|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 14, 2019 22:46:25 GMT -5
Truly horrific. Some miserable piece of evil garbage just shot up a mosque (possibly two?) in Christchurch, killing dozens. And he livestreamed the entire thing on Facebook. www.nbcnews.com/news/world/new-zealand-police-respond-active-shooter-situation-christchurch-n983571He also apparently posted some sort of manifesto/rationale (for his murdering of innocent people) on the same FB page he grotesquely livestreamed from, wherein he said that his motivations were, oddly, the current state of political partisanship in the US; he did it so that the far-right would get blamed and the far-left would respond by repealing the 2nd Amendment, thus sparking a civil war of sorts. He supposedly claimed he was inspired, in part, by ignorant trashbag...um...I mean...right-wing provocateur Candace Owens. I have no idea if any of these claims regarding the supposed manifest or its comments are true, because the post (or his FB page) was supposedly taken down. However, here is a Twitter thread purporting to have screen-caps of it. It's Twitter, so naturally take this with a huge grain of salt until verified by reputable sources. Multiple screenshots in the full thread here: EDITED to add: I deleted the Twitter link. I decided that I don't wanna give this asshole's ideas the publicity and reach that he was wanting them to have by sharing them here or anywhere. But you can probably find info on his manifesto somewhere online if you'd like to see them for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 15, 2019 8:24:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 15, 2019 20:56:48 GMT -5
So, as is usually the case, if the shooter isn't a radicalized Muslim with blood in his eyes dreaming of jihad and seven virgins in the next life, it's a radicalized White man with blood in eyes dreaming of The Day of the Rope and a racially pure homeland.
This time they came for the Muslims in Christchurch.
Before that they came for the Jews in Pittsburgh.
And before that they came for the Blacks in Charleston.
But over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it's hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Business as usual.
Trump will never ever never ever call out acts of terror perpetrated by White supremacist trash as acts of terror. That sort of talk doesn't wash with his racist base of support and while everyone who supports Trump isn't a racist, it sure seems a lot of racists support Trump.
Then there's the Candace Owens factor. The killer name-checked her personally in his 74-page cheap toilet paper "manifesto."
“The person that has influenced me above all was Candace Owens. Each time she spoke I was stunned by her insights and her own views helped push me further and further into the belief of violence over meekness. Though I will have to disavow some of her beliefs, the extreme actions she calls for are too much, even for my tastes.”
Whether this bag of hot flaming dogshit truly took inspiration from Owens' minstrel act really isn't the point. What is the point is that Owens has solidified her status as the preeminent go-to House Negro for White racists.
Case in point.
Awkward. 
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 16, 2019 16:13:14 GMT -5
Interesting stuff on the shoooter's tech acumen: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/the-shooters-manifesto-was-designed-to-troll/585058/From it: I admit that I can get confused by some trolls, when they're good at projecting an online persona that may very well be wholly made up, i.e. what the online persona is saying may have absolutely no relationship to what the person running it actually believes. But it's seems problematic to me, when it spills over into action. People then, I think, need to be taken at their word, when it comes to "whys". |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 16, 2019 17:17:23 GMT -5
Interesting stuff on the shoooter's tech acumen: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/the-shooters-manifesto-was-designed-to-troll/585058/From it: I admit that I can get confused by some trolls, when they're good at projecting an online persona that may very well be wholly made up, i.e. what the online persona is saying may have absolutely no relationship to what the person running it actually believes. But it's seems problematic to me, when it spills over into action. People then, I think, need to be taken at their word, when it comes to "whys". I'm not sure what you're addressing here. Whose online persona? The terrorist's? |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 16, 2019 17:38:52 GMT -5
I was speaking of such in general.
In this specific case, however, the above article is suggesting that it's all manufactured by the guy to maximize exposure. Like the Candace Owens angle:
I think we should take people at the word: if he says that Owens "inspired" him, then Owens inspired him (doesn't mean she was to blame, however).
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 16, 2019 21:11:13 GMT -5
I was speaking of such in general. In this specific case, however, the above article is suggesting that it's all manufactured by the guy to maximize exposure. Well, sure because he pretty explicitly states in his manifesto that that's what he was doing, and that he threw in as many references as he could that were likely to light up social media and the MSM. His mentioning of Pewdiepie (most popular YouTuber in the world) and Fortnight (most popular video game in the world) pretty much proves that. I get that, but given how self-admittedly full-of-shit his other references in the manifesto (and before) were, can you or anyone really be sure that he was serious about the Owens reference but trolling on the others? If so, what method are you/people using to distinguish between what was trolling and what was a sincere expression of belief? Seems to me that what many people choose to believe about what he said and what those same people choose to dismiss fall squarely along the lines of tribalism and confirmation bias. This, in essence, I think was his goal and many people - despite the warnings - are still falling for it. "He suggested that many/most of the references in his manifesto were trolls and I don't know much about Pewds and Fortnight, so he's likely not serious about those. But Candace Owens is a hateful trash bag, so his reference to her was obviously serious!" What if, instead of PewdiePie, he'd mentioned Smarter Everyday or James Charles? What if instead of Fortnight, he'd mentioned Call of Duty or Ms. Pac-Man? What if instead of Candace Owens he'd mentioned Mr. Rogers or Tony Stark? Don't get me wrong, I think Candace Owens is a garbage person and a moronic provocateur and, if he really did draw inspiration from her, it wouldn't surprise me because she consistently spews awful ideas. But, at the same time, I don't think there's a way to know what was truly sincere and what was straight up shit-lord trolling in his manifesto, at least not at this early point - and I think anyone who feels certain that they know are the very type of people his manifesto seems like it was meant to fuck with. We might have enough information to become more certain as time goes on but right now I think it'd be best to take all information related to this with a huge grain of skeptical salt and wait for the investigation to release more info. |
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 17, 2019 18:26:10 GMT -5
Interesting stuff on the shoooter's tech acumen: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/the-shooters-manifesto-was-designed-to-troll/585058/From it: I admit that I can get confused by some trolls, when they're good at projecting an online persona that may very well be wholly made up, i.e. what the online persona is saying may have absolutely no relationship to what the person running it actually believes. But it's seems problematic to me, when it spills over into action. People then, I think, need to be taken at their word, when it comes to "whys". I was speaking of such in general. In this specific case, however, the above article is suggesting that it's all manufactured by the guy to maximize exposure. Well, sure because he pretty explicitly states in his manifesto that that's what he was doing, and that he threw in as many references as he could that were likely to light up social media and the MSM. His mentioning of Pewdiepie (most popular YouTuber in the world) and Fortnight (most popular video game in the world) pretty much proves that. I get that, but given how self-admittedly full-of-shit his other references in the manifesto (and before) were, can you or anyone really be sure that he was serious about the Owens reference but trolling on the others? If so, what method are you/people using to distinguish between what was trolling and what was a sincere expression of belief? Seems to me that what many people choose to believe about what he said and what those same people choose to dismiss fall squarely along the lines of tribalism and confirmation bias. This, in essence, I think was his goal and many people - despite the warnings - are still falling for it. "He suggested that many/most of the references in his manifesto were trolls and I don't know much about Pewds and Fortnight, so he's likely not serious about those. But Candace Owens is a hateful trash bag, so his reference to her was obviously serious!" What if, instead of PewdiePie, he'd mentioned Smarter Everyday or James Charles? What if instead of Fortnight, he'd mentioned Call of Duty or Ms. Pac-Man? What if instead of Candace Owens he'd mentioned Mr. Rogers or Tony Stark? Don't get me wrong, I think Candace Owens is a garbage person and a moronic provocateur and, if he really did draw inspiration from her, it wouldn't surprise me because she consistently spews awful ideas. But, at the same time, I don't think there's a way to know what was truly sincere and what was straight up shit-lord trolling in his manifesto, at least not at this early point - and I think anyone who feels certain that they know are the very type of people his manifesto seems like it was meant to fuck with. We might have enough information to become more certain as time goes on but right now I think it'd be best to take all information related to this with a huge grain of skeptical salt and wait for the investigation to release more info. Well, while it's fun to speculate on what motivated this piece of filth to do his evil and whether he's just a shitposter or not, who really gives a fuck? We still don't know why Steven Paddock killed 58 people and injured another 1000 (!) in an 11-minute rampage. Odds are we never will.
While the adults knew well that the sight of an active shooter is a sign to fight or flight, a 3-year-old boy doesn't have that sort of life experience. Three year old kids are innocent. They've done nothing to nobody. They're still a blank slate yet to be overwritten by all the hardness of the world.
A little boy got confused and ran toward danger instead of away from it. Now he's dead. And somewhere in the most putrid, reeking and diseased bowels of the Internet, some sick fucks couldn't be happier that Mucad Ibrahim sleeps with angels. One more dead Muslim is one less live terrorist, amirite?
We could all learn more from the short life and violent death of Mucad Ibrahim than we could ever from the loathsome demon who stole his life.
YMMV.
|
|
