@Tarnstellung's banner p

Tarnstellung


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

				

User ID: 553

Tarnstellung


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 12:50:41 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 553

As a final note, in a sane society these remote Middle-Eastern squabbles should not have been a major issue in the domestic politics of various Western countries. But we are now well past that point in Europe.

The UK chose to get involved in this particular conflict a hundred years ago. Don't blame this on Muslim immigrants.

On March 27th, A transgender shooter killed children and teachers at a Christian School, with direct political motivations.

What evidence do you have that the shooting was politically motivated? One article says:

Authorities have yet to release what was written publicly. But TBI director David Rausch did talk candidly about the contents of the manifesto at a Tennessee Sheriffs' Association meeting. Rausch said what police found isn't so much a manifesto spelling out a target but a series of rambling writings indicating no clear motive.

Investigators searched the Nashville home of the Covenant School shooter leaving with among other things — a number or handwritten journals, some videos and computer hard drives. Rausch told sheriffs that the review so far of the material finds that the killer did not write about specific political, religious or social issues. In fact, a primary focus in the journals is on idolizing those who committed prior school shootings.

She appears to have followed their lead planning for months and acted alone.

And you can tell this media outlet isn't particularly dedicated to pushing the trans agenda by the fact that they're not using the shooter's preferred pronouns. The obvious explanation is that this particular school was targeted because the shooter once attended it.

On April 1st, LESS THAN A WEEK LATER, the Bud Light-Mulvaney partnership drops. (...) It was an EXTREME "insult to injury" moment. AB was inadvertently(???) sending the message "We do not give a shit that you, our main customer demographic, was just targeted for a politically motivated attack and we will in fact implicitly celebrate the shooter with this marketing campaign that basically claims your favored beer brand for the blue tribe."

Are trans people collectively guilty for a shooting committed by one trans person? And if they are, how long do they have to wait after the shooting before they can go out in public again without this being a provocation? How long does everyone else have to wait before it becomes acceptable to associate with trans people again?

In effect all of the powers that be ignored the victims of the shooting, provided some cover to the shooter, and essentially turned the entire thing into an opportunity to advance transgender issues.

The Wikipedia article on the shooting says:

In response to the shooting, U.S. President Joe Biden said, "We have to do more to stop gun violence. It's ripping our communities apart, ripping the soul of this nation, ripping at the very soul of the nation... we have to do more to protect our schools, so they aren't turned into prisons."[7] He ordered flags on all federal buildings to be flown at half-staff.[21][57] Tennessee state representative Bob Freeman, a Democrat from Nashville, called for gun reforms in the wake of the shooting.[58]

On March 30, thousands of protestors gathered at the Tennessee State Capitol to call for stricter gun control laws.[59][60] Some children held signs saying "I'm nine" in reference to the age of the children shot.[61] Within the chamber of the capitol, three state representatives, Justin Jones, Justin Pearson, and Gloria Johnson led the public gallery in chants of "no more silence", "we have to do better", and "gun reform now", demanding that lawmakers strengthen gun laws. This protest delayed a hearing on a bill which would expand gun access.[62][58] The next day the state legislature passed a law allowing private schools to hire school resource officers from police departments to help prevent shootings, effective immediately.[63]

The president ordering that flags on all federal buildings be flown at half-staff is certainly not ignoring the victims. It seems that they reacted the same way they react to other school shootings. Every remotely notable left-wing figure that publicly reacted to the shooting condemned it and called for more gun control. No one decided that guns and school shootings are fine now because sometimes a member of the ingroup will be shooting at the outgroup.

I was not trying to create any kind of general debate about the history of the conflict. I was only making a very narrow point: that "remote Middle-Eastern squabbles" have been causing political controversy in the UK since long before any significant Muslim immigration.

Dishonest fearmongering is the order of the day, and as I alluded to previously, it is the prevailing philosophy of those with power and influence in America. Are you actually opposed to dishonest fearmongering, or do you simply object to the outgroup enjoying its benefits?

This website exists specifically to enable intellectually honest discussion. The fact that the rest of the world is full of dishonesty is irrelevant. It's not acceptable here.

If you're killed by someone that the government had the power and even the obligation to remove from the country, but decided not to, then the government has played a role in your murder. That's an element that simply doesn't exist for the Gacys.

This is irrelevant if your actual probability of getting murdered didn't increase.

Most groups in the world have lower violent crime rates than American natives, because the American native crime rate includes the absurdly large black crime rate. Disaggregation by race would tell a different story, albeit not one that people prefer to hear, since in the popular imagining an American "native" is just some cornfed Southern good-old-boy, and there's a great audience waiting to eagerly believe such people are more violent than one's cherished client groups.

The breakdown of the native crime rate is irrelevant. Letting in immigrants with a lower crime rate still makes the country safer overall.

So they were all secretly pro-paedophilia but kept it a secret for 30 years? You would think with such an enormous conspiracy there'd be a whistleblower at some point. Surely there are people in LGBT circles who are high-ranking enough that they would be in on it but who don't actually support paedophilia.

There's generally a clue when the shooter leaves behind a 'manifesto', but until it is released it's hard to be certain.

The shooter didn't call it a manifesto and some of the people who've read it have also objected to the term. It may well turn out to be an explicit call for violence against Christians in the name of trans rights, but it may also turn out to be the incoherent ramblings of a crazy person. Public statements from police officers who've read it imply that it's the latter.

But the entire message coming from the media in the wake of every other mass shooting is that white people/gun owners/right wingers are in some way responsible for the actions of one violent person.

So it's quite noticeable when the message differs from that.

My understanding is that the blame is not placed on gun owners as such, but on gun ownership as a phenomenon and, indirectly, on those who support it, who, yes, tend to be mostly gun owners and right wingers. The view of people advocating gun control is that reducing access to guns reduces mass shootings, hence those who support easy access to guns are actively preventing the prevention of mass shootings. It's not just a vague tribal association between them. In contrast, how does an ad featuring Dylan Mulvaney actively promote mass shootings by trans people?

Yes, because they want gun control. Which is a position that the right would not agree to and, likewise, is unlikely to solve the problem.

You see the problem here?

In the wake of a mass casualty event, if it is perpetrated by a white male, or anyone with possible right wing affiliation, then the message is "white males and/or right wingers are a dangerous threat that must be curbed, and we can do that by banning guns." They demonize outgroup, and demand gun control.

If it's perpetrated by a nonwhite person or someone who has lefty affiliations, it gets buried immediately, and then they demand gun control.

The message always demonizes one side, and the proffered solution is always a policy the right opposes fervently. There is no acknowledgement that the problem runs deeper than guns or that whites, males, and righties are not the main driving factors of violence in the U.S.

But they're made to bear all the stigma.

The right has noticed this for a long time. But in this event, it was a lefty shooting up a bunch of Christians.

And oh boy seems like we don't get to have any discussion on this issue because that would cloud the waters on who the bad guys and good guys are.

So the disagreement is on whether gun control will reduce mass shootings. As I said above, the reasoning is "we want gun control" -> "gun owners oppose gun control" -> "gun owners are bad", not, as you are suggesting, "gun owners are bad" -> "gun owners oppose gun control" -> "we want gun control". This means that, if you could, theoretically, convince them to oppose gun control, they would no longer believe gun owners are bad. (The major assumption here is that politicians are sincerely trying to make the world a better place and aren't just playing tribal signalling games.)

The position of gun control advocates is consistent with the above. They're not trying to ban guns for their outgroup, they're trying to ban them for everyone, because removing access to guns prevents mass shootings, and then the discussion of who is to blame for mass shootings is moot because, even if the outgroup are violent neo-Nazis who want to massacre minorities, they can't access guns and are therefore unable to do so.

I don't know if you're really missing the context here but consider the following:

Biden didn't visit the town, he didn't talk to any of the victims' families, and as far as I know has not actually condemned the shooter.

Kamala Harris visited... but didn't meet the victims or their family, and instead met with the expelled legislators.

MEANWHILE, those same three Nashville legislators GOT INVITED TO THE WHITE HOUSE.

Please, can you possibly explain the difference in messaging and treatment between the victims of the shooting and the legislators, other than the victims being red-tribe coded and the legislators blue-tribe coded?

Do sitting presidents usually visit the site of a mass shooting and meet the victims' families? (Two randomly selected examples: in 2018 Trump visited the victims, in 2021 Biden didn't, even though the shooter was in the outgroup and apparently personally disliked Biden.) Do presidents usually explicitly condemn mass shooters, or is their belief that mass shootings are bad and the shooter is a bad person implicit in their order to fly flags at half-staff, their expressions of condolences, etc.?

Honestly, meeting the victims and their families seems like a pointless PR move. He'll say how sad he is, thoughts and prayers and all that, take a few photos, but will anything useful come out of the meeting? (This applies in general, not just in this particular incident.)

In contrast, from the Democrats' point of view (I'm trying to steelman here), the legislators are heroes who are trying to prevent this kind of thing from happening again and who are being persecuted for it. A meeting with them won't be used just to express condolences, it can be used to discuss political matters, to further their cause, to facilitate the enactment of policies that would prevent mass shootings. This is real, meaningful action, not just a PR stunt.

Medical transitions are a form of genital mutilation which cause massive harm similar in kind but greater in magnitude to rape. I would rather a child be groomed into sex with a pedo than groomed into undergoing medical transition, because the former would leave fewer long term irreversible trauma and could hopefully eventually be healed and recovered from.

  1. Medical transition involves HRT and not just surgery. There are trans people who choose to only get HRT and to never have genital surgery.

  2. There are many trans people who voluntarily have genital surgery and are happier afterwards. There are no (or negligibly few) children who voluntarily have sex with adults and are happier afterwards.

This is an extremely uncharitable strawman. No utilitarian believes murder is justified if the murderer enjoys it very much. Among people who do endorse euthanasia in certain cases, none consider any pleasure derived from administering euthanasia to be a relevant factor in the moral calculus.

You seem to be implying that he said that having his daughter murdered is an acceptable trade-off for good food. He didn't. He just said that the vast majority of Mexicans are not violent murderers and they shouldn't be collectively punished for the actions of a single madman.

Assuming you are a White American, I don't think you are in any way responsible for the actions of John Wayne Gacy. If you are from a different ethnic group, I'm sure it has produced similarly evil people, and you are not responsible for their actions unless you directly assisted them.

Is it really? It's people having consistent principles. Which, I can agree is strange, but on TheMotte I don't think is that strange.

My point is that it is entirely possible to have consistent principles that result in treating trans people as their preferred gender in most cases, but not when it comes to women's sports. An example of such principles would be the basic liberal/libertarian maxim "let people do what they want as long as they're not harming anyone".

It's a standard mistake to say "this never happens", because it's happened quite a lot. For example, this case.

The article notes that the perpetrator had not yet transitioned at the time of the crime, so he would not have been allowed in the bathroom anyway. So no, this doesn't count.

Any sources that it was consensual?

I was referring to this case:

Two inmates serving time in New Jersey’s only state prison for women became pregnant after they had sex with a transgender inmate, according to a report Wednesday.

The unidentified jailbirds became pregnant at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility after engaging in “consensual sexual relationships with another incarcerated person,” the state Department of Corrections told NJ.com.

It seems you have rediscovered the principle pushed by Ibram X. Kendi and company that there is no such thing as being neutral and by being neutral you are siding with the oppressor.

Where is the "wokeness" here? Is showing a same-sex couple inherently woke?

The shooter didn't call it a manifesto and some of the people who've read it have also objected to the term. It may well turn out to be an explicit call for violence against Christians in the name of trans rights, but it may also turn out to be the incoherent ramblings of a crazy person. Public statements from police officers who've read it imply that it's the latter.

Has it ever taken this long before? I can't recall it having taken this long before.

Usually, if the shooter has a manifesto, he'll post it himself, so it'll be available online immediately. I can't recall a case where the police found a shooter's stuff and published it.

I can name ennemies that have suffered similar repression and harassment. I can name truths that are not allowed to be said. I can name people killed without trial. I can name ethnicities whose property has been seized. I can name statutes that allow the government to break the law.

Please do.

And now I can even name ethnic cleansing initiatives.

The initiative under discussion here clearly discriminates based on ethnicity and may reasonably be called racist and even, given that it is coming from a state institution, institutionally racist. Yet it is still very far from ethnic cleansing, which is the targeted killing or expulsion of ethnic groups from large geographic areas. Unless you had a different example in mind, no, there is no ethnic cleansing in the UK.

But why is the UK in any sense of the word freeer than China?

White Britons are yet to be placed in concentration camps.

Or you could have a dense city with a park no more than 10 minutes away from anywhere, where kids can play on grass rather than asphalt.

Notwithstanding the problems with density alleged in the comment above. If those problems didn't (or don't) exist, parks would clearly be better than cul-de-sacs.

Instead of "false flag", I propose "fabricated or greatly exaggerated incidents or allegations". The US has used fabricated or greatly exaggerated incidents or allegations to justify not just the Vietnam War, but also the Iraq War and, perhaps more controversially, the Spanish–American War and US entry into World War I.

But these are all foreign policy matters. The objection, which I share, was to the claim that such tactics have been used "to achieve or advance domestic policy goals".

Are you from the EU?

That's fair, I hadn't considered that. I agree it could significantly reduce quality of life for natives even if they don't necessarily end up being directly victimized.

However, I am sceptical that this is a frequent occurrence with immigrants in practice. Concern about immigrant crime tends to focus on the more typical theft, murder, etc., and on being a direct victim. The comment by @EasyWin seemed to be more about that and less about domestic disputes, celebratory gunfire or a general increase in disorder.

I doubt these crime statistics about immigrants. I've lived around these communities in the past, and the immigrants and their communities simply don't report a lot of the crimes which happen in them and near them.

Illegal immigrants would naturally be hesitant to report a crime where they were the victim, since they generally want to avoid any interaction with the police. But natives have no such qualms, so we can assume that they would report crimes at the same rate regardless of the perpetrator's immigration status. And crimes against natives are the ones we care about.

Why would the police bother, if they were being rational? The thief could have easily fled the country if they needed to, because they still had roots back in their old country. The money never would have been recovered, and the thief would have never gone to jail.

This is not exclusive to immigrants. There are plenty of cases of natural-born American citizens with no ties to other countries committing a crime and then fleeing to countries without extradition treaties to avoid prosecution.

Why do software companies have high profit margins then? Why aren't Google and Facebook ads a lot cheaper than they are since it's all built on dirt-cheap software?

Rent-seeking, enabled by a lack of competition, enabled by network effects and natural monopolies.

How did Trump "get back" at the military-industrial complex? Some of his campaign rhetoric suggested he would, but I thought any hopes were dashed when he ordered the Syria airstrikes in 2017, which resulted in an increase in the stock price of Raytheon and other defence companies and 2017 ended up being "a Year to Remember for Raytheon" and the defence sector. He kept this up with the constant sabre rattling at Iran and the assassination of Soleimani.

The "White working class" are some of the most fervent opponents of trade liberalization. This would not be the case if they were willing to take a hit in the short run to maximize economic growth in the long run.

There is an enormous regional disparity in Italy. Northern Italy is like Germany, rich and highly developed; Southern Italy is like Greece, poor and corrupt. This has been the case for as long as Italy has existed as a country, and no attempts to address the problem have succeeded.

This phenomenon has an obvious HBD explanation: the Southerners are just genetically incapable of having a functional society. And indeed, the further south one goes down the Apennine peninsula, the greater the admixture of non-European genes.

But although most Italian immigrants to America came from Southern Italy (since it was poorer), Italian Americans have integrated seamlessly into White American society. How do proponents of HBD explain the disparity between Southern Italians in Southern Italy and Southern Italians in America? My guess would be that it is caused by cultural and institutional factors. Why do you believe that Syrians, unlike Southern Italians, are not "capable of becoming Americans", even though both groups come from highly dysfunctional societies?

Asians, yes, that makes sense, but Black people benefit from dropping the SAT more than any other group.

History is being mangled to suit the current leaderships far left idea of the world by eliminating any trace of the Aryan Invasion theory.

Surely that should be "far right"?