Racism is a hoax

[impuretrash]

Nobody said it was "certain". Nothing at this point is "certain", including the Norway thing.

That's not "evidence". That's correlation. What other correlations to the accused exist, that we don't know of? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and nobody suggested this Norway thing is all there is to know about the perp.

Seems to me there was recently a gaggle of wags whining about a rush to judgment about a smirking teenager not long ago based on, again, limited information.


Sure. But tell that to the OP who put this thread in "Racism" with a bizarre quip suggesting "white people wouldn't talk about it" whatever that means, and then ran away when asked to explain it.

Nobody knows the arsonist's motivation thus far but they also need not be an either/or. There's no reason BOTH couldn't be contributory. Or a third motivation not yet apparent. But for the poster to hang it on some klown who burned churches in Norway 25 years ago while ignoring a vast 200-year history of burning black churches in the South, including the infamous 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, smells like somebody trying to pre-emptively divert.

Oh, IM2 always seems to make race-based arguments. It's what he's known for on this site.

I totally agree that to this point, the suspect's motivations are unclear. My point was that the churches burned being historically black is on the correlation rather than causation side of the scale like the black metal and pagan leanings, so your statement that "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." was a bit of a jump to a conclusion.

It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.

Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.

And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.

Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.

I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".

I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.

Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.

Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.

I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.

The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.

Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.

On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.

Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.

And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.

And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.

Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.

Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it. That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.

I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.

Thank you for being sensible. If he goes to trial, I hope the jurors are half as understanding as you. We are much, much too harsh on young men in this country and it would be a travesty if he was made an example of just because some people let their political grievances cloud their judgement.

 

[Pogo]

Nobody said it was "certain". Nothing at this point is "certain", including the Norway thing.

That's not "evidence". That's correlation. What other correlations to the accused exist, that we don't know of? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and nobody suggested this Norway thing is all there is to know about the perp.

Seems to me there was recently a gaggle of wags whining about a rush to judgment about a smirking teenager not long ago based on, again, limited information.


Sure. But tell that to the OP who put this thread in "Racism" with a bizarre quip suggesting "white people wouldn't talk about it" whatever that means, and then ran away when asked to explain it.

Nobody knows the arsonist's motivation thus far but they also need not be an either/or. There's no reason BOTH couldn't be contributory. Or a third motivation not yet apparent. But for the poster to hang it on some klown who burned churches in Norway 25 years ago while ignoring a vast 200-year history of burning black churches in the South, including the infamous 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, smells like somebody trying to pre-emptively divert.

Oh, IM2 always seems to make race-based arguments. It's what he's known for on this site.

I totally agree that to this point, the suspect's motivations are unclear. My point was that the churches burned being historically black is on the correlation rather than causation side of the scale like the black metal and pagan leanings, so your statement that "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." was a bit of a jump to a conclusion.

It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.

Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.

And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.

Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.

I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".

I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.

Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.

Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.

I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.

The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.

Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.

On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.

Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.

And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.

And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.

Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.

Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it.

NO, I am NOT. Why do you think I used the phrase "appears to"? Because I had extra 'appears to"s lying around that would spoil if not used up??

Especially given the context of the bizarre thread title "Racism is a hoax"?

Do you think racism is a "hoax"? I don't. So I set about to attack that premise. It's the literal starting point of this thread.

That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.

You inferred something that wasn't there. Not my doing. You're cherrypicking.

I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.

You've never lived in the South, have you. Have you ever even been here?

Obviously this act is derived of ignorance, regardless what the motivation(s) was or were. But you can't grow up in 41% black St.Landry Parish Louisiana and be unaware of racial tensions. And I don't mean at age 21 or in history books, I mean throughout everyday life.

And again at the risk of repetition -- you're trying to pass off 21 as some kind of get-out-of-responsibility card but it's exactly the same age Dylann Roof was when he went to Charleston to "start a race war". Does that mean Matthews is Roof? Obviously not. It does mean 21 is not some kind of magical dispensation age where a kid "can't" be thinking in those terms.

And then there's this.

>> She added that what Matthews is accused of doing is "absolutely wrong." Satanism isn’t about burning churches, she said, but about self-reflection and loving yourself.

Thibodeaux said during their time together Matthews also used racial slurs, made "black jokes" and "dead baby jokes." <<
​

Which is another INDICATION --- again that word is indication, not conclusion --- that both factors may have been involved, as I posted yesterday, and/or that he might have intentionally or knowingly targeted specifically black churches. At the very least it dismisses this idea that here's a kid so isolated that he's the only one in central Louisiana who never heard of racism.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, IM2 always seems to make race-based arguments. It's what he's known for on this site.

I totally agree that to this point, the suspect's motivations are unclear. My point was that the churches burned being historically black is on the correlation rather than causation side of the scale like the black metal and pagan leanings, so your statement that "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." was a bit of a jump to a conclusion.

It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.

Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.

And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.

Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.

I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".

I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.

Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.

Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.

I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.

The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.

Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.

On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.

Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.

And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.

And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.

Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.

Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it. That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.

I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.

Thank you for being sensible. If he goes to trial, I hope the jurors are half as understanding as you. We are much, much too harsh on young men in this country and it would be a travesty if he was made an example of just because some people let their political grievances cloud their judgement.

Nothing Montrovant and I have been hashing out has anything to do with "political grievances". Read the posts.

 

[impuretrash]

It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.

Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.

And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.

Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.

I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".

I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.

Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.

Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.

I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.

The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.

Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.

On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.

Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.

And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.

And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.

Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.

Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it. That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.

I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.

Thank you for being sensible. If he goes to trial, I hope the jurors are half as understanding as you. We are much, much too harsh on young men in this country and it would be a travesty if he was made an example of just because some people let their political grievances cloud their judgement.

Nothing Montrovant and I have been hashing out has anything to do with "political grievances". Read the posts.

I've read them. It does seem to me like you're holding out hope that this crime was motivated by racism. As if you want it to be so. Proving that the KKK still rides in the American south is very important for democrats right now. So yeah, it's a political thing for sure. I give you credit for being a lot more thoughtful about it than the mobs of people on social media howling for blood right now but it still seems pretty obvious you've got a stake in this.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, IM2 always seems to make race-based arguments. It's what he's known for on this site.

I totally agree that to this point, the suspect's motivations are unclear. My point was that the churches burned being historically black is on the correlation rather than causation side of the scale like the black metal and pagan leanings, so your statement that "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." was a bit of a jump to a conclusion.

It's not a "conclusion" at all; it's historical context. Just as the Norway thing is context in this individual's case. And out of the two, one is a lot more glaringly Occam's Razor than the other. The NAACP condemned these burnings as hate crimes, and it's not hard to fathom why. Conclusions, we don't have yet.

Sure it's possible that this knuckledragger went out with the mission of simply burning churches and was totally ignorant of the long history of black church burnings in the South --- where he lives --- yet is all up to speed on some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago ..... and just happened to pick black churches in his own home turf. But it stretches credulity to think he wouldn't see the significance.

And it's worth pointing out again that a church, especially one in the black community, is much more a social center than a religious function -- and that's exactly why there IS that long history of racist church burnings ---- it's certainly not because they were out there practicing Christianity. The Klan, who were notorious for church attacks, were hyperpartisan Christians themselves. What they attacked was the idea that black people could socialize and potentially organize.

Now if this Norway freak had an entirely different motive, i.e. attacking Christianity, then his motive is still terrorism but rather than the social intimidation of racism, his terrorism would derive from a different motive of religion. But terrorists are out to make an intimidation point, and the point must be understood by his target, otherwise the message fails. To convey the point of religious intimidation he would have burned both black and white churches to eliminate the obvious racial implication. But he didn't. Arguably he would have burned ONLY or predominantly white churches to make that point and avoid the obvious racial connection. But he didn't.

I'm not sure how he could understand the tactics of intimidation and yet be oblivious to the racial implications of burning black churches in the South. It's a bit like burning a cross on a neighbor's lawn and then going "I saw you had some dead trees and I got rid of them for you --- what? It means something? I had no idea".

I'm not familiar with IM2's history so I can't comment on that. I guess whatever he posted in the past failed to make an impression.

Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.

Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.

I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.

The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.

Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.

On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.

Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.

And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.

And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.

Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.

Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it.

NO, I am NOT. Why do you think I used the phrase "appears to"? Because I had extra 'appears to"s lying around that would spoil if not used up??

Especially given the context of the bizarre thread title "Racism is a hoax"?

That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.

You inferred something that wasn't there. Not my doing. You're cherrypicking.

I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.

You've never lived in the South, have you. Have you ever even been here?

Obviously this act is derived of ignorance, regardless what the motivation(s) was or were. But you can't grow up in 41% black St.Landry Parish Louisiana and be unaware of racial tensions. And I don't mean at age 21 or in history books, I mean throughout everyday life.

And then there's this.

>> She added that what Matthews is accused of doing is "absolutely wrong." Satanism isn’t about burning churches, she said, but about self-reflection and loving yourself.

Thibodeaux said during their time together Matthews also used racial slurs, made "black jokes" and "dead baby jokes." <<
​

Which is another INDICATION --- again that word is indication, not conclusion --- that both factors may have been involved, as I posted yesterday, and/or that he might have intentionally or knowingly targeted specifically black churches. At the very least it dismisses this idea that here's a kid so isolated that he's the only one in central Louisiana who never heard of racism.

I live in Georgia. Have for almost 10 years.

That quote from Thibodeaux is certainly evidence that this may have been race related. That's the first time I've seen it. If it's true, racism absolutely becomes a more likely motivation.

Yes, you said it appeared to show that Klan and racist church burnings were continuing. Again, that is not simply "not dismissing" the idea. That is saying it is what likely happened. When a person says that someone appears a certain way, they most likely aren't saying it's just as likely the thing might be some other way.

So your conclusion in the second post you made in the thread appeared to be that racism was the most likely motivation for the burnings.

 

[Montrovant]

Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.

Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.

I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.

The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.

Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.

On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.

Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.

And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.

And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.

Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.

Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it. That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.

I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.

Thank you for being sensible. If he goes to trial, I hope the jurors are half as understanding as you. We are much, much too harsh on young men in this country and it would be a travesty if he was made an example of just because some people let their political grievances cloud their judgement.

Nothing Montrovant and I have been hashing out has anything to do with "political grievances". Read the posts.

I've read them. It does seem to me like you're holding out hope that this crime was motivated by racism. As if you want it to be so. Proving that the KKK still rides in the American south is very important for democrats right now. So yeah, it's a political thing for sure. I give you credit for being a lot more thoughtful about it than the mobs of people on social media howling for blood right now but it still seems pretty obvious you've got a stake in this.

This may be an ostensibly political board, but not every discussion or argument boils down to politics. Racism exists and can be discussed entirely outside the realm of American politics.

What Pogo and I have been doing, and what may be the only thing he and I have ever actively argued about on this board, is pretty much semantics. To me, it's almost as much about the medium we are using to communicate as it is the actual content; on a few occasions, he and I have clashed about the meaning of words, phrases, or statements one or the other has made.

In this particular case, I happen to be someone who has long been a fan of extreme metal and can relate more easily to the idea that Holden's black metal taste influenced his decision to burn the churches. I would say that Pogo isn't hoping for it to be racially motivated, but may perhaps not realize the level of anti-Christian sentiment that goes hand in hand with black metal and other extreme metal genres.

 

[impuretrash]

On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.

Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.

And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.

And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.

Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.

Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it. That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.

I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.

Thank you for being sensible. If he goes to trial, I hope the jurors are half as understanding as you. We are much, much too harsh on young men in this country and it would be a travesty if he was made an example of just because some people let their political grievances cloud their judgement.

Nothing Montrovant and I have been hashing out has anything to do with "political grievances". Read the posts.

I've read them. It does seem to me like you're holding out hope that this crime was motivated by racism. As if you want it to be so. Proving that the KKK still rides in the American south is very important for democrats right now. So yeah, it's a political thing for sure. I give you credit for being a lot more thoughtful about it than the mobs of people on social media howling for blood right now but it still seems pretty obvious you've got a stake in this.

This may be an ostensibly political board, but not every discussion or argument boils down to politics. Racism exists and can be discussed entirely outside the realm of American politics.

What Pogo and I have been doing, and what may be the only thing he and I have ever actively argued about on this board, is pretty much semantics. To me, it's almost as much about the medium we are using to communicate as it is the actual content; on a few occasions, he and I have clashed about the meaning of words, phrases, or statements one or the other has made.

In this particular case, I happen to be someone who has long been a fan of extreme metal and can relate more easily to the idea that Holden's black metal taste influenced his decision to burn the churches. I would say that Pogo isn't hoping for it to be racially motivated, but may perhaps not realize the level of anti-Christian sentiment that goes hand in hand with black metal and other extreme metal genres.

Ok, carry on then.

 

[Pogo]

Your statement certainly was a conclusion. You concluded that because the churches burned were historically black churches, that indicates that KKK or racist beliefs seem to be the motivation.

Again, I don't know if these churches were specifically picked or just picked at random. If most of the churches in the area are historically black, it could certainly be a random thing. If he would have driven by other churches which are not historically black, just as easily accessed, then I would agree it's evidence that race was a motivating factor.

I realize it's different today, but when I was in my early 20s, I could see myself having decided to burn a church without the slightest idea of what kind of congregants might have attended it.

The idea that this guy would have taken the race of the congregants into account if he burned the churches because of anti-Christian feelings is pretty silly IMO. It ascribes a great deal more planning and intelligence to the acts than probably existed. A young 20s black metal kid deciding to burn churches probably isn't the most likely person to do extensive research into his targets, nor the most likely person to consider the possible racial or social links people might read into the act. I don't think we're talking about a master criminal, but an angry young man thinking little further than "Fuck Christianity!" "Fuck blacks!" or some combination thereof.

Maybe the guy was a racist, maybe anti-Christian, maybe both. You just seemed to dismiss the pagan and black metal evidence and assume the racial angle was the motivation in your first posts.

On the contrary what I'm doing is resisting the idea of dismissing it. Not sure if you've ever lived in the South but I REALLY don't think it's even possible to grow up in rural Louisiana as the son of a deputy sheriff, and NOT be at the very least aware of what it means to burn a black church, let alone three of them.

Even at age 21? Of course. Same age Dylann Roof was when he went to a black church in Charleston. "Extensive" research wasn't needed. And Roof didn't even live in Charleston. This guy burned churches in his own parish where his father patrolled. Even less "extensive" research needed. It's his own turf.

And NO, for at least the fifth time there IS NO conclusion to be made, absent a confession or other new info. But you can't just go "oh look he's got a comment on a Nosebook meme about this Norwegian guy" and on that basis dismiss everything else.

And yes it could certainly be both. I pointed that out yesterday. Maybe you read right past it.

Maybe you had a different time as a youth than I did, or maybe I'm not taking how much young people today look things up on the internet, but I can absolutely believe a 21 year old, even the son of a sheriff's deputy, might burn down churches without even considering a racial aspect to the act. Maybe you have never been that sort of angry youth, or actively anti-religious. I have. If I had burned down churches at that age, the racial makeup of the congregations would never have entered my mind. It would have been an act of nearly blind lashing out. I'm not saying that's true in this case, but I don't think it's only some incredibly unlikely possibility, either.

Once again, I'll quote you from your second post in this thread: "I do know there's a long history of church-burnings perpetrated by the Klan and its fellow racist travellers, and this appears to be a story confirming that it's still going on." When you say the story appears to confirm that the Klan and racists are still burning churches, you aren't just resisting dismissing the idea, you are actively promoting it. That's a bit different from something like "Maybe race was a factor" or "Could this guy have Klan links?" or a similar sentiment. Yes, you have since agreed that race is just one of the possible motivations, but what drew me into this in the first place was the way you seemed to have already decided that race was the main motivator.

I also think you seem to be underestimating the cluelessness of youth, particularly the sort of angry, rebellious youth that tends to gravitate towards something like black metal. His father is a sheriff's deputy, but he may have actively avoided his father's work, not paid much real attention to it, etc. We may have had very different life experiences, but as I remember my early 20s, most of us at that age were pretty self-centered and often oblivious to things going on around us. I rarely consider ignorance to be an unlikely reason for someone doing something stupid, particularly for people in their teens and early 20s.

Thank you for being sensible. If he goes to trial, I hope the jurors are half as understanding as you. We are much, much too harsh on young men in this country and it would be a travesty if he was made an example of just because some people let their political grievances cloud their judgement.

Nothing Montrovant and I have been hashing out has anything to do with "political grievances". Read the posts.

I've read them. It does seem to me like you're holding out hope that this crime was motivated by racism. As if you want it to be so. Proving that the KKK still rides in the American south is very important for democrats right now. So yeah, it's a political thing for sure. I give you credit for being a lot more thoughtful about it than the mobs of people on social media howling for blood right now but it still seems pretty obvious you've got a stake in this.

If I have a "stake" it is that I've lived in Louisiana and my family has deep roots nearby in Mississippi. I know the culture a bit since infancy. If there's any "holding out hope" it's the attempt to connect this guy to some obscure crime spree in Norway 25 years ago while simultaneously ignoring the historical context of black church burnings.

I didn't say the Klan "still rides" in the American South, in fact I've pointed out elsewhere that it officially ceased to exist in 1944. I said that the Klan and its types have historically engaged in exactly this type of action, most notably the 16th Street Baptist church bombing in Birmingham but going back to at least 1822. That context can't be ignored. I get the sense that some elements here are trying to hold that context underwater until it stops breathing.

None of this --- the Klan, racism, Norwegian black metal -- has anything to do with politics. OK I don't really know Norwegian black metal but I doubt it's got anything to do with US politics.

And again ------ look at the thread title. It issues a premise that needs disproving.

 

[MizMolly]

No coincidence that whites here won't mention this.

Holden Matthews Arrested in String of Louisiana Church Fires

Holden Matthews has been arrested in connection with fires that destroyed three Louisiana churches in the span of two weeks, local news outlet KATC reports.

Matthews, 21, is the son of a St. Landry Parish sheriff’s deputy, and he was booked in to St. Landry Parish jail at about 5:30 Wednesday evening. (His family declined to comment to The Daily Beast.) Louisiana authorities will hold a press conference at 10 a.m. local time.

Holden Matthews Arrested in String of Louisiana Church Fires

"It's all made up by democrats to keep blacks voting democrat."

The big difference is that most whites would not condone this white criminals actions, whereas you make excuses for black criminals.

 

[Pogo]

>> (CNN) Four days before his arrest in connection with the three Louisiana Baptist church fires, Holden Matthews expressed disgust with Baptist beliefs on Facebook, CNN has learned.

Responding to a post about "afrikan spirituality," Matthews, posting under the name Noctis Matthews, said he cannot "stand all these baptists around here, bunch of brainwashed people trying to find happiness in a religion that was forced on their ancestors just as it was on mine."

.In the posting, Matthews said he wished that, "more blacks [sic] people would look into ancient beliefs of pre Christian Africa." <<
​

So .... two early conclusions: one, he confirms he was aware they were black churches, and two, it may be more complex than simple racism.

>> The day after police say Matthews burned down St. Mary Baptist Church in Port Barre, a video was posted on his band's YouTube page of his song, "Diabolical Soul Feast."

"The holy church is now destroyed," Matthews screams in the final lyrics of the song. "Burning down in Odin's name."
Bryyn says that Matthews writes and performs the song. <<​

That'll make the prosecution pretty easy.

 

[Muhammed]

No coincidence that whites here won't mention this.

Holden Matthews Arrested in String of Louisiana Church Fires

Holden Matthews has been arrested in connection with fires that destroyed three Louisiana churches in the span of two weeks, local news outlet KATC reports.

Matthews, 21, is the son of a St. Landry Parish sheriff’s deputy, and he was booked in to St. Landry Parish jail at about 5:30 Wednesday evening. (His family declined to comment to The Daily Beast.) Louisiana authorities will hold a press conference at 10 a.m. local time.

Holden Matthews Arrested in String of Louisiana Church Fires

"It's all made up by democrats to keep blacks voting democrat."

Was there some kind of point coming with this thread? I don't get the title.

He thinks it's proof that he's oppressed. The DAN is the stupidest forumer here.