Racially motivated shootings in South Carolina Church

[River]

Excerpts from this. I am not sure that the loveliest of the lowlights are available in the Amazon preview; I first encountered this particular parenting horror show through a different venue. However, the authors advocate taking a switch to babies and they do it in a tone that suggests it's somehow for the babies' own good. Yep, that's right. A how-to manual for child abuse, complete with justifications that they pin on various Bible verses.

Back to the thread. I'm getting the feeling that this Roof guy was a somewhat lost young man who got radicalized by a movement. He's not the first and he's not the last. He went for radical racism. Others find other outlets. I'm not sure where to go from here. That such an outlet exists says something about our society.

[tinwë]

Just thought it was worth saying, as I've seen it said a few times now and it's not something that would have occurred to me but - yes, it is reasonable and accurate to call this shooter a domestic terrorist.

That's a fair assessment, but I think the term "terrorist" has lost a lot of its meaning over the last 15 years. Why can't we just call this person what he is? A hate-filled racist with a gun and absolutely no moral conscience whatsoever.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Excerpts from this. I am not sure that the loveliest of the lowlights are available in the Amazon preview; I first encountered this particular parenting horror show through a different venue. However, the authors advocate taking a switch to babies and they do it in a tone that suggests it's somehow for the babies' own good. Yep, that's right. A how-to manual for child abuse, complete with justifications that they pin on various Bible verses.

That is pretty sickening. Even more so, that there are hundreds of people that gave it five stars at Amazon.

Back to the thread. I'm getting the feeling that this Roof guy was a somewhat lost young man who got radicalized by a movement. He's not the first and he's not the last. He went for radical racism. Others find other outlets. I'm not sure where to go from here. That such an outlet exists says something about our society.

That ties back in to what yov said before, and why ultimately I agree with him that this could be considered domestic terrorism. I don't see much difference between the way Roof was radicalized and the way so many Islamic terrorists are radicalized. Nor do I see any significant difference in their respective goals. I do, however, see a big difference in how he is discussed by certain elements of the media and certain politicians.

Cross-posted with tinwë.

[yovargas]

I am glad to see this:

Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney call for removal of Confederate flag from S.C. Capitol

[Túrin Turambar]

Just thought it was worth saying, as I've seen it said a few times now and it's not something that would have occurred to me but - yes, it is reasonable and accurate to call this shooter a domestic terrorist.

That's a fair assessment, but I think the term "terrorist" has lost a lot of its meaning over the last 15 years. Why can't we just call this person what he is? A hate-filled racist with a gun and absolutely no moral conscience whatsoever.

I think it is fair to acknowledge when an act of hate-filled violence has some sort of ideology driving it and some sort of political or social aim. I don't think that it is 'better' to kill random people for no reason than for an ideological one, but when it does it has an extra dimension to it that is worth addressing.

I am glad to see this:

Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney call for removal of Confederate flag from S.C. Capitol

Personally, I've never seen why the flag of an armed insurrection against the U.S. Government with the intention of creating an oppressive authoritarian breakaway state should be given any official recognition at all. I think that is quite OK for it to appear at historical sites and the like, or for private individuals to use it should they wish, but I don't see why it should still fly from working government buildings.

[Lalaith]

Excerpts from this. I am not sure that the loveliest of the lowlights are available in the Amazon preview; I first encountered this particular parenting horror show through a different venue. However, the authors advocate taking a switch to babies and they do it in a tone that suggests it's somehow for the babies' own good. Yep, that's right. A how-to manual for child abuse, complete with justifications that they pin on various Bible verses.

Oh, you mean the book they used to give away for free in everyone's goodie bag at the homeschool convention I used to attend every year?

[JewelSong]

Lali, for real? What a disgusting book.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I am glad to see this:

Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney call for removal of Confederate flag from S.C. Capitol

Romney, to his credit, called for the removal of the flag as early as his first run for president in 2008. Jeb Bush, too, has previously called for the flag's removal. Others of the GOP presidential contenders have been less willing to take a firm stand. Ted Cruz said it should be left to South Carolina, and that "outsiders" should not dictate what they did. Rick Perry refused to even acknowledge that this was racially-based crime, and referred to it as an "accident", preferring to instead condemn President Obama for "politicizing" the tragedy.

[yovargas]

Rick Perry refused to even acknowledge that this was racially-based crime, and referred to it as an "accident", preferring to instead condemn President Obama for "politicizing" the tragedy.

Had to look that one up. In context it feels like a simple slip of the tongue (again, live, unscripted conversations, nobody makes perfect word usage) and he also called it "a crime of hate" so IMO he gets a pass on this one. Still feels pretty scummy to use it as both an opportunity to take digs at Obama and to make a couple campaigning points:



ETA - elsewhere, he apparently said:

“I think a governor’s job should be one to bring people together, not to divide them, and I think the Confederate battle flag is clearly one of those that divides people.”

[Inanna]

Gross, Lali... Really?


---------------
Please bear with my typos & grammar mistakes. Sent from my iPhone - Palantirs make mistakes too.

[Sunsilver]

What really raised the hair on the back of my neck was when he referred to the "Jewish problem" in his manifesto Yup, the exact words the Nazis used!

So, apparently he was 'radicalized' by reading about black-on-white violence and killings on the internet. No doubt these websites were run by white supremacists.

Apparently, it never crossed his mind to search out white-on-black crime. Maybe a few graphic photos of lynchings might have changed his mind?

Gahhh...

I also saw on the net that some people are claiming the Confederate flag has NOTHING to do with racism. Okay, the design supposedly just represents the 13 original states of the U.S. But the Confederacy it represents not being racist? How blind and dumb do you have to be to try to defend that flag??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

http://www.thetattooedprof.com/

[Primula Baggins]

On another note, this morning our pastoral intern gave the sermon and talked about seeing the service this morning (on cable) from the church where the shootings occurred. And they sang "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," which is deeply important to Lutherans (Luther wrote it). The verse she read out (with a shaking voice) was,

God's Word forever shall abide,
No thanks to foes who fear it.
For God Himself fights by our side
With weapons of the Spirit.
Were they to take our house—
Goods, honor, child, or spouse—
Though life be wrenched away,
They cannot win the day.
The Kingdom's ours forever.

The nine who died were people of God. They died in their church, in what they thought was safety, studying the word of God. But, as someone in the church service in Charleston said, the Devil came in.

What Roof did can't hurt them any more. But it hurts us, and it should stir us to action—even if we don't believe in or care about God. These were ordinary people, living their peaceful lives, and they were killed by pure racial hatred. There is no other way to describe it.

[Griffon64]

I am so sick of racial hatred and so at a loss for how it could be eradicated in my lifetime. I don't think anybody alive has the answer or we would have made some progress already. ( That, or humanity is doomed. )

I grew up in a deeply, terribly racist culture. I did not see its extent until I was clear of it. And here's the kicker - I became clear of it by moving to the absolute tip of the butt for progressive jokes: backwards, conservative, mean old ... Bakersfield. What a disturbing thought.

You guys. People are terrible. We shut ourselves in enclaves of like thought and we reject any pollination from outside our preferred discourse and thought patterns. This is how we become evil.

We gotta stop this.

[Sunsilver]

One prominent black person (I forget who, and don't have time to look it up) said the problem is not guns, it is that we don't value human life enough.

Well, there is obviously a lot of truth in that. But when things get out of control and emotions reach the boiling point, how many lives would be saved if a gun was not ready at hand for someone to grab?

[Lalaith]

Jewel and Inanna, yes. I read the book back in my jean skirt days. Thankfully, I thought it was total garbage and just awful. The only useful thing I gleaned from that book was in an anecdote about one of her kids getting stung by wasps. She put common plantain weed on the stings till she could get the child to the hospital. I have since used plantain on many stings, bites, bruises, etc. It does work very well.

Otherwise, the book is child abuse, and, sadly, many children have died as a result of the teachings of this couple.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I wanted to correct one thing that I wrote earlier in this thread. It had been reported (and I repeated) that Roof's uncle said that Roof's father gave him a gun for his 21st birthday. However, the father has stated that this is not true, and that Roof bought the gun himself. Why the uncle thought it was given to Roof by Roof's father (the uncle's brother, I believe), I do not know. Reportedly, he bought it in April (one report says that it was at a Charleston-area gun shop, another says it was near Columbia). If that is true, than the purchase was made after he was arrested on drug charges, which resulted when the police were called after he was asking suspicious questions at a store in a mall. Yet existing laws do not provide any regulations that would have prevented him from purchasing a gun. At the risk of being seen as "politicizing" this tragedy, that is nothing short of insane. What is even more insane is that any attempt to point out this fact is condemned as an attempt to take away all guns from anyone.

[yovargas]

(Apparently the site & graph below are BS so please disregard.)

I was curious what the drug was. Apparently it's something called Suboxone. According to a site that popped up on google (http://www.infowars.com/suboxone-the-ps ... -shooting/) here are known side effects of that drug:



Yeah. I'm pretty comfortable saying a person caught with this substance shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun.

[Faramond]

I don't really understand the context of the chart I'm looking at. It shows about 15000 cases of violent side-affects from this drug, out of how many patients taking it? Over what time frame?

***********************

Voronwë, what restriction are you advocating, exactly? That someone arrested on certain charges not be allowed to purchase a firearm? I can't quite tell from your post.

[yovargas]

Yeah, I wondered that too. It's a crappy chart. I'll assume they're not just making stuff up but it may be total BS. (Some brief searching of the FDA's site didn't turn up anything.)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Voronwë, what restriction are you advocating, exactly? That someone arrested on certain charges not be allowed to purchase a firearm? I can't quite tell from your post.

I can't say that I have an exact regulation in mind, because I don't have the necessary expertise. Perhaps I am being naïve, but ideally a regulation providing for background checks that would be sufficiently narrowly tailored to prevent someone who obviously is disturbed from obtaining a dangerous firearm without unduly infringing on citizen's constitutional right to bear arms.* I would think that any arrest for a narcotic would be enough to raise flags, regardless of the specific accuracy of the chart that yov posted regarding Suboxone. When the suspicious circumstances of the arrest are taken into account, I would think that that should be sufficient to suggest that this is someone that should not own a firearm. Surely a regulation on background checks could be devised that would prevent a sale under these circumstances without preventing law-abiding citizens to obtain a gun if they wish to.






* I don't agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the second amendment in Heller, but I accept it as the final word on the subject, unless and until the Supreme Court reverses it or a constitutional amendment is passed, neither of which I expect to happen.