Mass shooting in Dayton Ohio

banie01

Venom wrote: »

The shooter's links to Antifa, socialism and his support of Warren will somehow not get much coverage from the media I reckon.

I would hope it will be.
If the links are correct, they need to be called out for what they are.
Extremist, violent and hate filled.

As I've said earlier in this thread, extremism at either end of the political spectrum is a danger
Particularly in a society with easy access to guns and a growing binary divide where if you are on of the middle majority you feel more and more ignored.

Harvey Weinstein

Venom wrote: »

The shooter's links to Antifa, socialism and his support of Warren will somehow not get much coverage from the media I reckon.

Of course not, we can already see American pundits who after El Paso were calling for public hangings, but now are calling for unity, calm, come together etc.
Using events like these for political capital is disgraceful really and does nothing to address the problem. They will continue to occur regardless. Sandy hook, Colombine, James Holmes, Stephen Paddock etc displayed no explicitly political or racial motivations and there will be more. Personally I think its a mixture of bad reactions to multiple anti depressants/ cultural factors and easy access to guns.

Hobosan

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Personally I think its a mixture of bad reactions to multiple anti depressants/ cultural factors and easy access to guns.

Another factor is that thrill one must inevitably feel when mowing down a bunch of hapless victims.

Calltocall

Hobosan wrote: »

Another factor is that thrill one must inevitably feel when mowing down a bunch of hapless victims.

Can’t see how it would be a thrill unless one is completely ****ed in the head

Hobosan

Calltocall wrote: »

Can’t see how it would be a thrill unless one is completely ****ed in the head

I generally assume mass shooters are ****ed in the head.

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

So more whites = more white shooters.
Except that's not whats at play here is it?
The vast majority of gun crime is commited by people of colour black/Hispanic.
Surely as there are more whites, by your logic it should be the other way around?

The issue isn't that anyone believes all these spree killings are inherently racist.
Be it that someone goes postal, attacks their school or rocks up to a bar with a semi auto.
What needs answering to my mind at least, is why so many of this particular style of spree is carried out by angry white men?
Why is this course of action seen as a viable choice?
Is it an attempt at suicide by cop?
Is it some twisted desire for notoriety?
Is it that they had a specific target and decided whilst they were out doing that to see how far they could go?
In light of the 8chan posts of recent shooters is there a subculture effort to gameify spree killings and go for "high scores"



So of 251mass shootings, @0.5% were definitely carried out by people of colour...
So we can ignore that race of the shooter(Note I said of the shooter) may have played any part in the other 99.5% of attacks?
Really?

Would you mind expanding your logic a little bit on this point so I can try and get a handle on it please?

So it's not even true.

This statistic shows the number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and August 4, 2019, by race and ethnicity of the shooter(s). Between 1982 and August 2019, 64 out of 114 mass shootings were initiated by White shooters. In 2012, whites made up 63% of the US population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

ILoveYourVibes

He was a leftist socialist who supported gun control.

He shot his own sister she was among the victims.

The el paso shooter supported trump.


It doesn't take a lot to figure out the issue is extremism.

banie01

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So it's not even true.

This statistic shows the number of mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and August 4, 2019, by race and ethnicity of the shooter(s). Between 1982 and August 2019, 64 out of 114 mass shootings were initiated by White shooters. In 2012, whites made up 63% of the US population.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

Given that there have been 251 spree shooting incidents to date this year in the US, the fact that the statistic linked gives a number of 114 for a 37 year period leaves me wondering as to the quality of the data gathered and the selection criteria.

InTheShadows

Hobosan wrote: »

Another factor is that thrill one must inevitably feel when mowing down a bunch of hapless victims.

WTF??

walshb

InTheShadows wrote: »

WTF??

I kind of agree. But to these out and out scum, thrill is something that they can experience...

walshb

Calltocall wrote: »

Can’t see how it would be a thrill unless one is completely ****ed in the head

Yes, and many are completely fooked in the head..

InTheShadows

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He was a leftist socialist who supported gun control.

He shot his own sister she was among the victims.

The el paso shooter supported trump.


It doesn't take a lot to figure out the issue is extremism.

And it needs to be called out as such by the media but what we have is CNN on the far liberal left and Fox News on the far right. Everything is black and white in the US, there is very little grey.

With every biased report from either side the extremes become more extreme.

What these idiots on Fox or CNN don't seem to realise is that they do more damage to their agenda than good.

ILoveYourVibes

InTheShadows wrote: »

And it needs to be called out as such by the media but what we have is CNN on the far liberal left and Fox News on the far right. Everything is black and white in the US, there is very little grey.

With every biased report from either side the extremes become more extreme.

What these idiots on Fox or CNN don't seem to realise is that they do more damage to their agenda than good.

I know. I mean obv its guns too.

But even that issue people express themselves in extreme ways.

Students shaving their heads etc was not a wise pr choice.

The media is totally disingenuous too ..i mean at one point every channel has had trump on they MUST have known what he was like they were all sucking up to him before now even NBC and CNN etc.

Cody montana

dodderangler wrote: »

Shut up mate. You’re boring. Bet you blame your own faults on your parents aswell

I have no faults.
Trump practically encourages hate.

Beasty

dodderangler, do not post in this thread again

Everyone else, please ignore his posts now as he cannot respond

Thanks[\b]

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

Given that there have been 251 spree shooting incidents to date this year in the US, the fact that the statistic linked gives a number of 114 for a 37 year period leaves me wondering as to the quality of the data gathered and the selection criteria.

Why do you take the 251 figure as fact and not this one?

How is a mass shooting defined?

The media don't care about such details.

klaaaz

Venom wrote: »

The shooter's links to Antifa, socialism and his support of Warren will somehow not get much coverage from the media I reckon.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He was a leftist socialist who supported gun control. He shot his own sister she was among the victims.

Proof? Nothing from the news channels yet about any of these allegations.

Apparently he didn't like women.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html

biko

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

One right and one left on the same day. Dayton shooter heavily linked to antifa as per his social media accounts. Also looks like he was itching to kill judging from his twitter ramblings.

Connor Betts: Twitter Posts on Being a Leftist, Guns

“I want socialism, and i’ll not wait for the idiots to finally come round to understanding.”

biko

What kind of person kills their own sister?
Incredibility despicable!

biko

A little bit of background on each of the victims
https://time.com/5643666/what-to-know-dayton-ohio-shooting-victims/

Raconteuse

I don't get this "they were white" stuff - why is that more of a concern than the actual atrocity? I'm seeing people on social media gleefully proclaiming it, while berating those who do the same if there is an atrocity by Islamist fundamentalists.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

Apparently he didn't like women.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html

Sorry, where does that come out in the article? He had a kill list for men and a rape list for women. Seems to me he was more lenient to women than men in his madness. If he had just a list for women then I'd agree but he didn't.

The anecdotes about being turned down for dates don't add anything. What did the guys do to get on the list?

banie01

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you take the 251 figure as fact and not this one?

How is a mass shooting defined?

The media don't care about such details.

If you are going to rely on a dfinition of what a mass shooting is, I agree that there should be at the very least a clear definition of what one is.

There are a number of measures extant and to ensure a degree of fairness I've included the ones I of below.

Stanford University MSA Data Project: 3+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time, excluding organized crime, as well as gang-related and drug-related shootings.[8]
Mass Shooting Tracker: 4+ shot in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time.[7]
Gun Violence Archive/Vox: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[4][9]
Mother Jones: 3+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place.[6]
The Washington Post: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place.[5]
ABC News/FBI: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[10]
Congressional Research Service: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place, excluding gang-related killings and those done with a profit-motive.[2]

The current total for mass shooting incidents that meet at least 2 of the above criteria is 251.

Whats your definition of a mass shooting?
Given that you believe the US total is 114 over a period of 37 years I'd be very curious as to why you believe its true?

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

If you are going to rely on a dfinition of what a mass shooting is, I agree that there should be at the very least a clear definition of what one is.

There are a number of measures extant and to ensure a degree of fairness I've included the ones I of below.

Stanford University MSA Data Project: 3+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time, excluding organized crime, as well as gang-related and drug-related shootings.[8]
Mass Shooting Tracker: 4+ shot in one incident, at one location, at roughly the same time.[7]
Gun Violence Archive/Vox: 4+ shot in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[4][9]
Mother Jones: 3+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place.[6]
The Washington Post: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place.[5]
ABC News/FBI: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at one location, at roughly the same time.[10]
Congressional Research Service: 4+ shot and killed in one incident, excluding the perpetrator(s), at a public place, excluding gang-related killings and those done with a profit-motive.[2]

The current total for mass shooting incidents that meet at least 2 of the above criteria is 251.

Whats your definition of a mass shooting?
Given that you believe the US total is 114 over a period of 37 years I'd be very curious as to why you believe its true?

I don't "believe" anything. I quoted a single source. Tahr appeared to have some impartiality. You are being economical with the truth in saying "at least 2" as some of the others you quoted give a much lower figure.

The two you include count drug crime, mob hits, domestic violence etc as a mass shooting. Many of these criteria would decrease the count of white men rather than increase it.

Look at this - as you can see there is a MASSIVE variation depending on how you measure it.

Variation in How Mass Shootings Are Defined and Counted
Source Casualty Threshold
(for injuries or deaths by firearm)
Location of Incident Motivation of Shooter Number of U.S. Mass Shootings in 2015
Mother Jones
(see Follman, Aronsen, and Pan, 2017)
Three fatal injuries
(excluding shooter)*
Public Indiscriminate
(excludes crimes of armed robbery, gang violence, or domestic violence)
7
Gun Violence Archive
(undated-a)
Four fatal or nonfatal injuries
(excluding shooter)
Any Any 332
Mass Shooting Tracker
(undated)
Four fatal or nonfatal injuries
(including shooter)
Any Any 371
Mass Shootings in America database
(Stanford Geospatial Center, undated)
Three fatal or nonfatal injuries
(excluding shooter)
Any Not identifiably related to gangs, drugs, or organized crime 65
Supplementary Homicide Reports (FBI)
(see Puzzanchera, Chamberlin, and Kang, 2017)
The FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports do not define mass shooting but do provide information on the number of victims, and the reports have been used by researchers in conjunction with news reports or other data sources.
* Before January 2013, the casualty threshold for Mother Jones was four fatal injuries (excluding the shooter).

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html

To me it is the Mother Jones type of shootings we are referring to here. Not gang bangers, armed robberies or mob hits.

114 seems very low.

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, where does that come out in the article? He had a kill list for men and a rape list for women. Seems to me he was more lenient to women than men in his madness. If he had just a list for women then I'd agree but he didn't.

The anecdotes about being turned down for dates don't add anything. What did the guys do to get on the list?

Rape is used as an act of war against women, especially the women who turn down advances from men. Rape is very rarely used against men, it looks like he wanted to shoot his male rivals in the competition for female attention.

banie01

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't "believe" anything. I quoted a single source. Tahr appeared to have some impartiality. You are being economical with the truth in saying "at least 2" as some of the others you quoted give a much lower figure.

What 2? I gave 7 potential sources with a mass shooting being included if it met the criteria listed for any 2 of the 7.
As for my mistaken belief that you "believed" the number you posted, I'm sure you can see why someone would think that if you quote a number, you'd believe it?

Deleted User wrote: »

The two you include count drug crime, mob hits, domestic violence etc as a mass shooting. Many of these criteria would decrease the count of white men rather than increase it.

Look at this - as you can see there is a MASSIVE variation depending on how you measure it.

Agreed!
Massive variation on how they are counted and that many criteria would decrease the number of "White" shooters.
Which is why a broad range of sources and at least matched consensus on 2 counts is important in at least reaching a ballpark of what is/isn't a mass shooting.
That said, when you lift out the gang related violence the numbers and the ethnicity narrow considerably.

The trope of "angry white shooter" is still valid.
Where are the corresponding attacks by People of Colour on completely random people? Churches? Schools? Public gatherings? Workplace attacks?

Again this is a point that I do feel needs to be borne out, despite the Dayton shooter killing 6 black men of the 9 killed. I am not positing that it was a specifically racist attack.

I am positing that for some reason, there is a serious issue with angry young white men taking a weapon and engaging in spree attacks.
Some choose to play Right Wing, some Left Wing and some are just nutters who seem intent on carnage.

Do you not at least agree that in the absence of gang culture influence, or any obvious criminal history on the part of those shooters that something needs to be done to recognise the drivers behind the grabbing of a gun?

That people can grab a weapon, high capacity magazines and even body armour to undertake attacks of this kind is something that IMO needs to be treated as domestic terrorism.

The US is still struggling with the impact of the Militia's and the sovereign rights movement, Antifa and Christian fundamentalism and is still very externally focused for its threat forecast.

From Ruby Ridge to now, in the US, the federal agencies in particular have problems with identifying and counter acting domestic threats.
I do feel that the massive fragmentation of US law enforcement particularly on the local/state level has quite a role to play in this.
The militarisation of policing, the reliance on reactive policing rather than intelligence led local policing is a significant factor IMO.

Deleted User wrote: »

To me it is the Mother Jones type of shootings we are referring to here. Not gang bangers, armed robberies or mob hits.

114 seems very low.

Would agree with your thoughts here.

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

What 2? I gave 7 potential sources with a mass shooting being included if it met the criteria listed for any 2 of the 7.
As for my mistaken belief that you "believed" the number you posted, I'm sure you can see why someone would think that if you quote a number, you'd believe it?



Agreed!
Massive variation on how they are counted and that many criteria would decrease the number of "White" shooters.
Which is why a broad range of sources and at least matched consensus on 2 counts is important in at least reaching a ballpark of what is/isn't a mass shooting.
That said, when you lift out the gang related violence the numbers and the ethnicity narrow considerably.

The trope of "angry white shooter" is still valid.
Where are the corresponding attacks by People of Colour on completely random people? Churches? Schools? Public gatherings? Workplace attacks?

Again this is a point that I do feel needs to be borne out, despite the Dayton shooter killing 6 black men of the 9 killed. I am not positing that it was a specifically racist attack.

I am positing that for some reason, there is a serious issue with angry young white men taking a weapon and engaging in spree attacks.
Some choose to play Right Wing, some Left Wing and some are just nutters who seem intent on carnage.

Do you not at least agree that in the absence of gang culture influence, or any obvious criminal history on the part of those shooters that something needs to be done to recognise the drivers behind the grabbing of a gun?

That people can grab a weapon, high capacity magazines and even body armour to undertake attacks of this kind is something that IMO needs to be treated as domestic terrorism.

The US is still struggling with the impact of the Militia's and the sovereign rights movement, Antifa and Christian fundamentalism and is still very externally focused for its threat forecast.

From Ruby Ridge to now, in the US, the federal agencies in particular have problems with identifying and counter acting domestic threats.
I do feel that the massive fragmentation of US law enforcement particularly on the local/state level has quite a role to play in this.
The militarisation of policing, the reliance on reactive policing rather than intelligence led local policing is a significant factor IMO.




Would agree with your thoughts here.

Yes I agree with all of this. There is something triggering these type of attacks from middle class suburban white young men. There are also very high suicide rates among this demographic. I don't for a second buy that it's overwhelmingly white supremacy, video games, toxic masculinity, pornography or any of the other frankly nonsense reasons given in the media. My inkling is that it's to do with alienation, lack of social skills and a resulting and a lack of purpose for young men these days. Ethnic minorities are not expected to perform in the same way (except Jewish and Asian kids - but they have very strong family bonds lacking in many white households). This would be my theory anyway.

notobtuse

A good step in the right directions... Looks like 8chan is being shut down.

hatrickpatrick

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Mass shootings have been happening in the USA long before the media outlets covered the social change of holding some white men accountable for their poor behaviour. Was as before they would get away with it. All the while those who were typically the victims were living in an environment that painted them in a none too favourable light... yet those demographics didn't feel the need to commit acts to this level. 251 mass shootings in 2019 alone.

The real take away from your argument is that there are a lot of white straight men who society needs to handle with kid gloves, tell them that their actions are no longer acceptable or even have a place in modern society, and that could potentially be enough to push them over into an act of mass violence, where as other demographics who have a long history of actual being oppressed and demonised.. don't have the same history or connection with acts of mass violence. Your argument makes white straight men into a joke, and only helps to cause more devision. As it paints them as a demographic that handles criticism of poor behaviour as a legitimate excuse to commit acts of mass violence.

I'm not talking about "criticism of poor behaviour", I'm talking about straight-up hate speech, and on top of that, hate speech which is accepted by the mainstream as "acceptable" where it wouldn't be considered acceptable if it was directed towards any other demographic. You're implying that mainstream comments talking as if all white males are inherently bad people who should be murdered or actively discriminated against are "criticism of poor behaviour", this is a ridiculous comparison. No other demographic can be criticised as a whole demographic without it being considered socially unacceptable, and that in and of itself is discrimination.

If you even remotely believe that it's acceptable to generalise against an entire demgoraphic based on the actions of a minority, you're a bigot. It's that simple. Which demographic is being targeted does not change the status of the remarks as bigotry.

Do you deny, for example, that the New York Times hired a racist, sexist, murder-advocating woman as an editor after spending years (rightfully, by the way!) decrying others who engaged in similar hate speech when directed against other demographics? This has been going on for the better part of the last decade, and it's absolutely ridiculous to deny that this has the potential to cause widespread societal malaise.

tuxy

notobtuse wrote: »

A good step in the right directions... Looks like 8chan is being shut down.

It looks like DNS hosts are not directing to their server anymore.
It's not being shutdown people will just have to use a different address to access it.

hatrickpatrick

notobtuse wrote: »

A good step in the right directions... Looks like 8chan is being shut down.

We're living in disturbing times indeed when censorship is regarded as a step in the right direction, but that's not actually true. Cloudflare has sold out to the deplatforming brigade and dropped them as a client, but as far as I know the site's admins are simply following the Daily Stormer and switched to a competitor.

What I find hilarious is that so many people are going to 8chan, finding it down sporadically, and celebrating this as the site's demise - it's been a crappy and unreliable website for years, nine times out of ten it's either down or having server trouble - and this was without it being attacked or DDOSed, this was simply because the people running it don't know what they're doing.

notobtuse

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We're living in disturbing times indeed when censorship is regarded as a step in the right direction, but that's not actually true. Cloudflare has sold out to the deplatforming brigade and dropped them as a client, but as far as I know the site's admins are simply following the Daily Stormer and switched to a competitor.

What I find hilarious is that so many people are going to 8chan, finding it down sporadically, and celebrating this as the site's demise - it's been a crappy and unreliable website for years, nine times out of ten it's either down or having server trouble - and this was without it being attacked or DDOSed, this was simply because the people running it don't know what they're doing.

At least somebody is trying to do something. The company dropped them and, yes, 8chan can go elsewhere. How many mass shooters used their site. And why in the world would you be visiting it as it is a hotbed of hate? Even the creator of 8chan says it should be shut down.

p1akuw47h5r3it

notobtuse wrote: »

At least somebody is trying to do something. The company dropped them and, yes, 8chan can go elsewhere. How many mass shooters used their site. And why in the world would you be visiting it as it is a hotbed of hate? Even the creator of 8chan says it should be shut down.

The company who dropped them isn't trying to do anything other then get the heat of his company. The Chief Executive even stated as such

"I have little doubt we'll see the same happen with 8chan. While removing 8chan from our network takes heat off of us, it does nothing to address why hateful sites fester online. It does nothing to address why mass shootings occur. It does nothing to address why portions of the population feel so disenchanted they turn to hate.

"In taking this action we've solved our own problem, but we haven't solved the internet’s.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49232333

Always Tired

Raconteuse wrote: »

I don't get this "they were white" stuff - why is that more of a concern than the actual atrocity? I'm seeing people on social media gleefully proclaiming it, while berating those who do the same if there is an atrocity by Islamist fundamentalists.

Because the right wing in America perpetuates the notion that the greatest threats to citizens are from people who are non white, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. Especially as regards random attacks where multiple people are killed by someone who doesn't know them - a terrorist attack basically.

But the prevalence of mass shootings by whites is proving this isn't true, and white men with racist and xenophobic views are in fact by far the worst terrorists they have that pose the biggest danger.

This is so obvious I can't believe that you don't get it. You're just unwilling to accept it, or wish people would ignore it and offer thoughts and prayers instead of looking at the who why and how. Face the truth.

Always Tired

Always Tired wrote: »

Because the right wing in America perpetuates the notion that the greatest threats to citizens are from people who are non white, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. Especially as regards random attacks where multiple people are killed by someone who doesn't know them - a terrorist attack basically.

But the prevalence of mass shootings by whites is proving this isn't true, and white men with racist and xenophobic views are in fact by far the worst terrorists they have that pose the biggest danger.

This is so obvious I can't believe that you don't get it. You're just unwilling to accept it, or wish people would ignore it and offer thoughts and prayers instead of looking at the who why and how. Face the truth.

I think the point is that most of these shootings including this one aren't anything to do with white supremacy or terrorism. There is no ideology behind them. The El Paso shooting WAS ideologically based but most of them aren't. They are more akin to an elaborate way of committing suicide.

This seems to be almost unique to white middle class young men for some reason. This isn't some mealy mouthed way of making excuses, just laying out the facts.

Melanchthon

banie01 wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't "believe" anything. I quoted a single source. Tahr appeared to have some impartiality. You are being economical with the truth in saying "at least 2" as some of the others you quoted give a much lower figure.

What 2? I gave 7 potential sources with a mass shooting being included if it met the criteria listed for any 2 of the 7.
As for my mistaken belief that you "believed" the number you posted, I'm sure you can see why someone would think that if you quote a number, you'd believe it?

Deleted User wrote: »

The two you include count drug crime, mob hits, domestic violence etc as a mass shooting. Many of these criteria would decrease the count of white men rather than increase it.

Look at this - as you can see there is a MASSIVE variation depending on how you measure it.

Agreed!
Massive variation on how they are counted and that many criteria would decrease the number of "White" shooters.
Which is why a broad range of sources and at least matched consensus on 2 counts is important in at least reaching a ballpark of what is/isn't a mass shooting.
That said, when you lift out the gang related violence the numbers and the ethnicity narrow considerably.

The trope of "angry white shooter" is still valid.
Where are the corresponding attacks by People of Colour on completely random people? Churches? Schools? Public gatherings? Workplace attacks?

Of the top of my head I can think of a few pretty recent cases that challenge the middle class white male trope.

The black guy that shot up the white church in revenge for the Dylan roof thing (older but trial in media recently)

The trans school shooter

The trans iranian ?? One that attacked YouTube head quarter.

One of the really recent perps was Iranian background too right?

And that's without googling anything (so details may be off). These cases didn't have high body counts though but not for lack of motivation.

The copy catting of Brevicks (the Scandinavian dude) motivations is properly worrying though

klaaaz

Melanchthon wrote: »

The trans iranian ?? One that attacked YouTube head quarter.

One of the really recent perps was Iranian background too right?

The Iranian was not trans despite the conservative media trying to portray a "masculine" looking woman as being trans. That's what they do when someone doesn't look as per their outdated "gender norms"

bloodless_coup

For the last three mass shootings, RTE has specifically stated that the perpetrator was a white male.

When Muslims go on rampages around Europe, not a mention of skin colour or religion. If someone starts a thread on boards about a rampage and mentions the race, you'll have the standard response "what does skin colour have to do with it?"

Also this Ohio shooter was a leftist antifa supporter, so hardly a white supremacist.

Melanchthon

klaaaz wrote: »

Melanchthon wrote: »

The trans iranian ?? One that attacked YouTube head quarter.

One of the really recent perps was Iranian background too right?

The Iranian was not trans despite the conservative media trying to portray a "masculine" looking woman as being trans. That's what they do when someone doesn't look as per their outdated "gender norms"

Oh right didn't realise and to be honest that case got weirdly little reporting

Raconteuse

Always Tired wrote: »

Because the right wing in America perpetuates the notion that the greatest threats to citizens are from people who are non white, Mexicans, Muslims, etc. Especially as regards random attacks where multiple people are killed by someone who doesn't know them - a terrorist attack basically.

But the prevalence of mass shootings by whites is proving this isn't true, and white men with racist and xenophobic views are in fact by far the worst terrorists they have that pose the biggest danger.

This is so obvious I can't believe that you don't get it. You're just unwilling to accept it, or wish people would ignore it and offer thoughts and prayers instead of looking at the who why and how. Face the truth.

I know why but I find it in poor taste when people leap to point this out with f all sympathy shown to the victims. I feel the very same when people gleefully leap to proclaim "religion of peace" if there is an atrocity carried out by Islamist extremists. These terrible losses of life are just a political football/game of oneupmanship for some. The right wing in the US know this is the case regarding these attackers, and they don't give a ****.

Wth regard to the last part of your post, if you fancy yourself as a mind reader, you haven't done a good job (me an advocate of "thoughts and prayers" - wtf?!)

klaaaz

doylefe wrote: »

Also this Ohio shooter was a leftist antifa supporter, so hardly a white supremacist.

There is no evidence of this even from the police investigators themselves so it's just rumour largely based from conservatives.

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

There is no evidence of this even from the police investigators themselves so it's just rumour largely based from conservatives.

You've been provided with ample evidence. You just don't want to believe it because you yourself are left wing. He was a registered democrat.

Harvey Weinstein

klaaaz wrote: »

There is no evidence of this even from the police investigators themselves so it's just rumour largely based from conservatives.

Are you lying or just ignorant? His social media posts show a clear ideological and political position.

klaaaz

DanDan6592 wrote: »

You've been provided with ample evidence. You just don't want to believe it because you yourself are left wing. He was a registered democrat.

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Are you lying or just ignorant? His social media posts show a clear ideological and political position.

There has been no unbiased evidence presented so far. What we do know is that he killed his sister and 6 black people out of 9 dead, and he hated women.

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

There has been no unbiased evidence presented so far. What we do know is that he killed his sister and 6 black people out of 9 dead, and he hated women.

CNN hasn't reported it so it can't be true :rolleyes:

Are you saying the screenshots of his twitter provided in the the anti-fa thread (post 2799) were doctored or made up?

How about this?

The Greene County Board of Elections reveals Betts began voting in 2012, and next voted in the Democratic Party Ohio Primary on March 15 of 2016. After voting in the 2016 General Election, Betts later voted in the 2018 Democratic Party Primary on May 8, 2018. Betts voted in a total of 7 elections, including Democratic Primaries.

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/breaking-ohio-mass-shooter-is-registered-democrat-voted-in-2-dem-primaries/ Now actually click the link and look at the screen grabs provided.

hill16bhoy

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Are you lying or just ignorant? His social media posts show a clear ideological and political position.

It wouldn't matter whether the Dayton shooter was Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren's campaign manager - nothing in any political views he may or may not have had incited him to go out and shoot people.

Whereas the El Paso shooter's motives were inherently political and nakedly racist. Nakedly racist rhetoric from politicians (especially when it comes from the president) which demonises non-white people leads to white terrorism.

Actually, if you want to argue about it, the Dayton murderer's motives were nakedly right-wing.

He kept a list of girls he wanted to rape. That's a classic example of right-wing, misogynistic rape culture in action.

Right-wing talking heads contantly tell us rape culture doesn't exist. They were dead wrong about that.

hill16bhoy

DanDan6592 wrote: »

CNN hasn't reported it so it can't be true :rolleyes:

Are you saying the screenshots of his twitter provided in the the anti-fa thread (post 2799) were doctored or made up?

How about this?



https://bigleaguepolitics.com/breaking-ohio-mass-shooter-is-registered-democrat-voted-in-2-dem-primaries/

What is Antifa to do with the Dayton gun murders?

hill16bhoy

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Are you lying or just ignorant? His social media posts show a clear ideological and political position.

So you're saying that a liberal or left-wing ideological position leads somebody to go on a shooting spree?

lawlolawl

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It wouldn't matter whether the Dayton shooter was Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren's campaign manager - nothing in any political views he may or may not have had incited him to go out and shoot people.

Whereas the El Paso shooter's motives were inherently political and nakedly racist. Nakedly racist rhetoric from politicians (especially when it comes from the president) which demonises non-white people leads to white terrorism.

Actually, if you want to argue about it, the Dayton murderer's motives were nakedly right-wing.

He kept a list of girls he wanted to rape. That's a classic example of right-wing, misogynistic rape culture in action.

Right-wing talking heads contantly tell us rape culture doesn't exist. They were dead wrong about that.

He's left wing so his political leanings don't matter, got it.


Right leaning people are all rapists so that's why he did it!

banie01

hill16bhoy wrote: »

So you're saying that a liberal or left-wing ideological position leads somebody to go on a shooting spree?

It's more that shooting sprees by white men are usually perceived to be the domain of the far right.
There is a broad range of circumstantial evidence to suggest the Dayton shooter was of a left leaning bent and was a democrat voter.

There is a particular poster who is ignoring that circumstantial evidence as it has yet to appear in what they consider mainstream media.

The fact that a young white man chose to undertake a spree killing of this type has little to do with his political ideology IMO.

The driving force behind the person choosing to kill a sibling, to attack a bar in a spray and pray attack needs to be identified.

That some will cling on to a left Vs right narrative rather than review the information to hand is strange.