impuretrash
Gold Member
- Aug 31, 2017
- 11,029
- 2,944
- 290
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.