The Politics Of Violence

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
2,639
Points
280
And, more importantly -- How it's reported by the LSM....

Politics is an every day part of life, people. Whether it should be or not is up for debate -- But it is.


It is present at work, in school, in social gatherings... You name it, it's there.

But in the Lame Stream Media, a protected class, a protected entity with many, many shield laws and certain Qualified Immunity, it has become extraordinarily biased for one side, and one side only.

The Constitutional duties of the press have been abandoned BY THE PRESS in order to favor their preferred form of government..... libturdism.

And they will do everything in their power to support it and back it.

read on


Why We Worry about Islamist Violence and Not Progressive Atheist Violence


Three Muslims have been murdered by a white atheist — ostensibly over a parking dispute. The shooter, if his Facebook page is to be believed, was what one might term an “anti-theist progressive.” Among the public figures he admired were Rachel Maddow, Bill Nye the engineer, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. Among the groups with which he identified were the Southern Poverty Law center, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the Huffington Post. Among those people he disliked were political conservatives, the devoutly religious, and fans of country music. This was not a man, let’s say, who is likely to have been friends with Ted Nugent.

And here’s the thing: None of this matters at all. Zip. Nada. Zilch.

There is no doubt that the press calculates its interest in killers’ backgrounds in a peculiarly inconsistent manner. Had the shooter been a Christian, a Republican, and a member of the NRA, we would today be hearing about the evident rise in “right-wing hatred.” Had he been an admirer of any of the many personae non gratae on whom America’s civil strife is typically blamed, MSNBC would by now have written an opera, and Markos Moulitsas would have begun work on a second volume of his preposterous little book. But two wrongs do not make a right, and there really is no need for those who are vexed by this double standard to inflict it upon innocent people on the other side. Atheism is not to blame; the killer is. Progressivism is not to blame; the killer is. Hopefully, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye will sleep well tonight.



Alas, to acknowledge this from the right is to invite a charge of hypocrisy. Not, of course, because conservatives tend to blame progressivism itself when a friend of the Left goes on a rampage, but because conservatives are generally worried by the problem of radical Islam and because, in consequence, they tend to make generalizations about the violence that it yields. This morning, Morehouse College’s Marc Lamont Hill joked on Twitter that he was “waiting for the atheist community to condemn this awful hate crime committed at UNC Chapel Hill,” and inquired wryly, “Is their silence complicity?” “Why,” he is effectively asking, “do we reflexively dismiss the role of ideology today, when we worry elsewhere about radical Islamism and its effect on global violence? This, I’d venture, is an excellent question, and one that deserves a full answer.

Islam draws attention in our era not because its adherents tend to be brown-skinned or because it is easier to fear those who live abroad than those who live down the street, but because it is used so frequently as the justification for attacks around the world that its critics have begun to notice a pattern. In most cases, it is reasonable to acknowledge simultaneously that representatives of every philosophy will occasionally do something evil — maybe in the name of their philosophy; maybenot — and to contend that it is silly to blame that philosophy for the individual’s behavior. As far as we know, there is no more evidence that today’s killer is representative of atheism per se than that the man who opened fire at the Family Research Council was representative of the Southern Poverty Law Center or that Scott Roeder was representative of the pro-life cause. Further, there are no evident superstructures within atheism or the SPLC or the right-to-life movement that routinely condone mass murder, and nor are there many friends of those groups who would be willing to justify or to indulge the maniacs they have attracted. It seems reasonably clear that any lunatic can appropriate a cause or provide a name as his inspiration, and that, when he does, we should neither regard that lunatic’s behavior as indicative of the whole nor worry too much about repeat attacks. As I have written before — in defense of Right and Left — words do not pull triggers.

This instinct, however, has its limitations, for it is one thing to acknowledge that one swallow does not make a summer, and quite another to insist that it is not summer when the whole flock is overhead. Individual acts should be taken as such, of course. But when the same names pop up over and over and over again it is fair for us to connect the dots. To wonder why conservatives worry about Islam specifically — and not, say, about atheism or progressivism or the Tea Party or the Westboro Baptist Church — is to ignore that Islam is so often deployed to rationalize violence around the world that it makes sense for them to ask more questions. An inquiry into the violent tendencies of contemporary atheists is likely to reach a dead end. An inquiry into modern Islam, by contrast, is not. Can anybody say with a straight face that it is irrational to wonder whether there is something inherent in present-day Islam that, at best, is attracting the crazy and the disenfranchised, and, at worst, actually requires savagery? I think not.

To comprehend this broader distinction — and to remove the “us vs. them” sting that discussions of Islam typically invite — we might take an example from closer to home. Imagine, if you will, how differently we would react to a lynching in 2015 than we would have in 1890. Should a white supremacist lynch a black man in Alabama tomorrow, we would of course be disgusted and appalled, and we would readily acknowledge that white supremacy was the cause — or, at least, that it was the excuse. But we would probably not be too concerned that the Klan was about to return, or that similar crimes were about to proliferate — or, for that matter, that its pernicious ideology was on the verge of a comeback. Instead, we would regard the culprit as a disgusting and painful outlier, and we would take comfort in the knowledge that he enjoyed little support.

In 1890, by contrast, our horror would necessarily have taken a graver form. Back then, lynchings were quotidian, and their practitioners were exponents of a wider and relatively popular ideology that, in many cases, was entrenched in law. When Ida Wells wrote that a “Winchester rifle deserved a place of honor in every Black home,” she was merely recognizing that southern blacks faced daily danger, and that, because those behind the peril enjoyed so much support, the authorities could not be trusted to protect the vulnerable. In 1890, it was reasonable for good people to fear the Klan and their friends, because the Klan and their friends were systematically and ideologically trying to kill Americans. On occasion, crimes against blacks may well have been unplanned or incidental. But nobody could blame observers who connected the two by default.

As we have learned in the last few decades, radical Islam — note the “radical” part — is similarly predisposed to hurt the West and its interests. Furthermore, its adherents enjoy far more support in the broader Muslim population than we are often led to believe. It is all very well for Lamont Hill and co. to sneer and to insinuate and to equivocate for their fans, but, alas, their aim is significantly off. The crucial difference between today’s killing and the routine killings that we see around the world is not that one murderer is familiar and the other is foreign. It is that the former is an outlier, and the latter is part of a critical mass. Of coursepeople raise their eyebrows in one case and not the other. The swallows are flying in formation.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
95,202
Reaction score
16,759
Points
2,180
Yeah. We should be able to lynch and punch fags and negroes, and fire them from their jobs, without them getting all up in arms about it.

Geez Louise! They are SO violent! That's why they need to by lynched! That's just common sense. We're just defending ourselves.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
47,912
Reaction score
11,546
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
It's all about politics. Since the faulty McCain/Feingold (ironically named) "campaign reform act" that created tax exempt propaganda networks like Media Matters, Americans have been subjected to "news" stories designed and tailored to promote political issues. Brian Williams didn't invent the "bodies floating face down" story after Katrina for fun. It was political spin designed to keep the anger percolating against the Bush administration.
 
OP
Edgetho

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
2,639
Points
280
Yeah. We should be able to lynch and punch fags and negroes, and fire them from their jobs, without them getting all up in arms about it.

Geez Louise! They are SO violent! That's why they need to by lynched! That's just common sense. We're just defending ourselves.

Here's what it looks like, moron.



Where did you have it last?
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
Yeah. We should be able to lynch and punch fags and negroes, and fire them from their jobs, without them getting all up in arms about it.

Geez Louise! They are SO violent! That's why they need to by lynched! That's just common sense. We're just defending ourselves.
Push people too far and they tend to come for ya in the wee hours of the night with pitchforks and torches to put your head on a pike.

Think we're headed for a French Revolution type revolt of the working poor against the rich. It's all fine and good to be successful and well-off, but when less than 1% of the richest owns 48% of the planet's money and wealth, someone's wrong. At some point, people get sick of Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless and say enough is enough.
 
OP
Edgetho

Edgetho

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
2,639
Points
280
Push people too far and they tend to come for ya in the wee hours of the night with pitchforks and torches to put your head on a pike.

Think we're headed for a French Revolution type revolt of the working poor against the rich. It's all fine and good to be successful and well-off, but when less than 1% of the richest owns 48% of the planet's money and wealth, someone's wrong. At some point, people get sick of Lifestyles of the Rich and Shameless and say enough is enough.
That's a lie. I've shot that down in here at least three times. Suffice it to say -- It is a LIE.

Meanwhile, speaking of lying dimocrap scum.....

Liberal Atheist Kills Three Muslims; Liberals Desperately Try to Blame Tea Party
Posted by Jammie on Feb 12, 2015 at 7:50 am



Despite zero evidence this moron Craig Hicks has anything to do with the right and with amountain of evidence demonstrating he’s a leftwinger, some crackpot created a page claiming to show he’s a Tea Party hero or something. It’s as if they haven’t learned their lesson from the past dozen attempts to blame an isolated incident on Tea Partiers.


Notice the name “Bipartisan Report” and then go check his timeline. And to no surprise, 9/11 Truther and former Obama aide Van Jones retweeted the nonsense. Then they even screenshot some bot accounts. Yes, that’s convincing.


Know who else is dragged into this? Why Mike Brown, of course.

It gets even more pathetic:


Don’t forget, they’re bipartisan or something. Know who else is to fault? Why, Fox News, of course.


Pitiful. Oh, and it’s not just Tea Partiers to blame. A movie is as well:






Bipartisan Report @Bipartisanism
Follow

If a Muslim man murdered three white college students, #FoxNews would be observing it's 3rd moment of silence today. #ChapelHillShooting

5:41 PM - 11 Feb 2015

Dena Takruri ✔ @Dena
Follow

I wonder why I'm thinking about how American Sniper made executing Arab/Muslim "savages" a heroic act to celebrate #ChapeHillShooting

3:06 AM - 11 Feb 2015




She’s a “journalist” working for … Al Jazeera.

dimocraps are the scum of the earth

Period
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,033
Points
280
Location
Earth
Long as the world suppresses pleasure via religion and laws, all that's left is aggresion and violent acting out. When your brain doesn't get any pleasurable stimulation, it tends to start destroying itself. When animals are deprived of pleasure and touch they literally chew their limbs off to feel something, anything. When you deprive the human animal of pleasurable contact, sex, and love people start making nutshot videos of themselves. If not using it, might as well damage it and get on tv.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top