cases a part of me thinks they should just take him out back after his last appeal is up in like 10 years and put him down on the spot.
