Shooter Kills CNN Cameraman and Girl Live on TV

musterion

Well-known member
It was nothing more than his rationalization for his anger. There's no evidence whatever that he killed those people for anything more than belonging to a company that he felt had wronged him.

No evidence whatever that he killed them for being white.

Witness:

If a minority commits cold-blooded murder and cites his own racism for doing so, he's not really racist but "mentally ill," thus exempt from true blame (probably because white society made him that way). In other words, the leftist knows better than the murderer what the murderer himself truly believed because the leftist is superior.

Meanwhile, if a conservative (regardless of his color) says foreigners FROM ANYWHERE should not be allowed to enter or stay in this country illegally simply to honor the rule of law, he's not really in favor of rule of law but is secretly a racist who lies when he insist he's not a racist. In other words, the leftist knows better than the conservative what the conservative himself believes because the leftist is superior.

Why do you people keep giving these Stalinist-Alinskyite-Satanic droids the time of day? Truth - even from someone's own mouth - means nothing to them.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
If a minority commits cold-blooded murder and cites his own racism for doing so, he's not really racist but "mentally ill," thus exempt from true blame (probably because white society made him that way).

No, and as you know, that's not what happened here. He cited his perception that others were abusing him because of his race. The description of his job performance makes it clear he had emotional problems, and that was why he was fired. There have been cases that fit your description, such as the Washington sniper, but of course, everyone regarded him as a racist. Could be that this guy was a racist, but so far, none of the evidence indicates so. In fact, it appears he was fearful of white racism.

In other words, the leftist knows better than the murderer what the murderer himself truly believed because the leftist is superior.

Sounds like a bit of projection. I think you should calm down, and think about this, instead of reacting emotionally.

Meanwhile, if a conservative (regardless of his color) says foreigners FROM ANYWHERE should not be allowed to enter or stay in this country illegally simply to honor the rule of law, he's not really in favor of rule of law but is secretly a racist who lies when he insist he's not a racist.

Many people who want better control of the border are doing so for perfectly valid reasons. Yes, there are people iike Trump who have characterized illegal aliens as dangerous criminals, but that is not typical of the people who want the border controlled.

In other words, the leftist knows better than the conservative what the conservative himself believes because the leftist is superior.

You have no sense of irony at all, do you?
 

bybee

New member
True, but they are a group that has done the most research on the topic. I would tend to hold their opinions higher because they have resources to prove it.

Proof has a tendency to reflect existing biases. Sometimes in the parameters chosen through which to gather data and sometimes in the drawing of conclusions through which, of necessity, qualifying some disqualifies others.
Keep an open mind but do not let your brain fall out through the cracks.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Why do you people keep giving these Stalinist-Alinskyite-Satanic droids the time of day? Truth - even from someone's own mouth - means nothing to them.

Because they are on TOL. They are not going to leave. They are here to promote evil and wickedness.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Race is truly a social construct, and the number of "races" always depends on the particular society. As long as there is more variation within any "race" you define, than between those "races" (and that's how it is) then biological human races remain a racist fantasy.

In some cases, certain oppressed "races" such as the Japanese Burakumin are indistinguishable from others in their society, and unless one knows their ancestry, it would be impossible to tell. (Some people kept registries they sold to parents and businesses to make it easier)

It's all foolishness.
 

Quetzal

New member
Proof has a tendency to reflect existing biases. Sometimes in the parameters chosen through which to gather data and sometimes in the drawing of conclusions through which, of necessity, qualifying some disqualifies others.
Keep an open mind but do not let your brain fall out through the cracks.
Not when it is represented with empirical evidence. There is no bias in how reality functions, so long as the data is also presented that way.
 

PureX

Well-known member
Not when it is represented with empirical evidence. There is no bias in how reality functions, so long as the data is also presented that way.
Bybee is right. It's not possible for us to be unbiased, because the way we understand the world, now, will dictate what we choose to investigate and the how we choose to investigate it. Even the questions we ask are based on what we already think we know, which is based on the previous questions we chose to ask and investigate. And although the scientific process and empirical reasoning can help us eliminate our immediate bias, it still can't do so over all. (Though I'm sure it helps.)

So I think it's important to keep this in mind: that we can always be wrong in the way we understand something, and biased by the way we understand everything else. Even empirical reasoning based on "objective evidence" is, itself, a form of bias.
 

PureX

Well-known member
If a minority commits cold-blooded murder and cites his own racism for doing so, he's not really racist but "mentally ill," thus exempt from true blame (probably because white society made him that way). In other words, the leftist knows better than the murderer what the murderer himself truly believed because the leftist is superior.
I didn't see anyone suggest that anyone was exempt from blame. So it appears that your bias and bile against "leftists" is causing you to imagine that something is happening that hasn't and isn't happening, here.

You should get a grip on this, because it's a harbinger of your own insanity when you can't recognize and understand the written posts that are right in front of you because your mind is so twisted up by it's desire to express animosity toward some imaginary "leftists", that you have heaped all your hate and blame on and so have come to loathe.
Meanwhile, if a conservative (regardless of his color) says foreigners FROM ANYWHERE should not be allowed to enter or stay in this country illegally simply to honor the rule of law, he's not really in favor of rule of law but is secretly a racist who lies when he insist he's not a racist. In other words, the leftist knows better than the conservative what the conservative himself believes because the leftist is superior.
This has nothing to do with the subject being discussed, nothing to do with any of the other comments in this discussion, and appears to be mostly gibberish, based again, on your hatred of these imaginary "leftists".
Why do you people keep giving these Stalinist-Alinskyite-Satanic droids the time of day? Truth - even from someone's own mouth - means nothing to them.
They are engaging in a discussion of the incident at hand. It's you who's mind has wandered off into some tirade against imaginary comments and imaginary evil "leftists". And it's you that can't see the truth of your bias and bile.

You really, seriously, need to check this insanity, dude, before it swallows you whole.
 

Quetzal

New member
Bybee is right. It's not possible for us to be unbiased, because the way we understand the world, now, will dictate what we choose to investigate and the how we choose to investigate it. Even the questions we ask are based on what we already think we know, which is based on the previous questions we chose to ask and investigate. And although the scientific process and empirical reasoning can help us eliminate our immediate bias, it still can't do so over all. (Though I'm sure it helps.)

So I think it's important to keep this in mind: that we can always be wrong in the way we understand something, and biased by the way we understand everything else. Even empirical reasoning based on "objective evidence" is, itself, a form of bias.
I will agree with that. Good points, all.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Actually, our numbers is not the problem. We could combine all the people in Europe, get similar numbers of people, and yet the Europeans would still only be killing each other with guns at a fraction of the rate that we in the U.S. do.

I meant the numbers of those who support guns or carry them, the 'gun lobby'.
 

PureX

Well-known member
I meant the numbers of those who support guns or carry them, the 'gun lobby'.
Oh! Sorry.

Yes, those are the direct expression of our uniquely American culture, which is clearly gun-crazy. But worse then that, not just gun-crazy, but fully subsumed by the fantasy ideal of resolving our problems and disagreements with others by violently eliminating them. By killing them, as "bad guys".

The love of violence begets violence, and violence begets more violence. So we are a very violent people, and it's getting worse as there are more and more guns readily available and easy to use when our lust for violence strikes.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Oh! Sorry.

Yes, those are the direct expression of our uniquely American culture, which is clearly gun-crazy. But worse then that, not just gun-crazy, but fully subsumed by the fantasy ideal of resolving our problems and disagreements with others by violently eliminating them. By killing them, as "bad guys".

The love of violence begets violence, and violence begets more violence. So we are a very violent people, and it's getting worse as there are more and more guns readily available and easy to use when our lust for violence strikes.

What do you propose then?

Do you have gun crime statistics like the one you posted broken down by state or by population region?
 

Nazaroo

New member
Latest info says he was planning a long bloodbath,
and that he was heading to Washington after the first shooting,
and that he shot himself only because he was seen and chased on the highway.

Which makes this plainly a planned terrorist operation by him,
for political reasons.

He had several guns and much ammo in the vehicle.
His apartment had pictures of himself on his fridge (no family, friends),
and suggests a narcissist-ego persona.

He also boasted vaguely about doing something big.

So it looks like this is not an act of 'passion' but a planned cold-blooded killing spree.

He was no doubt a sociopath, but so is every terrorist.

He said he was inspired by the church shooting, so it was a racially motivated crime.

Its sad but ironic that the media was targeted, since they gave credence to
both the false-flag Charleston "shooting" and Sandy Hook nonsense.
 

PureX

Well-known member
What do you propose then?

Do you have gun crime statistics like the one you posted broken down by state or by population region?
As with any pathology, we need to acknowledge the problem before we can resolve it. And that's the struggle we are engaged in, now.

Our cultural acceptance of extreme violence as a means of problem solving makes recognizing that our acceptance of extreme violence as a means of problems solving is, itself, a problem. We see the murders every day on the news, but we have come to accept them as a kind of "collateral damage" in the fantasy struggle between the good guys and the bad guys.

Just look at this thread, and everyone trying to label the shooter the bad guy, the victim collateral damage, and the shooters violent death by his own hand (or by a cop, it wouldn't matter) as the just revenge required to "solve the problem". As long as the 'bad guy' dies in the end, in our culture, the scales are balanced. Any collateral death and suffering are forgotten almost immediately. Which is why we don't ever face the insanity of our cultural lust for extremely violent revenge as the solution to our problems with others (those "bag guys").

If we would face this sickness in our cultural psyche, we could begin to mitigate the causes: glorified violence in the media, the over-simplification of complex and contentious social problems and their solutions, the corruption of government by moneyed special interests like the weapons industry … and so on.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
As with any pathology, we need to acknowledge the problem before we can resolve it. And that's the struggle we are engaged in, now.

Our cultural acceptance of extreme violence as a means of problem solving makes recognizing that our acceptance of extreme violence as a means of problems solving is, itself, a problem. We see the murders every day on the news, but we have come to accept them as a kind of "collateral damage" in the fantasy struggle between the good guys and the bad guys.

Just look at this thread, and everyone trying to label the shooter the bad guy, the victim collateral damage, and the shooters violent death by his own hand (or by a cop, it wouldn't matter) as the just revenge required to "solve the problem". As long as the 'bad guy' dies in the end, in our culture, the scales are balanced. Any collateral death and suffering are forgotten almost immediately. Which is why we don't ever face the insanity of our cultural lust for extremely violent revenge as the solution to our problems with others (those "bag guys").

If we would face this sickness in our cultural psyche, we could begin to mitigate the causes: glorified violence in the media, the over-simplification of complex and contentious social problems and their solutions, the corruption of government by moneyed special interests like the weapons industry … and so on.

You don't seem to be offering a solution here.
I have to say that I would not vote for you if you had a platform on the above statement.
As I said originally, I am not sure that there is a problem. It is a choice you make. I only say say that when it happens next time, no one should really be complaining about it. Sure, we all blame the shooter and whatever his evil motives were, but you can't complain. You can't say, when it happens to your fiancee or your brother or your mother and father 'why me, why them?' because you already know 'why me, why them?' It is your own choice as a people.

So I would counsel 2 possibilities.

1) If it is possible to somehow change your attitudes, then that should be the first and best solution. But this is a very nebulous concept and is unlikely to happen short of some massive national disasters.
2) Given the very impractical solution per 1), you need to be more practical. Your justice system clearly doesn't cope with this. And given your national culture as you describe so well above, this should be recognised as being significant enough to require matching with equally significant deterrents against violence. Looking at you from the outside, I would say that your justice system is hopelessly liberal, given the strength it needs to maintain to compensate for the level of violence ingrained in your psyche. These liberal attitudes have crept in over the centuries, but the penchant for violence has not abated in like manner. The one needs to compensate for the other.
So from a practical perspective, I would limit the amount of time a person can spend on death row, wasting taxpayers' money on liberal human rights and limit the recourse to appeals against sentencing. I'd reinstate the death penalty everywhere and I'd reduce the level of proof needed to substantiate a crime.
At the same time I would make the penalty for giving false evidence equal to the penalty for the crime over which the evidence is being given - like for like.
This gives you an idea of the sort of things I would do. You can say that I'm a raging fascist or whatever but as I said, I only think this is second best. But if you want to be practical you should recognise that such attitudes towards violence as exist in your country are not assumed in the declaration of human rights. So the protections afforded to human beings generally by that declaration are inadequate to cope with the level of violence in your country. In other words, I am only trying to be suggestive in your particular situation. I am not advocating a general principle.
So if violence is your thing then you will get it at the hands of the state and you will also get innocent people being convicted and put to death. But you will also get fewer people committing murder so you will swap innocent victims of murder to innocent victims of the death penalty. But hopefully, these will not balance out and you will work your way through to a less violent trend through this road because people will learn that violence is wrong. At the moment your justice system doesn't give the message that it is and your criminals are laughing at you whilst in their prisons studying their law degrees and looking forward to the next 10 years of free education until the next appeal.
 

PureX

Well-known member
You don't seem to be offering a solution here.
I have to say that I would not vote for you if you had a platform on the above statement.
As I said originally, I am not sure that there is a problem. It is a choice you make. I only say say that when it happens next time, no one should really be complaining about it. Sure, we all blame the shooter and whatever his evil motives were, but you can't complain. You can't say, when it happens to your fiancee or your brother or your mother and father 'why me, why them?' because you already know 'why me, why them?' It is your own choice as a people.

So I would counsel 2 possibilities.

1) If it is possible to somehow change your attitudes, then that should be the first and best solution. But this is a very nebulous concept and is unlikely to happen short of some massive national disasters.
I was an active alcoholic for many years. And from time to time through those years someone would point out to me that I drank far too much. And that I was possibly alcoholic. But their observations meant nothing to me because the word "alcoholic" meant nothing to me. I would tell them that sure, I was probably an alcoholic, but so what? To me, being alcoholic was like having blue eyes instead of brown. It was just something I happened to be. And everyone was something or other.

But as the years passed, it became more difficult for me to see it that way. My life seemed to traverse one disaster after another, and many of them seemed to be alcohol related. And in time, the word "alcoholic" came to mean something, … and something unpleasant. My own suffering had begun to make the label real. And it was getting worse as time passed.

Eventually I decided I didn't want to be an alcoholic, anymore, but to my shock, I discovered that it was not my choice. That I couldn't just stop drinking even though I finally wanted to!

Well, there's more to that story, of course, but this much gets us to the point. The United States doesn't recognize that is has a serious problem with gun violence, yet, because it still minimizes and excuses and forgets the consequences of the problem. Sure, we see the numbers, and we see the bodies on the TV, but in truth they don't mean nearly as much to us as the idea of killing those bad guys does. We really like that idea of killing the bad guys. But ignoring the consequences of this lust for bloody revenge is getting harder to do. And it will continue to get harder to do. The numbers keep climbing, and every time someone dies, there are a dozen people left suffering a devastating loss. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. Uncles, aunts, cousins and friends. All left broken-hearted and starkly aware of the utter senselessness of it all. While the rest of us ignore their loss, and their suffering, in our lust for the just and violent vengeance that is the "American way".

Until it's one of ours, killed. Then our ignorance and excuses won't work. And we'll find ourselves face to face with the ugly stupidity and futility of our own violent mindset. And then we'll be changed. So I guess the question is how many of us will have to die before enough of us have suffered enough? And I don't know the answer to that question. But I do know that the more the people there are out there asking it, the sooner that number will be met.

Then once it is met, and we can finally face the insanity of our own lust for violent revenge under the false flag of "justice", we will become willing to change. And one thing I believe, is that when Americans make up their mind to do something, it gets done! We really are "can do" folks. And solutions aren't rocket science. They aren't even all that difficult. They just need the will and common sense of people who are willing to live by a different set of priorities.

You are right, it's about choices. And we just aren't ready yet to make the positive choice. But we will be, when neglecting it hurts us each, enough.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
According to statistics, most violent crimes in America are Non-Whites killing Whites.

(Barbarian points out that blacks kill whites less often than random killing would predict, and that whites kill blacks more often than random killing would predict)

Yes, but what is the percentage ratio?

Since there are about six times as many blacks as whites, a totally unbiased killer of either race would kill about 86 percent whites and 14 percent blacks.

But the actual interracial killings shows about 32% blacks and 68% whites. Whites are killed a lot less by blacks, and blacks a lot more by whites, than random selection would predict. So that gives you the same results.

And your claim that most homicides are whites killed by blacks is nothing but a racist fantasy.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Even empirical reasoning based on "objective evidence" is, itself, a form of bias.

We can chose to live by a number of different things, but once we abandon reason, then we are prey to anyone with a story to tell.
 
Top