PDA

View Full Version : Shooting in Orlando, Florida. 50 dead, 50+ wounded


Rand al'Fain
06-12-2016, 02:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/

Isabel
06-12-2016, 02:14 PM
it's horrible :( :(

Kimon
06-12-2016, 02:36 PM
it's horrible :( :(

It was also just a day after another high profile murder in Orlando. Friday night a psychotic fan shot a singer, Christina Grimmie, at a concert.

Terez
06-12-2016, 03:20 PM
Yeah, Orlando had a rough weekend.

People are debating whether to call this Islamist terrorism or a hate crime. IMO it's clearly both. It doesn't matter much that it was a lone wolf attack; the dude pledged allegiance to ISIS and he clearly bought into their philosophy which encourages this sort of thing. His ex-wife says he wasn't particularly religious but that's often the case with these radicalized types. They're angry losers looking for an outlet.

fionwe1987
06-12-2016, 04:06 PM
Yeah, Orlando had a rough weekend.

People are debating whether to call this Islamist terrorism or a hate crime. IMO it's clearly both. It doesn't matter much that it was a lone wolf attack; the dude pledged allegiance to ISIS and he clearly bought into their philosophy which encourages this sort of thing. His ex-wife says he wasn't particularly religious but that's often the case with these radicalized types. They're angry losers looking for an outlet.

Yup. At the same time, its possible this particular venue was chosen because the shooter was pissed when he saw two men kissing. At least, according to his dad, according to a few news sources. The whole story will be out soon, but nothing stops this being both terrorism and a domestic hate crime.

Davian93
06-12-2016, 04:42 PM
One thing I do know...there is no way any sort of gun control could have possibly prevented such a tragedy...and also, this is NOT the time to talk about gun control as a nation.

Terez
06-12-2016, 04:50 PM
And yet, you brought it up.

Davian93
06-12-2016, 06:41 PM
And yet, you brought it up.

That was sarcastic...since that is ALWAYS the response on gun advocates whenever a mass shooting occurs.

Terez
06-12-2016, 07:22 PM
Ah, I missed the sarcasm. Possibly because you've been known to jump from one opinion to another quickly. :p And you were like the 5th person I've seen today come into a post about this that had no discussion about gun control whatsoever and complain about people who were using this tragedy to push their anti-gun agenda. I haven't seen a single person bring up gun control other than Obama himself, and that's just rote for him at this point. How many times has he given this speech now? A dozen? More?

Davian93
06-12-2016, 08:25 PM
Ah, I missed the sarcasm. Possibly because you've been known to jump from one opinion to another quickly. :p And you were like the 5th person I've seen today come into a post about this that had no discussion about gun control whatsoever and complain about people who were using this tragedy to push their anti-gun agenda. I haven't seen a single person bring up gun control other than Obama himself, and that's just rote for him at this point. How many times has he given this speech now? A dozen? More?

I've been pro-gun control for a long time now...I am just realistic that nothing will ever change. EVER.

Daekyras
06-12-2016, 08:28 PM
Ah, I missed the sarcasm. Possibly because you've been known to jump from one opinion to another quickly. :p And you were like the 5th person I've seen today come into a post about this that had no discussion about gun control whatsoever and complain about people who were using this tragedy to push their anti-gun agenda. I haven't seen a single person bring up gun control other than Obama himself, and that's just rote for him at this point. How many times has he given this speech now? A dozen? More?

18 times.

And as for the "debate" on gun control. It's already done. If sandy hook wasn't enough to get it started nothing will.

GonzoTheGreat
06-13-2016, 04:12 AM
The debate on gun control is like the peace talks between Israel and Palestina. Either it's not the right time for it, or someone shoots up a bunch of people and then it isn't the right time for it.

But, perhaps, instead of discussing the 2nd Amendment, it might be a good idea to hang this one on the 1st. After all, it does seem to have been inspired by Old Testament morals possibly combined with a psychosis.

Davian93
06-13-2016, 08:09 AM
18 times.

And as for the "debate" on gun control. It's already done. If sandy hook wasn't enough to get it started nothing will.

Yup...if a bunch of kids being gunned down at a school didn't do it, 50 gay people dying won't. Half the country thinks gay people are the devil incarnate anyway. (well probably 40% at this point but still, the point remains). A bunch of them were probably secretly happy that "the gays" got what they deserved for their "sinful lifestyle"

GonzoTheGreat
06-13-2016, 08:56 AM
A bunch of them were probably secretly happy that "the gays" got what they deserved for their "sinful lifestyle"It may be cynical of me, but I think most are just happy about the fact that they can blame the deaths on a Muslim. Now they don't have to think about the victims and what they stood for; they can go immediately into finger pointing mode.

Of course, it's theoretically possible that I would be wrong about this.
Maybe someone could ask the Westboro Baptists whether or not this Muslim was doing God's work.

Nazbaque
06-13-2016, 11:34 AM
So this was basically good news for bigoted republican warmongers. Killing homosexuals and blaming it on ISIS.

So were they behind it? Did they take a hate crime and doctored it to look like terrorism? Did they put the idea in the guy's head so that he made himself out to be a terrorist? Was the guy himself a bigoted warmongering republican?

Davian93
06-13-2016, 11:42 AM
So this was basically good news for bigoted republican warmongers. Killing homosexuals and blaming it on ISIS.

So were they behind it? Did they take a hate crime and doctored it to look like terrorism? Did they put the idea in the guy's head so that he made himself out to be a terrorist? Was the guy himself a bigoted warmongering republican?

Best part is that Trump will almost certainly see his poll numbers rise because of this.

4 years ago, Romney tried to politicize the Benghazi attack and it helped to sink his campaign. Now, with the atmosphere of fear that permeates our country, the neo-fascists will only be helped by this.

Same thing is happening throughout the entire West with nationalist parties gaining strength.

Pretty pathetic and sad just how fragile our supposed "civilized culture" really is.

Terez
06-13-2016, 01:17 PM
I might watch Maddow tonight for the first time in months. She's bound to have a good A-block take on this.

Davian93
06-13-2016, 09:54 PM
There's a story out now that the shooter had been to the club before as a patron per at least 5 witnesses and he also had a profile on a gay dating site.

What a shock.

Terez
06-13-2016, 11:07 PM
I'm sure if you asked him, he was just staking the place out, possibly planning a few murder dates.

Most self-hating gays just kill themselves. Maybe people will start caring if more of them decide to take the whole damn club out with them.

Terez
06-13-2016, 11:09 PM
Muslims celebrate 9/11 on rooftops (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/12/christian-pastor-celebrates-nightclub-massacre-theres-50-less-pedophiles-in-this-world/)

Frenzy
06-13-2016, 11:47 PM
Let's not forget this (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/california-west-hollywood-suspect-aresenal/)nutjob either.

Rand al'Fain
06-13-2016, 11:52 PM
Sad thing is, this guy apparently wasn't even all that religious (until recently it seems). But has a long history of bigotry towards gays, beating on his ex-wife, etc.

Because of this, Trump's crap about banning all Muslims will gain even more ground.

GonzoTheGreat
06-14-2016, 04:14 AM
Start a counter movement, calling for revoking the gun rights of all male divorcees.

Weird Harold
06-14-2016, 05:27 AM
Start a counter movement, calling for revoking the gun rights of all male divorcees.
That's sexist; strike the word "Male" and add another baby step to a total firearms ban. :rolleyes:

GonzoTheGreat
06-14-2016, 06:11 AM
That's sexist; strike the word "Male" and add another baby step to a total firearms ban. :rolleyes:That sounds like a reasonable compromise to get the radical feminists to agree.

Edited to add: isn't "baby step" ageism, though?

Daekyras
06-14-2016, 06:23 AM
Most self-hating gays just kill themselves. Maybe people will start caring if more of them decide to take the whole damn club out with them.

Thats how it goes down over her. Its sad that it still happens in modern society.

But the access to weapons that allow you to take out an entire nightclub is such a problem.

I would be living in fear knowing the only thing standing between a person and a killing spree is whether they feel like doing it that day.

Daekyras
06-14-2016, 06:25 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/owen-jones-walks-off-sky-news-after-presenters-deflect-homophobia-behind-orlando-shooting-a7078891.html

can't say I blame him

Terez
06-14-2016, 09:07 AM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/owen-jones-walks-off-sky-news-after-presenters-deflect-homophobia-behind-orlando-shooting-a7078891.html

can't say I blame him
I read the comments. Now I have cancer.

Davian93
06-14-2016, 09:51 AM
I'm sure if you asked him, he was just staking the place out, possibly planning a few murder dates.

Most self-hating gays just kill themselves. Maybe people will start caring if more of them decide to take the whole damn club out with them.

Reminds me of that Onion article...Why Do All These Gay Guys Keep Going Down On Me??? Or something like that.

Davian93
06-14-2016, 09:52 AM
I read the comments. Now I have cancer.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/54558403.jpg

Terez
06-14-2016, 10:27 PM
Must-read:

https://theconversation.com/two-violent-men-two-symptoms-of-the-same-sickness-60988

Also, no source on this other than the Daily Mail, but it looks legit. And highly disturbing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3639596/Did-delay-police-response-shooter-time.html#ixzz4BZrk8sNa

Davian93
06-15-2016, 01:49 PM
I basically assumed that some of the victims were likely the result of a cross-fire with police and the shooter. That's to be expected (tragic but par for the course). The 3 hour delay thing really surprised me too since current SOP on any sort of active shooter event is to enter and engage the suspect immediately if possible. The old FBI playbook (which all major law enforcement agencies go by) was to surround the location and wait for the cavalry (heavy SWAT type units) to come in while negotiating...but they stopped that due to the high number of incidents where the shooter would just gun down hostages (Columbine comes to mind among others).

Perhaps they had a good reason...I understand they were on the phone with the shooter several times trying to get him to surrender...maybe they had a really good tactical reason not to do so (he could have claimed to have a bomb on him or something)...etc etc. Or it could just be incompetence by the Orlando PD...that's definitely possible.

Weird Harold
06-15-2016, 02:45 PM
Perhaps they had a good reason...

I've seen several sources quote the Orlando Police that the situation transitioned from "Active Shooter" to "Hostage Situation." The majority of shooting was in the first twenty minutes or so and the last couple of minutes when they finally assaulted the place.

It's easy to second-guess the people on the scene and working under pressure.

Davian93
06-15-2016, 02:46 PM
I've seen several sources quote the Orlando Police that the situation transitioned from "Active Shooter" to "Hostage Situation." The majority of shooting was in the first twenty minutes or so and the last couple of minutes when they finally assaulted the place.

It's easy to second-guess the people on the scene and working under pressure.

That makes total sense...kinda what I expected.

I completely agree with your second paragraph there as well...very easy to be a Monday morning QB when hindsight is 20/20.

Brita
06-15-2016, 03:31 PM
I completely agree with your second paragraph there as well...very easy to be a Monday morning QB when hindsight is 20/20.

It's true, but it is also very important to learn from these situations by looking closely at what could have been done differently to reduce the casualties. Not that I have any idea, but asking difficult questions after-the-fact is what leads to improvements for next time.

Caveat 1: Joe Blow doesn't really have the authority to ask the hard questions.
Caveat 2: The media shouldn't really be spreading Joe and Jane Blow's conjecture about what should and shouldn't have happened

Davian93
06-15-2016, 09:20 PM
They always look at them in that sort of light...and try to apply lessons learned. It's never easy though.

There's a huge focus on Active Shooter scenarios the last couple years and last 12 months specifically. We've had 2 full drills at my facility in that period after never doing one for real in 5-6 years. There's a real culture change of late within the government.

GonzoTheGreat
06-16-2016, 04:16 AM
It's true, but it is also very important to learn from these situations by looking closely at what could have been done differently to reduce the casualties. Not that I have any idea, but asking difficult questions after-the-fact is what leads to improvements for next time.No, this isn't the time to consider the issue of the ready availability of murder implements to anyone who wants to commit murder. This is a time to commemorate the victims. After half a year or so without any such major shooting incidents it might be possible to start an actually serious debate on guns; but then it wouldn't be really urgent to do anything about it anymore of course.

So, just simply ignore the elephant in the room; pretend that guns had nothing to do with this shooting.

Southpaw2012
06-21-2016, 07:22 PM
Sad thing is, this guy apparently wasn't even all that religious (until recently it seems). But has a long history of bigotry towards gays, beating on his ex-wife, etc.

Because of this, Trump's crap about banning all Muslims will gain even more ground.

That's because Trump is crazy. However, what's crazier is our Orwellian leaning government attempting to censor this savages alliegance to ISIS. They wanted the narrative focused on guns. It's absolutely frightening, unless you're a liberal who loves Big Brother taking control. Destroying our individual rights, which is what liberals want to do, is terrifying. It's not just the Second Amendment. They've gone after First Amendment and now they question Due Process. Go ahead, ban our guns, or restrict our rights. Seemed to work well for Paris and Australia.

Southpaw2012
06-21-2016, 07:27 PM
The amount of bullshit this government throws out and liberal ignorants eat up is disgusting. Censoring his alliegance would stop propaganda? What a load of crap.

ShadowbaneX
06-21-2016, 07:30 PM
That's because Trump is crazy. However, what's crazier is our Orwellian leaning government attempting to censor this savages alliegance to ISIS. They wanted the narrative focused on guns. It's absolutely frightening, unless you're a liberal who loves Big Brother taking control. Destroying our individual rights, which is what liberals want to do, is terrifying. It's not just the Second Amendment. They've gone after First Amendment and now they question Due Process. Go ahead, ban our guns, or restrict our rights. Seemed to work well for Paris and Australia.

Nice brush you have there. Tell me, how many football fields can you tar at the same time with that thing? Gotta be quite a few with the way you're going on.

As for this guy's pledge to ISIL, I'd take that with a grain of salt. It seems that he was caught in a pretty bad spot and when he broke he lashed out against everything he could.

As for your guns, it's not what makes you a great, so stop stroking them.

Terez
06-21-2016, 08:11 PM
That's because Trump is crazy. However, what's crazier is our Orwellian leaning government attempting to censor this savages alliegance to ISIS.
You do realize that we first heard about this from the FBI, right?

Oatman
06-21-2016, 10:48 PM
Seemed to work well for Paris and Australia.

It has worked extraordinarily well in Australia. We haven't had a mass shooting since the laws were introduced. The only people who resent the laws being in place are the nutbags who everyone else would prefer did not have access to guns anyway.

Nazbaque
06-22-2016, 12:45 AM
That's because Trump is crazy. However, what's crazier is our Orwellian leaning government attempting to censor this savages alliegance to ISIS. They wanted the narrative focused on guns. It's absolutely frightening, unless you're a liberal who loves Big Brother taking control. Destroying our individual rights, which is what liberals want to do, is terrifying. It's not just the Second Amendment. They've gone after First Amendment and now they question Due Process. Go ahead, ban our guns, or restrict our rights. Seemed to work well for Paris and Australia.

That's actually the exact opposite. The word "liberal" means that you want more freedom. They usually have a beef with conservatives who by definition want to keep the old ways. Both sides are idiots as not all traditions are worth hanging onto and all rights must be earned with duty which liberals tend to forget when they use the word "freedom".

You do realize that we first heard about this from the FBI, right?

He doesn't know what "Orwellian" means. It's pointless to argue.

GonzoTheGreat
06-22-2016, 03:49 AM
You do realize that we first heard about this from the FBI, right?The idea that the FBI is part of the US government is nothing more than a vile slander propagated by their enemies. In reality, they are just a bunch of vigilantes who take the law into their own hands.

Brita
06-22-2016, 11:35 AM
It has worked extraordinarily well in Australia. We haven't had a mass shooting since the laws were introduced. The only people who resent the laws being in place are the nutbags who everyone else would prefer did not have access to guns anyway.

This! A thousand times this. There is no arguing with a real life example of what is actually needed to stop the slaughter.

But, so many in the US still want to argue it, and apparently even point to Australia as some sort of evidence against gun control... It is baffling.

GonzoTheGreat
06-22-2016, 12:44 PM
This! A thousand times this. There is no arguing with a real life example of what is actually needed to stop the slaughter.

But, so many in the US still want to argue it, and apparently even point to Australia as some sort of evidence against gun control... It is baffling.
It just depends on what group you want to belong to. Some are American conservatives, others aren't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community). It really is as simple as that.

Davian93
06-22-2016, 12:46 PM
This! A thousand times this. There is no arguing with a real life example of what is actually needed to stop the slaughter.

But, so many in the US still want to argue it, and apparently even point to Australia as some sort of evidence against gun control... It is baffling.

Yeah but if they didnt have guns, they'd just use knives. Have you seen those knife attacks in China? Also, look at that MP in the UK that was shot even with their strict gun laws. I think we can all say that that one incident disproves the mountains of evidence that real, substantial gun control has no possibility of helping solve the issue let alone even mitigating it a little bit.

There is no way we could ever solve this and it is silly to suggest otherwise. Dozens of mass shootings and random kids dying is simply the price of freedom. MURICA!!!

Davian93
06-22-2016, 12:58 PM
This! A thousand times this. There is no arguing with a real life example of what is actually needed to stop the slaughter.

But, so many in the US still want to argue it, and apparently even point to Australia as some sort of evidence against gun control... It is baffling.

Other fun facts about the USA:

42% believe in Creationism and think the world is 10,000 years old.
80% believe in Miracles.
75% believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.
91% dont think Climate Change is a big concern.
50% believe Climate Change is man-made while 23% say its natural and a further 26% say it isn't proven at all.
55% believe the Rapture is Real
27% believe it will definitely occur by 2050 and another 20% say it probably will.
33% think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 Attacks
33% believe sexual orientation is a choice
25% think the Sun orbits the Earth
35% think the Lottery, a surprise inheritance or big insurance settlement are the best ways to get rich.
33% believe in Ghosts
18% claim to have seen one.
33% believe Bigfoot exists
26% believe in Witchcraft
25% think Obama is the Antichrist
25% believe in reincarnation
7% believe the moon landings were faked
7% believe Elvis is still alive (he'd be 81 now BTW)

These are all solid arguments against democracy in general.

Terez
06-22-2016, 05:50 PM
Now one of the shooter's former lovers has come forward. He said he already talked to the FBI.

http://www.univision.com/univision-news/united-states/orlando-massacre-was-revenge-not-terrorism-says-man-who-claims-he-was-gunmans-lover

Rand al'Fain
06-22-2016, 06:34 PM
Now one of the shooter's former lovers has come forward. He said he already talked to the FBI.

http://www.univision.com/univision-news/united-states/orlando-massacre-was-revenge-not-terrorism-says-man-who-claims-he-was-gunmans-lover

Sounds about right. Angry gay man that felt spurned, but lived the double life. Used ISIS has an escapist route.

Certainly explains his long history of creating gay profiles to meet other gay men, going to various gay bars, etc.

Terez
06-22-2016, 07:33 PM
I think he was probably honest enough about his sympathies re: ISIS; he seemed to identify with it to an extent even though he resented the anti-gay stuff. I tend to think that, without that, he probably wouldn't have been driven to do something this extreme. But it definitely wasn't his primary motivation.

Davian93
06-22-2016, 09:33 PM
I think he was probably honest enough about his sympathies re: ISIS; he seemed to identify with it to an extent even though he resented the anti-gay stuff. I tend to think that, without that, he probably wouldn't have been driven to do something this extreme. But it definitely wasn't his primary motivation.

Or...perhaps he was trying to "prove" to his conservative Muslim father that he wasn't "one of those queers!!! and really was a good boy!!!"...or maybe he just wanted the infamy of claiming an ISIS motivation.

Or maybe he was a seriously messed up guy that had a ton of demons and we cant really take anything he said during/leading up to the attack at face value since they are the words of a mentally ill mind and are unreliable at best.

Terez
06-22-2016, 09:52 PM
Or maybe he was a seriously messed up guy that had a ton of demons and we cant really take anything he said during/leading up to the attack at face value since they are the words of a mentally ill mind and are unreliable at best.
Unreliable, sure, but that doesn't mean his motives aren't relevant. I think that every day, probably thousands of people like him come close to that edge. Most never go over, but that doesn't mean their motives aren't relevant.

Davian93
06-22-2016, 09:56 PM
Unreliable, sure, but that doesn't mean his motives aren't relevant. I think that every day, probably thousands of people like him come close to that edge. Most never go over, but that doesn't mean their motives aren't relevant.

I definitely dont think that they aren't relevant. I just don't give his personal statements all that much credibility given his very clear mental health issues. He was apparently quite disgusted with his own homosexual leanings if nothing else. He had a history of violent tendencies and issues most likely stemming from a strict upbringing that would likely make it impossible for him to be comfortable with his own sexuality. That's tragic if nothing else and shows that discrimination and societal hatred on things like that are never good.

I tend to think this incident falls far more into the "self-loathing" bucket rather than the "radical extremist" bucket as they initially thought due to this ISIS comments to the 911 operator.

Terez
06-22-2016, 10:22 PM
I tend to think this incident falls far more into the "self-loathing" bucket rather than the "radical extremist" bucket as they initially thought due to this ISIS comments to the 911 operator.
I agree with that, but again, I wouldn't write off the influence that radical extremist groups like ISIS and the various freedom fighters of the Muslim world can have on self-loathers like Mateen. He liked them all, even though they don't always like each other. Don't you think it's the same for all their actual recruits?

We have Christian-oriented militia groups in the US and though they're relatively tame at the moment, their numbers are growing, and many mainstream Republicans fetishize them. So I don't think this is an Islam problem at all, though Islamic terrorist groups have the more inspiring success rate for self-loathers at the moment. We get lone wolves like Dylann Roof, but in general terrorism works better when it's semi-organized and active, and Islamist groups have the momentum right now, and their lone wolves get to feel like they're a part of something bigger.

Davian93
06-22-2016, 10:31 PM
I definitely would agree that such groups could and will serve as potential triggers for people that are already on that edge as you noted.

I also agree on extremism being dangerous/bad regardless of its bent whether its a far right "Christian" terrorist or an ISIS/Al-Qaida inspired one.

ShadowbaneX
06-22-2016, 11:28 PM
I definitely would agree that such groups could and will serve as potential triggers for people that are already on that edge as you noted.

I also agree on extremism being dangerous/bad regardless of its bent whether its a far right "Christian" terrorist or an ISIS/Al-Qaida inspired one.
Dav...why do you hate Freedom?

Southpaw2012
06-24-2016, 12:09 AM
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reflections-gun-control-second-amendment-advocate?utm_content=buffer28720&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

^ The facts that the Orwellian Left is trying to manipulate and twist.

Kimon
06-24-2016, 12:17 AM
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reflections-gun-control-second-amendment-advocate?utm_content=buffer28720&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

^ The facts that the Orwellian Left is trying to manipulate and twist.

Have you actually read 1984? Are you familiar with Minitrue?

GonzoTheGreat
06-24-2016, 04:34 AM
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reflections-gun-control-second-amendment-advocate?utm_content=buffer28720&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

^ The facts that the Orwellian Left is trying to manipulate and twist.
From that link:
But I understand, as does every rational individual, that the right is not absolute. The Second Amendment does not guarantee a 12-year-old’s right to possess a machine gun in front of the White House when the president is walking on the lawn. Why not?

That is a serious question. I do not see such a potential limitation in the "shall not be infringed". Instead, it seems to me that the suggested infringement is actually precisely the kind of thing that is being explicitly prohibited by the 2nd. So, can you explain to me, in simple terms, on what basis the 2nd does not actually apply to the cases where you don't want it to apply?

It is obvious that not having any gun laws at all would be very inconvenient for the authorities. If convicted inmates in prisons were allowed to have any firearms they pleased, then that would seriously hamper the current US policy of being the world's number one incarcerator.
But the only justification I can see for not allowing convicted criminals to have guns is "we don't want them to have guns". While that may be true, I do not see how it trumps the 2nd. And, perhaps more relevantly, I don't see why this very same reasoning couldn't be used just as easily to deny guns to all Americans, rather than just the tens of millions who've been in jail.

Southpaw2012
07-02-2016, 11:15 PM
That's actually the exact opposite. The word "liberal" means that you want more freedom. They usually have a beef with conservatives who by definition want to keep the old ways. Both sides are idiots as not all traditions are worth hanging onto and all rights must be earned with duty which liberals tend to forget when they use the word "freedom".



He doesn't know what "Orwellian" means. It's pointless to argue.

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge or sense would agree with the label of "Orwellian Left." Look at what the Left is trying to do. Sure, conservatives can certainly be called crazy if it's crazy to want individual rights protected.


On a separate note, who's excited for next years premium hike from Obamacare? Glad to see the most liberal states will be hit the hardest.

GonzoTheGreat
07-03-2016, 04:16 AM
Sure, conservatives can certainly be called crazy if it's crazy to want individual rights protected.Like the right to prevent women you've never even met from having an abortion.
Or the right to kill a "coloured boy carrying skittles" because you felt "threatened by the way he was talking on a mobile phone to a girl".

Are there any more rights that American conservatives care about?

Nazbaque
07-03-2016, 05:42 AM
Anyone with an ounce of knowledge or sense would agree with the label of "Orwellian Left." Look at what the Left is trying to do.

It's so ironic for you to call anything Orwellian when you are practically a victim of the conservative brainwashing. We see it every time when you parrot fox propaganda.

But what can you expect from someone who doesn't fathom the horror of extreme freedom?

ShadowbaneX
07-03-2016, 09:07 AM
I'll take the "Orwellian Left" over the "Orwellian Right." I mean, there's a small amount of privacy left now. If the right was in power even that would be gone. I'd also like to float the idea that a lot of the Orwellian-ness of the current system is a result of the right being in power before the current administration.

Also, you might want to take a course or two on philosophy. Please pay particular attention to the logical fallacies.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-04-2016, 02:45 AM
Orwellian

https://c.marketingtechblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/you-keep-using-that-word.jpg

I mean, do you mean Orwellian as in Animal Farm ("all animals are created equal but some animals are more equal than others" and the cult of personality) or Orwellian as in 1984 ("We have ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia", Thought Police and Big Brother? Or maybe Newspeak?) Or some other aspect of Orwell's commentary on dictatorial/totalitarian societies?

because, honestly it really doesn't matter if it's left or right, it's about control. You know, like Putin's done these past few weeks - there are now registers of "potential terrorists" who HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING (yet. but you know, they said that about the Jews, the Kulaks and the Bourgeoisie too, and look how *that* ended. Every. Single. Time.) and the National Guard now has the same authorities as the old KGB, including being allowed to open fire at a crowd of civilians "if there's a terrorist situation"

Personally, I like to hold any "new" political idea up against "What Would Stalin/Che/Mao/Robespierre Do" - and if it matches, then it's a bad idea.

GonzoTheGreat
07-04-2016, 04:19 AM
Personally, I like to hold any "new" political idea up against "What Would Stalin/Che/Mao/Robespierre Do" - and if it matches, then it's a bad idea.Like, you know, the abolition of slavery which Robespierre argued for (and carried out), to name but one example. Of course, Southpaw is on the right side here, as American conservatives also regret Abolition, though they do not always come right out and admit it.

Nazbaque
07-04-2016, 04:56 AM
Like, you know, the abolition of slavery which Robespierre argued for (and carried out), to name but one example. Of course, Southpaw is on the right side here, as American conservatives also regret Abolition, though they do not always come right out and admit it.

Just out of curiosity: what were the good points that don't even come close to outweighing the bad for Che, Mao and Stalin? Or Hitler who yks didn't mention to avoid Godwin, but as soon as Stalin is mentioned Hitler is implied so...

yks 6nnetu hing
07-04-2016, 05:07 AM
Just out of curiosity: what were the good points that don't even come close to outweighing the bad for Che, Mao and Stalin? Or Hitler who yks didn't mention to avoid Godwin, but as soon as Stalin is mentioned Hitler is implied so...

I guess women's rights in the sense of participation in the workforce and politics and, to an extent, decision making about their own reproductive... er... frequency. However, perhaps prevention should have taken a bigger role than abortion.

Separation of Church and State. Although, making religion illegal is in my opinion a step too far.

Stalin and Mao did propagate the hard sciences and engineering and made a big deal about literacy. There, that's surely a good thing?

Che just liked killing people.

GonzoTheGreat
07-04-2016, 05:37 AM
Che just liked killing people.Which, you'll have to admit, is a more sensible hobby than cricket.

Nazbaque
07-04-2016, 06:22 AM
Stalin and Mao did propagate the hard sciences and engineering and made a big deal about literacy. There, that's surely a good thing?

There's good things and there are catalysts. Things that increase efficiency and their value depends on the value of the things they make more efficient. The value of industry is entirely dependant on what is produced.

Literacy? I'd say it's a good thing but not nearly as good as people believe. "Common sense", as people call it, is a way of learning through experience. Literacy enables people to use the academic way of learning. Which is the better way depends on the subject and the learner, but much better than either alone is to have both available to choose from and best of all to use both at once. Yet this is only for acquiring knowledge. Understanding it is a crucial step that the modern literate and byrocratic society ignores.

Look at southpaw. He is literate. Does he understand what he reads? Or what he writes? He recently acquired the word "Orwellian". Does he understand it?

yks 6nnetu hing
07-04-2016, 08:10 AM
There's good things and there are catalysts. Things that increase efficiency and their value depends on the value of the things they make more efficient. The value of industry is entirely dependant on what is produced.

Literacy? I'd say it's a good thing but not nearly as good as people believe. "Common sense", as people call it, is a way of learning through experience. Literacy enables people to use the academic way of learning. Which is the better way depends on the subject and the learner, but much better than either alone is to have both available to choose from and best of all to use both at once. Yet this is only for acquiring knowledge. Understanding it is a crucial step that the modern literate and byrocratic society ignores.

Look at southpaw. He is literate. Does he understand what he reads? Or what he writes? He recently acquired the word "Orwellian". Does he understand it?

I deliberately didn't go into the whole topic of critical thinking; as obviously both Stalin and Mao had some... er... reservations on this area.

However, state sponsored literacy > state sponsored illiteracy. I think we can agree on that, at least.

Davian93
07-04-2016, 09:28 AM
Just out of curiosity: what were the good points that don't even come close to outweighing the bad for Che, Mao and Stalin? Or Hitler who yks didn't mention to avoid Godwin, but as soon as Stalin is mentioned Hitler is implied so...

Che was a machine when it came to selling t-shirts and posters to dumbass college kids...so he was clearly very good at merchandizing.

Nazbaque
07-04-2016, 10:24 AM
I deliberately didn't go into the whole topic of critical thinking; as obviously both Stalin and Mao had some... er... reservations on this area.

However, state sponsored literacy > state sponsored illiteracy. I think we can agree on that, at least.

Ah but how would a state sponsor illiteracy? That would imply actual efforts in stoping people from learning rather than simply not aiding it in anyway.

But is literacy a good thing by default? If the materials with which people learn to read is intended for washing their brains and the main reason for this learning is to enable them to read the government sponsored newspapers that keep those brains washed, is it a good skill? Literacy opens up many ways for keeping people down and as they are more subtle they are also harder to criticise. Is reading a worthwhile skill when all writing seeks to deceive you? Is there a more efficient way to deceive a fool than making him believe he's clever?

The value of the ability to read is dependent on having access to something worth reading. The value of the ability to write is in having thoughts worth writing down. Most people have these things yes, but their inability to tell which thoughts and writings are worthy greatly diminishes the value of either skill.
Che was a machine when it came to selling t-shirts and posters to dumbass college kids...so he was clearly very good at merchandizing.

Is that actually a good thing? In any way?

GonzoTheGreat
07-04-2016, 11:09 AM
Ah but how would a state sponsor illiteracy? That would imply actual efforts in stoping people from learning rather than simply not aiding it in anyway.In some states in the USA, there were actual laws against teaching Negroes how to read and write, as far as I know. Does that count for this purpose?
And, if you want another example: the Khmer Rouge sometimes used literacy as proof of being bourgeois, which of course then got you the death penalty (just to protect the Revolution from enemies, you no doubt understand).

Is that actually a good thing? In any way?It was good for business, wasn't it?

Davian93
07-04-2016, 11:25 AM
Is that actually a good thing? In any way?

Well, gotta drive that capitalist economy with t-shirts sales featuring a brutish, monster who got his jollies by butchering people in the name of worldwide communism.

The irony kills me every time I see a Che t-shirt. I used to start questioning idiots I'd see wearing them but it quickly got old since 90% of them only buy it because "it looks cool" and they have no clue who he even was. And I live in a college town so I see a ton of them.

College kids are so idealistic...its a great age and a fun time to see people trying to think on their own for the first time in their lives but it does lead to quite a bit of stupidity.

Nazbaque
07-04-2016, 12:58 PM
College kids are so idealistic...its a great age and a fun time to see people trying to think on their own for the first time in their lives but it does lead to quite a bit of stupidity.

...So exactly how are they different from the older adults?

Rand al'Fain
07-04-2016, 01:06 PM
...So exactly how are they different from the older adults?

Better access to information that, even just 10 years ago, let alone a generation ago, was practically unheard of?

Terez
07-04-2016, 02:27 PM
Also, you might want to take a course or two on philosophy. Please pay particular attention to the logical fallacies.
These were covered in several different courses at my university, including English 102. (Argumentative writing.)

ShadowbaneX
07-04-2016, 11:33 PM
These were covered in several different courses at my university, including English 102. (Argumentative writing.)

Yeah, it's probably in a few courses. Regardless of who's teaching it though, he needs to learn it.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-05-2016, 02:22 AM
But is literacy a good thing by default? If the materials with which people learn to read is intended for washing their brains and the main reason for this learning is to enable them to read the government sponsored newspapers that keep those brains washed, is it a good skill? Literacy opens up many ways for keeping people down and as they are more subtle they are also harder to criticise. Is reading a worthwhile skill when all writing seeks to deceive you? Is there a more efficient way to deceive a fool than making him believe he's clever?

The value of the ability to read is dependent on having access to something worth reading. The value of the ability to write is in having thoughts worth writing down. Most people have these things yes, but their inability to tell which thoughts and writings are worthy greatly diminishes the value of either skill.


Is that actually a good thing? In any way?

Naz, you're bored. you're again making an argument out of thin air. So, once AGAIN: I DELIBERATELY did not get into that bit of the cesspool. Trust me, I know what propaganda is and what it does and just how easy it is to fall into it. I was born in the fricking USSR, after all. "bladibladibla but Critical Thinking!" is not nor has it ever been something that I dispute so stop trying to argue against something that doesn't exist.

literacy > illiteracy; that is all.

Nazbaque
07-05-2016, 03:35 AM
Naz, you're bored. you're again making an argument out of thin air. So, once AGAIN: I DELIBERATELY did not get into that bit of the cesspool. Trust me, I know what propaganda is and what it does and just how easy it is to fall into it. I was born in the fricking USSR, after all. "bladibladibla but Critical Thinking!" is not nor has it ever been something that I dispute so stop trying to argue against something that doesn't exist.

literacy > illiteracy; that is all.

Actually I'm thinking of the western propaganda more than the USSR. But now you are simply assigning value to literacy without actually wondering why it has it. That value is conditional and those conditions are usually met but not by default.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-05-2016, 04:06 AM
Actually I'm thinking of the western propaganda more than the USSR. But now you are simply assigning value to literacy without actually wondering why it has it. That value is conditional and those conditions are usually met but not by default.

no I'm not. Or perhaps you're deliberately misunderstanding. There is no absolute value to literacy, much as a point in infinite vacuum is meaningless. However, in relation to illiteracy, literacy receives a value - better than. By a factor of what or margin of how much doesn't matter for my argument, nor do any consequences of the use of literacy.

GonzoTheGreat
07-05-2016, 04:16 AM
Actually I'm thinking of the western propaganda more than the USSR. But now you are simply assigning value to literacy without actually wondering why it has it. That value is conditional and those conditions are usually met but not by default.Literacy allows one to add sources to ones knowledge that otherwise would not have been available. That means that, no matter what, it broadens the horizon. True, that may simply give room for more propaganda, but even then it allows for more chance for contradictions in that propaganda. This, in turn, increases the chance that someone thinks about things.

Being able to read does not guarantee that one will be sensible. But it does increase the chances of it, and I think it is good to be reasonable.

Nazbaque
07-05-2016, 04:38 AM
no I'm not. Or perhaps you're deliberately misunderstanding. There is no absolute value to literacy, much as a point in infinite vacuum is meaningless. However, in relation to illiteracy, literacy receives a value - better than. By a factor of what or margin of how much doesn't matter for my argument, nor do any consequences of the use of literacy.

Well yks do you realise that you are illiterate?

Literacy allows one to add sources to ones knowledge that otherwise would not have been available. That means that, no matter what, it broadens the horizon. True, that may simply give room for more propaganda, but even then it allows for more chance for contradictions in that propaganda. This, in turn, increases the chance that someone thinks about things.

Being able to read does not guarantee that one will be sensible. But it does increase the chances of it, and I think it is good to be reasonable.

Depends on who gets to define what is reasonable.

GonzoTheGreat
07-05-2016, 05:12 AM
Depends on who gets to define what is reasonable.Who, other than me, could be possibly qualified for that? :confused:

yks 6nnetu hing
07-05-2016, 05:24 AM
Well yks do you realise that you are illiterate?

of course. no human is capable of being literate in everything, that would require being omniscient which, well... I'm not God, after all. At least, I'm fairly sure I'm not God.


and once again, I refuse to discuss theoretical absolutes with you, it's an exercise in pointless posturing and I'm in no mood and don't care that you're bored.

GonzoTheGreat
07-05-2016, 05:40 AM
of course. no human is capable of being literate in everything, that would require being omniscient which, well... I'm not God, after all. At least, I'm fairly sure I'm not God.
Ah, but would you actually know it if you were omniscient?

Edited to add:
If I were omniscient, then I would know that I couldn't know for certain there weren't things that I didn't know I didn't know.

yks 6nnetu hing
07-05-2016, 09:47 AM
Ah, but would you actually know it if you were omniscient?

Edited to add:
If I were omniscient, then I would know that I couldn't know for certain there weren't things that I didn't know I didn't know.

I think if I were omniscient I would know that I was omniscient. Otherwise I wouldn't be omniscient...

GonzoTheGreat
07-05-2016, 10:10 AM
But if you're omniscient, does that mean that you also know things that you can't know?
If not, then you not knowing could be because you simply can't know, and it wouldn't be a symptom of having a flawed omniscience at all.

ShadowbaneX
07-05-2016, 11:49 AM
If I were omniscient I'd last about 5 seconds before either my head exploded or I ended my existence. There's enough stuff I know now that makes me not want to live on this planet any more. If I knew the total depths of depravity that humanity is capable of...

GonzoTheGreat
07-05-2016, 12:06 PM
Perhaps there's a difference between knowing something and being aware that you know it. In that case, everyone might be omniscient, but not everyone is omniconscious.

Kimon
07-22-2016, 02:30 PM
Probably makes more sense to just attach this to an earlier terrorist attack thread, than to start a new one, as this seems more and more like a daily occurrence.

Nice (July 14th)
Germany Train Attack (July 20th)


And now Munich today.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36870874

Are we going to start seeing a slew of mass deportation laws passed, or at least debated, in Germany and France? I have to say that I'm surprised to not hear of more widespread calls for mass expulsion of all Muslims from Europe the same way we have here increasingly amongst Republicans. Certainly any thoughts of resurrecting Schengen have got to be over, right? Certainly any contemplation of ever allowing Turkey into the EU has got to be permanently gone.

Sarevok
07-22-2016, 02:39 PM
I have to say that I'm surprised to not hear of more widespread calls for mass expulsion of all Muslims from Europe the same way we have here increasingly amongst Republicans. Certainly any thoughts of resurrecting Schengen have got to be over, right? Certainly any contemplation of ever allowing Turkey into the EU has got to be permanently gone.
Expelling all muslims is pretty much impossible. You'd have to expell around 10% of the entire population, a bunch of whom were born here.
Why resurrecting Schengen? Was it ever dead? I kinda like visiting family without having to stand in line for hours at a border. Also, the benefits to the economy are so enormous, that a bunch of countries will do a lot to keep it going.
Turkey into the EU was a really long-term thing anyway and will be pretty much on hold when they actually re-introduce the death penalty...

Kimon
07-22-2016, 02:43 PM
Expelling all muslims is pretty much impossible. You'd have to expell around 10% of the entire population, a bunch of whom were born here.
Why resurrecting Schengen? Was it ever dead? I kinda like visiting family without having to stand in line for hours at a border. Also, the benefits to the economy are so enormous, that a bunch of countries will do a lot to keep it going.
Turkey into the EU was a really long-term thing anyway and will be pretty much on hold when they actually re-introduce the death penalty...

I know it's impossible, it is here too. Doesn't change the fact that people are scared, and increasingly xenophobic. At least here. As for Schengen, it certainly seems increasingly compromised from an outsiders perspective, at least as concerns the increasing desires to stop the influx of refugees. Concerning Turkey, prior to the rise of the AKP, their inclusion seemed almost inevitable. Now I think they're moving towards expulsion from NATO.

Sarevok
07-22-2016, 03:17 PM
At least here. As for Schengen, it certainly seems increasingly compromised from an outsiders perspective, at least as concerns the increasing desires to stop the influx of refugees. Concerning Turkey, prior to the rise of the AKP, their inclusion seemed almost inevitable. Now I think they're moving towards expulsion from NATO.

I'll admit it's somewhat compromised at least in Eastern European countries. A Hungarian in my EVE Online corporation (=guild) mentioned that the 8 hour vacation trip to the Mediterranian turned into a 2 day trip because of all the closed borders. :( Doesn't mean it's fully dead, though.
That's interesting about Turkey, because it's always been Ak Party since I've paid any attention to that part of the world. Learn something everyday. :D

Kimon
07-22-2016, 03:50 PM
That's interesting about Turkey, because it's always been Ak Party since I've paid any attention to that part of the world. Learn something everyday. :D

The AKP was founded in 2001, and Erdogan became PM in 2003. Prior to that Turkey was far more secular. I've never personally visited (I went to Greece a few years ago, and considered adding in Ephesos, Istanbul, and a few other obvious archaeological sites, but hesitated because Turkey was already getting quite unpleasant back in 2012, and obviously far more so now) but I knew quite a few colleagues back in my grad school days that went their on archaeological digs in the summers. Back in the late 90s and early aughts it was a far different place. Sure, women still had to be told before going to remember only to bring one piece bathing suits, no bikinis, that sort of nonsense. But it was still secular. Now? It's not just that it's dangerous. It's not just that he has instigated sectarian strife with the Kurds for his own political gain. The AKP is basically the Muslim Brotherhood, and Erdogan has become increasingly dictatorial. You mention the death penalty, but let's be blunt, the problem with Turkey is not the death penalty's possible revival. It's his systematic (and long predating the coup) attack on political opponents, on freedom of the press, on women's rights, on secularism, and his consolidation of dictatorial power. The death penalty has its own problems, but is hardly worth mentioning in comparison to those other issues. We shouldn't pretend that the situation is somehow less bad if the dictator is simply arresting and indefinitely imprisoning journalists and political opponents than if he is executing them. The problem is that he is a dictator. The problem is that justice has become the whim of the strongman.

Kimon
07-22-2016, 05:07 PM
Speaking of xenophobia, this situation is getting more confused...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/who-behind-munich-shopping-mall-8475616

GonzoTheGreat
07-23-2016, 04:40 AM
Concerning Turkey, prior to the rise of the AKP, their inclusion seemed almost inevitable.Actually, at first, the rise of the AKP was something that helped towards EU membership. It showed that the army was finally getting over its totalitarian reflexes and allowed real diversity. Another group which benefited in the same way were the Kurds, who could get some of their parties into Parliament as well. Now Erdogan is working against diversity, and one of the signs of that is that he has taken over the suppression of the Kurds which for so long was a military pastime.

Now I think they're moving towards expulsion from NATO.Maybe not this year, yet. Then again, maybe president Trump will leave NATO before Turkey does.

Sarevok
07-23-2016, 06:31 AM
Speaking of xenophobia, this situation is getting more confused...
[/URL]

German police is now saying that it looks to be a shooting rampage by an 18 year old (who happens to be Iranian-German), but no relation to Islamic terrorism (or any other kind of terrorism). Seems to be more akin to the shooting we had in the Netherlands in Alphen a few years ago. :(

Kimon
07-23-2016, 10:40 AM
Actually, at first, the rise of the AKP was something that helped towards EU membership. It showed that the army was finally getting over its totalitarian reflexes and allowed real diversity. Another group which benefited in the same way were the Kurds, who could get some of their parties into Parliament as well. Now Erdogan is working against diversity, and one of the signs of that is that he has taken over the suppression of the Kurds which for so long was a military pastime.

Maybe not this year, yet. Then again, maybe president Trump will leave NATO before Turkey does.

The brief cease fire with the Kurds was not due to any sense of clemency by the AKP, it was due to the arrest of Ocalan (who coincidentally was carrying Greek and Cypriot passports - this embarrassment, as it happens, along with the earthquake, also in 1999, was what removed the main obstacle to Turkish membership in the EU - the Greek veto), the PKK leader. They simply thought the Kurdish threat had been neutralized. It was not any actual change in outlook towards the Kurds, nor certainly any sympathy for their plight. The subsequent rise of the HDP in the Turkish Parliament led to so immediate a return to hostility to make that quite clear. There was no real change here in policy regarding the Kurds, only temporary neglect. The more serious change, at least in my opinion, is the attack on laicite.