What does that have to do with the Dayton shooter?

If the target in Dayton had been a Neo-Nazi meeting this would be an entirely different discussion.

Meanwhile there is another article in mainstream press, in GQ What is ecofascism: the ideology behind the Christchurch and El Paso shootings
It looks to be about the same as the others.
Not my media and again, my point isn't to push this idea myself but to show how the mainstream is doing so.

Looks like the body count from people we know were inspired by that rhetoric is


Zero.

So, the rhetoric has nothing to do with how violent they become? The rhetoric is only applicable if they target certain individuals associated with that rhetoric?

I get your point. You say antifa or the left uses the same type of rhetoric Trump uses, therefor we should be equally concerned with their rhetoric as we are with Trump’s. I have several issues with that line of thinking, but it’s a complete red herring here, when we have one person who clearly invoked the same rhetoric Trump uses and then killed the type of people that rhetoric applied to, and the other guy who has like some antifa tweets at some point in the past and then went out and killed his sibling and others at random. If at some point it comes out that his targets weren’t chosen at random and he thought he was attacking Nazis or ICE agents, you will have a point.

In general, though, I think using dehumanizing rhetoric to classify large groups of people is wrong, yeah. I think there is a legitimate distinction to be made between calling refugees and people seeking asylum invaders, rapists and murderers, and calling ICE agents monsters, though.

bolded is a lie. more dishonest posting.

Uh, yes? If a guy gets up on stage and yells, "Kill the Jews!" and an attendee goes home and murders his Christian wife, it's not really correct to blame the Jew hater for that one.

It might have something to do with people becoming violent in a general sense, but I doubt it. It’s more likely paint a certain group as a threat against which violence must be used.

It's goes a little deeper than that. Why shouldn't I be concerned with potential mass shooters now, if that type of rhetoric leads to mass shootings? You do not have to answer it, becasue I'm not concerned with the rhetoric from the left, or the right (in regards to mass shootings, am bothered by for host of other reasons). In this instance, I'm bothered by the fact that people ITT who are arguing the rhetoric led to mass shooting, and are completely dismissive of the same type rhetoric from their side of the aisle, even if we exclude Dayton, that type of rhetoric is purported to cause mass murder.


I think that's the new normal. The left, nor the right is going to stop dehumanizing the other side. I mean you have baby killer and misogynist, and that's been going on forever.

true but the message that 'killing is a good answer' may be partly to blame

You do not think the emotion that led him to scream that carried over and fueled his rage, to some extent?

That pretty much acknowledges she said it. You can believe it was a mistake if you want.

That’s impossible to say, but if he left a manifesto explaining that he killed his wife because he agreed that Jews needed to be killed because they were evil and his wife once dated a Jewish guy, we might have a better idea.

"If that kind of rhetoric leads to mass shootings."

Yeah man, one kind has, another kind hasn't. You might have a case equivocating them if there were remotely equivalent results. There aren't.

does she say it in the clip you mislinked? timestamp where she says it and then retracts it please.


This is what he says: "... Then [trump] ramped it up again, to the invasion, the warning people of a caravan, and words like infestation. What do you do with an infestation? With an infestation the natural conclusion is to attempt an extermination."

Grunching but this is so offensively stupid. Even the 'rhetoric' debate misses the point. They're trying to say any rhetoric can link to any motive, which can link to any crime.

"Jenkins, why do you think he murdered his wife? An affair? Insurance? Unchecked abuse?"

"Maybe... But look at this blog he had about fruits and vegetables. He liked strawberries but really, really hated brussel sprouts..."

"Um... OK... Yeah, brussel sprouts are the worst and I can see how they could infuriate a person, but, unless his wife was a secret brussel sprout farmer I don't see how thi-"

"Johnson, it's as plain as day!"

Tune in next week for more exciting adventures with Johnson and Jenkins as they track down the Sprout Mafia.

Lol

Angry violent people aren't the most rational to put it mildly. Anything can be their target and the more angry and violent they feel the more the risk to whatever the target turns out to be - might be the dog, might be the wife, could be anything. Any rhetoric that is intended (or can be expected to) make people more angry violent increases the risk. Massively worse if your in a powerful position like trump and obviously some groups can be targeted as he has and put them in particular at a lot more risk.

And lay of the Brussels you **** *****. I'm gonna mash up some carrots and it will be your faults

Imagine a world like that where if you actually wanted to radicalize people and do violence it'd be impossible because nobody could grasp the logical continuity.

Like, Bin Laden would be trying to organize 9/11 and he'd open the floor to suggestions for attacks on America and people would be like "let's bomb a Japanese whaling vessel!" or "let's all punch our mailmen in the face!"

Radical leftist rhetoric was partially responsible for the guy who attacked the private prison Detention Center. The difference between the left and the right is that the right worships violence and is better at it and the right worships power so they attack the softest targets they can find. In very similar cases as far as ideological motivation goes, one guy with a simple rifle attacked a very militarized target and killed no one. In another case a guy with an assault weapon and body armor attacked unarmed people at a Walmart.

The Dayton shooting was entirely different and not political.

Stigmatizing anger- and emotions by virtue of anger being an emotion maybe related.

It’s the frightened violence who idealize an “invasion” that hides behind the typical anger stereotype. That’s where who influences them to be afraid becomes to question. Even perhaps afraid of their own stigmatized anger.

I’m fairly certain that nearly all the leftist political violence back in the 60s-70s was intended for buildings or property, there were few if any human targets.

These folks have never encountered a person with narcissistic personality disorder/borderline personality disorder/anti-social personality disorder, and maybe that's where the real disconnect is, between them and I. A narcissist will fly off the handle at trivial things, and direct the rage at something completely different that also bothers them.