Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Tragic Shooting of 9 People at a Charleston Church The Tragic Shooting of 9 People at a Charleston Church

06-19-2015 , 12:02 AM
@JohnRossBowie

a gentle reminder: The confederate flag is about 'states rights' the way the swastika is about 'fixing the German economy.'
06-19-2015 , 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Sad face for the guy who's complaining that people criticizing the Stars and Bars aren't doing it in good faith

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...ton-ian-tuttle









http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/de..****y-white.aspx
Not just anyone, he's saying Coates is arguing against it in bad faith. LOL
06-19-2015 , 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Heritage, not hate.

Quote:
If the war actually weren't about slavery, I think all our lives would be a lot easier. But as I thought on it, my sadness was stupid. What undergirds all of this alleged honoring of the Confederacy, is a kind of ancestor-worship that isn't. The Lost Cause is necromancy--it summons the dead and enslaves them to the need of their vainglorious, self-styled descendants. Its greatest crime is how it denies, even in death, the humanity of the very people it claims to venerate. This isn't about "honoring" the past--it's about an inability to cope with the present.

This is about a lancing shame, about that gaping wound in the soul that comes when confronted with the appalling deeds of our forebears. Lost Causers worship their ancestors, in the manner of the abandoned child who brags that his dead-beat father is actually an astronaut, away on a mission of cosmic importance.

I know how this goes. For us, it's coping with the fact that people who looked like you sold you into slavery. It's understanding that you come from a place that was on the wrong side of the Gatling gun. It's feeling not simply like one of history's losers, but that you had no right to win. The work of the mature intellect is to reconcile oneself to the past without a retreat into fantasy--in either direction. Claiming to be the descendant of kings and queens is just as bad as claiming to be thankful for the slave trade.
Should pretty much be the summation of any Southern retelling of the Civil War and the slave trade.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...bby-lee/38813/
06-19-2015 , 02:36 AM
Honestly the national review article sums up the identity politics on the right that's hidden in plain sight. We have an author talking about left wing American obsession about identity in an article defending the Conference flag, a literal marker of identity.

We have the "It's complex" and the Civil War wasn't good vs evil, when one of the sides is a slave empire aristocracy. It doesn't matter how complex it is the slave empire aristocracy is going to have its thumb on the evil side

We have major Republican nominees citing virtually any reason other than racism for the issue at hand. Like TNC said, it maybe heritage not hate, but it's also shame. Shame that this kid knew the logical conclusion of all this talk about the fear that black kids can freely beat up white kids in Obama's America, the implicit fear that if the lazy, enslaved to liberals, blacks ever got in charge they'd run amok and have hip hop bbqs instead actually doing their duty, and he acted on it.

When faced with the logical conclusion people feign ignorance or innocence.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...tm_source=SFFB

Last edited by Huehuecoyotl; 06-19-2015 at 02:42 AM.
06-19-2015 , 02:50 AM
Another NRO article

Quote:
Though I greatly appreciate Ian’s thoughts on the Confederate battle flag, I believe that official displays of the flag should end, for two reasons that immediately come to mind. One admittedly sentimental reason is that the nationalist in me would much prefer that we celebrate the roughly 200,000 southerners, more than 90,000 of whom were black, who fought for the Union rather than those who fought against it, a point that Josh Gelernter raised several months ago. But the other reason is that the use of Confederate symbols has gone through a number of different phases since the end of the Civil War, and the revival of these symbols that began in the late 1940s was about more than paying tribute to the Confederate war dead.

....

In 1948, the battle flag began to take on a different meaning when it appeared at the Dixiecrat convention in Birmingham as a symbol of southern protest and resistance to the federal government – displaying the flag then acquired a more political significance after this convention. Georgia of course, changed its flag in 1956, two years after Brown v. Board of Education was decided. In 1961, George Wallace, the governor of Alabama, raised the Confederate battle flag over the capitol dome in Montgomery to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the Civil War. The next year, South Carolina raised the battle flag over its capitol. In 1963, as part of his continued opposition to integration, Governor Wallace again raised the flag over the capitol dome. Despite the hundredth anniversary of the Civil War, the likely meaning of the battle flag by that time was not the representation of the Confederacy, because the flag had already been used by Dixiecrats and had become recognized as a symbol of protest and resistance. Based on its association with the Dixiecrats, it was at least in part, if not entirely, a symbol of resistance to federally enforced integration. Undoubtedly, too, it acquired a racist aspect from its use by the Ku Klux Klan, whose violent activities increased during this period.
So it turns out the heritage not hate line isn't exactly true if it were even genuine in the first place.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...g-reihan-salam
06-19-2015 , 06:06 AM
Apparently the uncle of the shooter saw his face on TV and contacted police with info that led to his capture. So there are at least some people in the family who arent white supremacists.
06-19-2015 , 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Another NRO article



So it turns out the heritage not hate line isn't exactly true if it were even genuine in the first place.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...g-reihan-salam
What gets me is that this **** isn't ancient history. Like, there are plenty of people walking around out there who remember the 60s. The rest of us have a kind of basic cultural knowledge of that ****. We've certainly all seen how hate groups and other elements of the bottom-feeding white trash have latched on to the Confederate flag. Who do they think they're fooling?
06-19-2015 , 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by heehaww
Lol! So when a Muslim does something, it obviously is terrorism, no more info needed?
Was the Ft. Hood shooter labeled as a terrorist right away? I know right wing media jumped on it, but I don't remember what actual media said.
06-19-2015 , 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
Another NRO article



So it turns out the heritage not hate line isn't exactly true if it were even genuine in the first place.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...g-reihan-salam
The irony, of course, is that what the Confederate flag symbolized in the civil rights era, although very racist, was actually much less racist than what it stood for during the Civil War and immediately thereafter.
06-19-2015 , 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Apparently the uncle of the shooter saw his face on TV and contacted police with info that led to his capture. So there are at least some people in the family who arent white supremacists.
This seems odd unless he just provided a name. They had a very good image of him and his car from the security footage and I just read an article about the lady that spotted his car and followed him while talking police to his location so not sure what else his uncle did.
06-19-2015 , 10:04 AM
Saw this quote this morning and almost cried. Friendly people welcome a complete stranger into what I imagine was a very closely knit group and then get killed despite being kind enough that it was even recognized by a sociopath.

-------------------------------------------
The man who gunned down nine parishioners at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, told police that he "almost didn't go through with it because everyone was so nice to him," sources told NBC News.

And yet Dylann Roof decided he had to "go through with his mission."
-------------------------------------------
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/cha...ooting-n378341
06-19-2015 , 10:23 AM
06-19-2015 , 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Was the Ft. Hood shooter labeled as a terrorist right away? I know right wing media jumped on it, but I don't remember what actual media said.
I don't remember either. I was just lol'ing at ike's overt Islamophobia. It was so blatant I'm not sure if it wasn't sarcasm.
06-19-2015 , 11:43 AM
You can pretend like there's an equal distribution of motivation once you know the religious background of a mass shooter in the western world for your own edification, but facts are going to go the other way. It's been much easier to discern motivations of people who make their motivation known easily. That's true for most Muslim terrorists and this guy. There's no subtlety
06-19-2015 , 11:44 AM
I apologize for the format, but nobody has storyfied it yet, but this dude's 27 tweet ethering of those ****ing NRO clowns is tremendous:
https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/611731203503341568

P.S. NRO was posting apartheid-friendly **** about South Africa and articles about the plight of the white man in Zimbabawe like, right up until Mandela's death.
06-19-2015 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
You can pretend like there's an equal distribution of motivation once you know the religious background of a mass shooter in the western world for your own edification, but facts are going to go the other way. It's been much easier to discern motivations of people who make their motivation known easily. That's true for most Muslim terrorists and this guy. There's no subtlety
America has had more terrorist attacks by white men than by Muslims if any race or gender.
06-19-2015 , 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
You can pretend like there's an equal distribution of motivation once you know the religious background of a mass shooter in the western world for your own edification, but facts are going to go the other way. It's been much easier to discern motivations of people who make their motivation known easily. That's true for most Muslim terrorists and this guy. There's no subtlety
This dude literally told people ahead of the time he was doing it to start a civil war. He assassinated a black politician, and left a survivor to tell people why he did it. He got away driving a car with a Confederate flag license plate.
06-19-2015 , 11:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by [Phill]
America has had more terrorist attacks by white men than by Muslims if any race or gender.
And?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
This dude literally told people ahead of the time he was doing it to start a civil war. He assassinated a black politician, and left a survivor to tell people why he did it. He got away driving a car with a Confederate flag license plate.
Yeah might want to read my post, specifically the part about how subtle he was.
06-19-2015 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
And?

Yeah might want to read my post, specifically the part about how subtle he was.
And whenever a Muslim does anything the first assumption is he is a terrorist. When a white guy does the same if not worse the first assumption is he is crazy.
06-19-2015 , 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
It's been much easier to discern motivations of people who make their motivation known easily. That's true for most Muslim terrorists and this guy. There's no subtlety
But while you include this guy in there, people still won't call it a terrorist attack except on the fringes, because he's white.
06-19-2015 , 12:22 PM
Here's the WSJ editorial board, TODAY:
06-19-2015 , 12:26 PM
Chiefsplanet assures me that Obama's divisive rhetoric is mostly responsible for this.
06-19-2015 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
You mean when things are more obvious the media describes them that way?

I can see why the NYT is so confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
You can pretend like there's an equal distribution of motivation once you know the religious background of a mass shooter in the western world for your own edification, but facts are going to go the other way. It's been much easier to discern motivations of people who make their motivation known easily. That's true for most Muslim terrorists and this guy. There's no subtlety
Your first post made it seem like you thought a Muslim shooters motives would be "more obvious" than the dude who's rocking all the gear of the racist diaspora. Now you're walking that back?
06-19-2015 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Autocratic
Your first post made it seem like you thought a Muslim shooters motives would be "more obvious" than the dude who's rocking all the gear of the racist diaspora. Now you're walking that back?
I made no such assertion. That's you reading things not said.
06-19-2015 , 01:59 PM
lol

      
m