I disagree, and it's important that his posts do not implicitly call for violence either. It is simply wrong to suggest that they call for or endorse violence in any shape or form.

This is not hair splitting, your logic leads to the conclusion that tens of millions of people with right-of-center views on immigration are responsible for the acts of a few terrorists. The differences between the views and actions of such terrorists and generally right-leaning attitudes are real, large, and important.

Let me try an analogy: lots of people on the left talk about being exploited by the wealthy, and some get pretty strident about it. It's not even that uncommon to hear jokes about guillotines, which is at least an implicit call for violence. But I think it would be absolutely wrong (asinine even) to say such people are guilty by association if someone with similar views about the rich commits a terrorist attack. The differences matter.

(But again, to be clear, this is not to say we should not be concerned about right-wing ideologies and the process of radicalization that happens to some on the right. We should be talking about that. We should be talking about how Fox and Breitbart and Trump and Tucker et. al are contributing to extremism. We should stop short of blaming itshotinvegas for the attack)

You could make the exact same argument for Islam and Islamic extremism.

Wow this ben shapiro guy is pretty smart, he accurately predicted that the president would start a race war.

https://www.creators.com/read/ben-sh...bamas-race-war

We are talking about that. Part of the "et. al" is this forum.

I wont retype it ll but please consider my objection to the claim it's just hyperbole as restated here.

Between me and 6ix I would've thought we were being clear enough, but I guess it needs to be directly spelled out:

If the shooter's manifesto had been posted here or in P7.0 what would've happened is

1) Moderators would delete the part in the middle about guns. Put a pin on that discussion, please!

2) I would get banned for doing personal attacks.

Luckbox,

What odds are you assigning that El Paso was a staged attempt?

You're making stuff up to try to mean again fly.

Important work, Well done

If the manifesto were posted here the poster would have been immediately perma banned. I've read it, I have no doubt about that.

I didn't say his posts even implicitly call for violence. I said that his posts, and millions like them, are a cause of the violence. I am saying that tens of millions of people with right of center views on immigration are a cause of this violence. In a sense that's the same as "responsible for", but in another sense you could argue about responsibility either way I guess.

Again, guilt by association is arguable, but if there were a bunch of 21 year olds guillotining rich people right now, the talk on social media absolutely would have been one of the things that most likely led to it.

It makes no sense to argue that Tucker Carlson has some responsibility here and the people saying the same things to smaller audiences have literally zero responsibility.

I'm probably not allowed to answer that given the kerfuffle that is occuring already. But since it occured in a walmart I'm sure they'll be releasing tons of footage and once that footage is released any doubts will be assuaged.
(And if they don't release that footage or if they show pictures of him entering walmart with cargo pants and the pictures of him arrested show him not wearing cargo pants then we can assume something is up)

It would have been trivially easy for him to say the same things and not only not have been banned, but people on this forum would be saying that it was lunacy to call him racist.

You think you're scoring some point, but you're not. Same as itshot.

I disagree, but the root of our disagreement is still that you are equating things which I think are absolutely not equivalent. Like I said, I think there's room for conversation on how popular discourse feeds into radicalization. I think that's an interesting conversation, and your comments, taken in that direction, are something we could explore. I just think people here are stretching the argument way further than is reasonable.

I doubt we're going to come to any agreement on this, so I don't want to go back and forth too much just saying "not it's not" over and over. So I'll probably let it go here.

On another note, I have no doubt that Tucker Carlson would get banned from this forum too. And Lou Dobbs. And Laura Ingraham. And Donald Trump also. It makes me happy not having the Trump bot here, because it would post a lot of stuff I'd want to delete.

Do you think playing hours upon hours of grand theft auto is a cause of criminality? That's the exact argument you are making.

We are not posting the manifesto, or linking to it, from here.

Why wouldn't we agree? The first bolded is EXACTLY what I'm saying.

You have nothing to say because I am right.

You aren’t shy about pointing out logical inconsistencies. There just aren’t any this time, so you have nothing but personal attack’s.

OK. Then we're talking past each other a little bit, or perhaps I'm inferring something from your response that you didn't mean (i.e. support for some of the other comments about itshotinvegas). I'm sorry if that's the case.

LOL yeah you know I'm right. Can't have no side-by-sides with your pal Kelhus' thoughts on how the elites use identity politics to oppress the working class with an actual mass shooter manifesto because the only real difference is that the mass shooter is a better ****ing writer.

You're not bright enough for this. I don't know to what if any degree GTA causes criminality. I don't think it's impossible that it does. But, and this may be hard for you, it's possible that some things that seemingly might incite violence do actually incite violence while other things that seemingly might incite violence don't actually incite violence. Maybe people know that when they are playing a game, they are playing a game, and that when the POTUS tells them about an invasion from Mexico, Tucker Carlson tells them about the loss of our culture, and millions of people restate those views online they know that it's not a game.

That's terrible analysis. It's not that it's impossible for some Islamic teaching to lead to violence, it's that "Islam leads to violence" is as absurdly broad as saying "religion leads to violence" or as itshot would say "ideology leads to violence". It's a bizarre way to approach the subject, that it's clear that the argument is made out of islamophobia.

The amusing thing there is that Republicans are literally going on TV to blame video games instead of white supremacy, itshot picked a bad example!

These people look for things that support their views, they do not develop those views by listening to politicians, or pundits. The idea that someone becomes a racist by listening to Tucker Carlson or Trump, then goes on to commit violence becasue of that is just stupid. These views are already ingrained long before they listen to people on TV.

They are just as clueless as you are about human behavior and how ideologies manifest in people.