Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Car drives into Christmas parade in Waukesha, 6 dead

Options
1678911

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 21,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how




  • Registered Users Posts: 33,931 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Is someone still trying to say that white people in the States are 'third class citizens'.


    This is hilarious BTW.


    America has a problem alright. And it's poverty, its the gap between rich and poor and the trampling on basic human rights.

    It most certainly not that white people are third class citizens. That's absolutely fabricated nonsense. And frankly it's fabricated nonsense to keep the afore mentioned wealthy where they are. Blatant manipulation of poor people to give them a constant enemy aiming down and not looking up. Folks like yourself propagate and fall for it every time. Kind of genius in a way preying into the base instincts of humans.



  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    'They should be condemned totally' isn't denouncing them? What exactly is it then?



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    He led with the very fine people bit. If he left that out, and said this bit, we wouldn't be discussing this, but he didn't, and we are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    He was explicit is his denunciation of white supremacists. Here's the quote again:


    'Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue[Of George Washington]? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

    "So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

    "Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

    'Now in the other group to, you had some fine people'.. The other group being counter-protestors.


    Why can't you just accept that he explicitly denounced racists. It's literally right before your eyes.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,049 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    This thread has become a little insane. Only pages ago I was decrying the change in the definition of racism, now we are all "blacks and whites" as if they are homogenous groups. Don't let the minority who get exposure in media frame your views on race. It's so much more nuanced. For example take Ethiopia, there is a Jewish society there that stretches back millennia, there is a large black Caucasian community there. And obviously the huge differences between east west north and south Africans. Then there's the difference between recent African immigrants to America and the African American who is descended from forced slavery. I am white Irish bit I would say I have more in common with a Tunisian immigrant than some white American descendant of a puritan. The "blacks and whites" view of the world is nonsense. The cultural legacies are far more complex than that. It's so lazy that we categorize in this way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    I've read the quote, I've watched the speech. I'm still of the opinion that he deliberately opened the door so that some people could claim to be of the fine people variety.

    All of you are very quick to denounce the entirety of the BLM cause and anyone who supports it because of some unsavory characters within. And nothing that has happened around that group comes anyway close to the deliberate coordination of a hateful event as happened here.

    The organizers of that rally were fined 25M for their organization of the event. It was clear to everyone involved what their motivations were. Trump trying to ensure not everyone is tarred with the same brush was deliberately trying to not alienate himself entirely from that group through denouncing them entirely and without equivocation and it was right that he was called out for it.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    He led with there were fine people on both sides and then clarified EXPLICITLY that he was not referring to white supremacists and neo nazis who he EXPLICITLY said should be condemned totally.

    It couldn't be more clear.

    Yet trump is stoking racial tensions and excusing white supremacists by condemning them?

    And yet when Biden chimes in and wrongly alludes to the fact that an innocent young man is a white supremacist (before any evidence is presented) and then after all evidence is presented and Kyle Rittenhouse is found to be absolutely not guilty..... Crickets.

    Trump was a boorish idiot and a lot of the stuff he did was open to valid criticism. Yet people like yourself tie yourselves in knots to invent additional stuff.



  • Registered Users Posts: 670 ✭✭✭dog_pig


    It seems that the "we don't know if his intention was to kill anyone" angle has been dropped completely. Mad that.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,003 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Tbf, not all white people are, but it it a class thing. A white person living in a trailer park in Alabama or Mississippi barely even qualifies as third class tbh. Jeff Bezos obviously not. Issues are more class than race based but the rich would rather us focus on each other and not them.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    Deliberately? Trump was always a rambling mess. However he clearly denounced white supremacy and racists in that speech. I'm aware that the large majority there were white nationalists and racists, what their motivations were. It's a good thing Trump denounced them, and he did do so unequivocally, again:


    and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally


    'All of you are very quick to denounce the entirety of the BLM cause and anyone who supports it because of some unsavory characters within. And nothing that has happened around that group comes anyway close to the deliberate coordination of a hateful event as happened here.'


    None of this is relevant, if even true. I don't support any of the groups involved in that rally, and am glad the murderer Fields is in prison for the rest of his life.



  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    Don't forget the racist policy that his administration enacted and blocked by 3 different courts which has been described by one of the courts as unconstitutional as “the program is based entirely on the race of the farmer or rancher.” As I've said, he needs to stop trying to appease the minority progressive element in the party.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    You saw his speech, and think that that means he condemns them, I saw his speech and think he tried to do just enough so his fans could argue he condemned them.

    As I've already said, I haven't declared him a white supremacist, but I still argue that he wanted to ensure they didn't see him as definitely against them. If he was, he'd have made no mention of the 'very fine people part'.

    And when his initial comments were brought up again in the debate if he aimed to condemn extremists, this is how it played out.

    When asked to directly disavow white supremacists on Tuesday night at the first presidential debate, President Donald Trump—yet again—did not do so. Instead, his dodging provoked a flurry of online celebration by far-right extremists who saw it as implicit approval and pledged their allegiance to him.


    In a chaotic exchange, the moderator, Fox News’ Chris Wallace, asked Trump if he was willing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups, like the Proud Boys, and implore them not to add to volatility in cities that have had racial justice protests.


    “Proud boys, stand back and stand by,” Trump responded. “But I’ll tell you what, I’ll tell you what, somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left, because this is not a right wing problem, this is a left wing [problem].”


    Just minutes after his answer at the debate, members of the Proud Boys and similar groups celebrated his response, flooding their social media channels with comments like “Standing by, sir.”




  • Posts: 1,010 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ITs called "Balkanisation". IT is a thing and its been a thing for all of recorded history no matter how much you wish it away. When a multicultural society comes under pressure people revert back to supporting their tribe, not the multicultural edifice



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    And Biden calling an innocent teenager a white supremacist?

    Trump explicitly denounced white supremacists. Explicitly.

    You are remarkably vocal about trump emboldening white supremacists. Very quiet about Biden and his links to former members of the KKK. I wonder if trump had the same links would you just pass it off as a non story or would you use it as fuel to prove that the opposite side of the aisle was entrenched in some racist agenda.

    Anyway, do you think the media have been fair and balanced with regards to this particular incident? Do you think the fact he is a black supremacist has been publicised enough?



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    You're all over the place now, you're going down paths not even Fox News is staying away from.

    I don't think he's a Black Supremacist, the NY Post posted an extensive article on his criminal history and made no such suggestion.

    What are you talking about Biden and links to the KKK? Are you talking about the debunked claim that he gave a eulogy for a former Grand Wizard? Do you think Biden is guilty for having given a eulogy to someone who served on Capitol Hill for 57 years? That's about as tentative a link as the influence Trumps father had on him and his supposed comfort in KKK circles.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    You don't think that the person who drove into the parade was a black supremacist? Wow. Talking about how white people should be beaten etc is not proof enough for you? Get to ****.

    Do you think Biden was incredibly wrong to include Rittenhouse in a montage of so-called white supremacists?

    And what was debunked about Biden giving the eulogy? Did he not give a eulogy for someone who was previously a high ranking member of the KKK? An exalted Cyclops or some such nonsense?

    But no. He's on your team.



  • Registered Users Posts: 21,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    You don't think that the person who drove into the parade was a black supremacist? Wow. Talking about how white people should be beaten etc is not proof enough for you? Get to ****.

    No. And apparently it's not enough for most in the media either, including Fox News and the NY Post, whose history would suggest they'd go to town on this if there was anything significant there.

    Do you think Biden was incredibly wrong to include Rittenhouse in a montage of so-called white supremacists?

    No. Rittenhouse made his bed by going out of his way in taking up arms against BLM protestors and being associated with extremist groups.

    And what was debunked about Biden giving the eulogy? Did he not give a eulogy for someone who was previously a high ranking member of the KKK?

    No. He didn't.

    As I said, you've gone way off the path even regular right wing media commentators go. You're posts are fast becoming something there isn't much merit or need in commenting on. Real Alex Jones type stuff.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    No. Rittenhouse made his bed by going out of his way in taking up arms against BLM protestors and being associated with extremist groups.

    Protestors that turn violent and attack a child, first, unprovoked as proven in court, lose their right to be called protestors. They become rioters, attackers and assailants. BLM could very easily be described as an extremist group as well. Associated means was once seen in a photo.

    But that's enough for you and the president to label this kid that has PTSD now because of his experiences as a white supremacist.

    Shame on you. Disgusting carry on altogether.



  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    'No. Rittenhouse made his bed by going out of his way in taking up arms against BLM protestors and being associated with extremist groups.'


    Quite simply an outrageous take.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    'No. And apparently it's not enough for most in the media either, including Fox News and the NY Post, whose history would suggest they'd go to town on this if there was anything significant there.'


    Here's your evidence:

    'The ex-con charged over the deaths of six people at a Wisconsin Christmas parade shared social media posts calling for violence against white people — and suggesting “Hitler was right” for killing Jews.'


    Pro-hitler and calling for violence against white people. Now, you suggest Rittenhouse deserves to be labelled a white supremacist (by the president no less) for legalling engaging in self defence against BLM rioters, then by the same token this lad should be labelled a black supremacist. The reason little of this has been focused on is due to their being no evidence that he did what he did due to his political beliefs ie it wasn't an act of terrorism. So his beliefs are somewhat irrelevant.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2021/11/24/darrell-brooks-called-for-violence-against-white-people/amp/



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,399 ✭✭✭newhouse87


    So you are agreeing with biden that Rittenhouse is a white supremacist?



  • Posts: 1,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    A lot of the tension has to do with the simplistic good/evil dualism expressed by devotees of US politics. Only the obliteration of the opposing viewpoint will satisfy the apeptite for domination. The Marxist dualism of oppressor/oppressed is something that is easy for dualists to latch on to (and opponents will latch on to criticism of it just as naturally), BUT (and it's a big one), Marxism is supposed to be a dialectic, not a dualism; it is supposed to be rhizomatic, DNA-like, fecund and rightly or wrongly, it is an optimistic philosophy. (That blind, utopian optimism is where the dialectic gets abandoned and probably explains why it tends to result in totalitarian police state nightmares, but that's for another thread).

    There is nothing to be optimistic about regarding either party's offerings - and as far as foreign policy is concerned, both sides are war-mongers, imperialists, and good old fashioned, militaristic bullies - Both parties hoover up the poor and send them off to kill --predominatly brown people-- overseas So, I am not interested in the hollow virtues of their devotees. Thankfully, most people in the US are just getting on with their lives and not falling for this race-based divid and conquer, BS.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,590 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Marijuana is the real killer

    But both the gun control lobby and the terror obsessives have been silent. For the massacre was carried out using a motor vehicle, a terrifying lethal device which no red-blooded American, liberal or conservative, would ever be without. And the suspect, Darrell Brooks, plainly isn’t an Islamist.


    So it has faded rather fast from front pages. Yet, in fact, it has one thing in common with about 95 per cent of such mass killings here, in France, or in the USA. The suspect is a known user of marijuana. The connection between marijuana and mental illness is now so alarming that even The Times, that modish liberal organ, has noticed it.


    The use of cannabis is an observation by Peter Hitchens and others and while health risks are remarkably limited, cannabis is not completely harmless but difficult to quantify over other factors using multivariate regression (e.g. combination of drugs, alcohol, poverty, upbringing, personality etc, etc,), there have been discussions elsewhere on the forum about the long term effects of regular consumption of this drug and others, is it a symptom or significant contributor?. How did Mr. Brookes get to the state he did to kill all these people? I have outlined previously why there is no reason this event can't happen in Ireland, it would be better try and figure out how this man became a mass killer, otherwise the door is open for the next malevolent incident.

    For reference Eric Harris was one of the Columbine shooters and was on anti-depressants.

    The Full Story Behind Columbine High School Shooters Eric Harris And Dylan Klebold

    Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were hardly the bullied outcasts bent on revenge that they were made out to be — they wanted to see the world burn.


    Revealed: Massive rise in antidepressant prescribing

    RTÉ Investigates has found the number of patients prescribed antidepressants on publicly funded drug schemes increased by 18% from 2012 to 2017, in per capita terms.


    Alcohol abuse and degradation of control has been a problem on this island for hundreds of years, it's at the periphery and we live with it. Anti-depressant use has become more common in Ireland, combined with other drug use and including alcohol and the wholesale import of American social customs we may be creating the same conditions at the margins for an angry man to go spare and take a lot of people down with them on the way out.

    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,306 ✭✭✭mikethecop


    blame it on the weed now? ffs

    dude as a racist scumbag criminal , im sure there was more that weed in his system too



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,590 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Mr. Darrell Brooks is 39 years old with a history of violent offences. The question remains open why did he do it and how did he get there (I mean psychologically, not by vehicle)? Even though he expressed racist rhetoric on social media, the fact he tried to kill or injure his ex seems to rule out racism as a sole motive for the killing. We will have to wait until the trial to see if motive can be determined to see if his behaviour matches any known profiles that are likely to predict future behaviour.


    Driver accused of killing marchers at Waukesha parade was out on bail following charges of ramming car into a woman

    On Sunday, Brooks was on bail over earlier charges, posted November 5, that included recklessly endangering safety, battery, bail jumping and domestic abuse, court records show.


    The complaint, seen by Insider, includes the testimony of "EAP." On November 2, the complaint said, Brooks snatched EAP's phone while yelling and cursing at her while she was staying at an American Inn.


    He then followed her to a gas station on West Capitol Drive where he told her to get into his car, EAP alleged. After she refused, Brooks punched her, she said.


    He then, "intentionally and without consent," ran her over in the parking lot, the complaint says.


    Brooks was released on a $1,000 bond over those charges. Since Sunday's deadly incident, the Wisconsin District Attorney's Office said in a statement that the bail was "inappropriately low" and that it would be reviewing its procedures.


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,379 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    So if he ran over her intentionally and with consent it would be fine? What an odd charge.



  • Registered Users Posts: 464 ✭✭The Quintessence Model


    He had bipolar disorder so maybe that had something to do with it.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[11][15]

    As a young boy, Byrd had witnessed his adoptive father walk in a Klan parade in Matoaka, West Virginia.[26] While growing up, Byrd had heard that "the Klan defended the American way of life against racemixers and communists".[27] He then wrote to Joel L. Baskin, Grand Dragon of the Realm of Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, who responded that he would come and organize a chapter when Byrd had recruited 150 people.[26]

    It was Baskin who told Byrd, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[28] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[15] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.


    He did go onto say being in the KKK was his biggest mistake in fairness to him.


    Are you still saying that Biden didn't eulogize at the funeral of a man who had links to the KKK?

    Are you still saying that the prick who drove into a Christmas parade was not a racist black supremacist despite the fact he has publicly stated how he wanted to see white people beaten?

    Are you still saying that Kyle Rittenhouse, despite being found innocent aligns with white supremacists even after publicly stating he supports BLM but not rioters?

    Fucking hell man, what a hill to die on.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 21,608 ✭✭✭✭Tell me how


    Are you still saying that Biden didn't eulogize at the funeral of a man who had links to the KKK?

    No. I never said that. I said he wasn't a leader in the KKK, which you said was the case. Stop moving the goalposts.

    Are you still saying that the prick who drove into a Christmas parade was not a racist black supremacist despite the fact he has publicly stated how he wanted to see white people beaten?

    I'm saying that for someone who was a career criminal as this person was without any evidence or race motivated crime amongst his long charge sheet, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to suggest race was his motivation in this latest crime given he was fleeing a situation where the police were looking for him at the time. Have you evidence that this is what motivated him? Or do you think a single comment or comment, years previously is sufficient to prove intent with respect to a crime years later.

    Are you still saying that Kyle Rittenhouse, despite being found innocent aligns with white supremacists even after publicly stating he supports BLM but not rioters?

    If you believe what he said on a Tucker Carlson interview, where he miraculously had the same opinion on topics as Carlson had before the acquittal, I've got a bridge to sell you.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement