Question About Republicans and Racism.

Post Reply New Topic

It may be correct (although frankly it's an extremely cynical view of the Democratic Party and quite a cynical one of the Republican Party), except for the first word. There's no "because", this post is not an answer to the question posed in the OP. This act of violent racism quite clearly did break the law, which is why the perpetrator is looking at life in prison.

On an unrelated note, it's OK to be in favour of a "laissez-faire" view of free speech. However, you can't then throw your arms up in the air and wail when unpopular speech dies on the free market and people who express unpopular opinions find themselves in some kind of pickle as a direct result of the policy you advocate for. If you want people to be able to express repugnant views without fear of reprisal, you'd probably need to ban criticism of repugnant views or discrimination against those who express them, which is obviously incompatible with a "laissez-faire" approach to speech.

I know there are many people who genuinely support "laissez-faire" free speech exactly because it causes harmful opinions to be scrutinised and die, but you also get plenty of people saying "who cares if he said [ridiculous hateful thing], he has a right to freedom of speech and everyone who criticises him should shut up!! !". That's an inherently contradictory policy.

Just because it's not an answer you accept does not make it any less of an answer. Why is cynicism wong in this case? You've not provided an alternative.

This was not an act of violent racism, it was an act of violence by a racist. Violence does not become more or less severe if you add or subtract a racial element.



Pardon? You're going to have to clear a number of things up here. First of all, what do you mean to imply by "throw your arms in the air and wail"? If unpopular speech has died, how can it be expressed? What exactly do you mean by "reprisal", and reprisal by whom? Why would criticism of unpopular speech need to be banned?



The latter is not supportive of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. You seem to be arguing against freedom of speech on the grounds that some people are hypocrites. I consider this to be illogical.

I cannot believe you would blame drugs for Dylann Roof's bigotry and hatred. There are plenty of people who are addicted to various substances who are not full of hatred and bigotry. You are trying to say everyone on drugs is destined to act like him well, he is the exception. You want to dismiss him as a "drug addled lunatic" when he is just a hateful racist. It is what it is. Hateful with the drugs. Hateful without the drugs.

You are painting drug addicts with a broad stroke!

Well then don't, because I didn't.



Please point out the specific part of my post where I claimed otherwise.



How about you address what I actually said, rather than telling me what I tried to say. I have little patience for the large percentage of posters here who waste time on strawman BS. Here's some advice, for you and for everyone else. I say what I mean, no more and no less. If you believe you are more capable of knowing my mind than I am, you're probably a bigot.



Not content with telling me what I meant to say, now you wish to claim that you're an authority on my desires too.



You're spinning nonsense out of whole cloth and adopting a stance of indignation against a strawman. If you don't respect my posts sufficiently to address them honestly, don't bother addressing them at all. We'll both be the happier for it.

You called Dylann Roof a drug addled lunatic and implied he acted the way he did because of that and while there is evidence he might take opiates when it's just as plausible he started talking to people with these views on the internet and was influenced by them. Has nothing to do with drugs or insanity and everything to do with being impressionable and a weak moral center.

There is no reason to make any assumption, the fact is that nobody knows what was going thru Dylann Roof's mind except Dylann Roof so all we can do is just speculate. Hopefully, since he was actually caught alive, we'll be able to get some answers to these questions.

I called him a drug addled lunatic, you've invented the rest yourself. My sole implication is that he's a drug addled lunatic. Once again, I remind you that I know my own intent whereas you cannot. Whatever fantasy you infer from my post comes from your mind, not mine.

Oh but we do know because he left a paper trail of thought so we do. We cannot pretend to be ignorant because he left clear indications of what he believed and we can read them now, unless they have been removed and even then the press still has parts of them we can read online. Pictures are worth a thousand words and Dylann Roof left a storm of them online, depicting himself burning the US flag, praising the Confederate flag with his handgun in one hand, it in another. Other pictures show him pointing his gun at the camera. One is of him in front of a museum devoted to the Confederacy.

He left nothing secret about his affiliations or beliefs. All of it is protected by the first amendment btw, until he crosses the line into committing criminal acts.

The portrait these guys paint is seldom accurate, it's an idealized version of themselves that they use to lay claim to something they feel is owed to them. We know what he wants us to know about him at this time, that's the point of a manifesto and posing for pictures. I think things probably aren't that simple, there is probably more to the story. Seems odd that such a fanatical racist would have black friends and that these beliefs manifested themselves only in the last couple years. It feels like some people actually want it to be worst possible racist crime. I mean I guess some people might think that is advantageous to their political agenda, that it scores them some points, but I think it's pretty cynical and distasteful.

His manifesto seemed pretty clear and thought out in its beliefs, I wouldn't say he sounded intelligent but I don't believe he is raving lunatic like Jared Loughner or Eliot Roger to a lesser degree. 'But 21 is also around the time that schizophrenia becomes apparent, we do not really know what his mind state was like.

Him taking suboxone is interesting to me, I use to have a friend that dabbled in that unfortunately. That dabbling eventually turned into a full fledge heroin addiction, it's pretty messed up since suboxone is what you're suppose to take to get off heroin. He was arrested just a few months ago on possession charges for cocaine, crystal meth, and LSD so his drug use and how he was dealing with his legal situation is very relevant. Dropped out in the 9th grade? What has he been doing for the last 7 or so years?

The question is "why do some people pretend that the Charleston shootings were not racist?"

AspieUtah's answer was "because some people don't think it's racist unless it breaks the law".

The Charleston shootings broke the law.

Ergo.

And your second paragraph again seems unrelated to anything I have said. Racially-motivated violence is violent racism; you might not think that violence is worse when it is racist, but presumably you can agree that racism is worse when it is violent.

By "throw your arms up in the air and wail", I am referring to people bemoaning criticism of speech on the grounds that "freedom of speech" exists, using "freedom of speech" as a justification for saying any rubbish they want.

"Dies" was clearly somewhat metaphorical. The Communist Party of America could probably be fairly said to have "died" because it has few or no elected public officials. Similarly, pro-Stalin views are "dead" in America because the vast majority will rightly denounce him and his sympathisers. That doesn't mean there are no members of the Communist Party or no Stalin sympathisers (and before anyone objects, I'm not conflating the two), they simply have no mainstream traction - if anything, the opposite.

"Reprisal" - non-violent, legal actions, specifically things beyond simply expressing disagreement, taken by private individuals or organisations. Boycotts, petitioning sponsors, pressuring employers (or potential employers), voting them out of elected office, taking action to trigger a resignation, publicly shaming... I don't consider all of these to be ethical courses of action in all situations, but they are actions that are often taken against people who make unpopular speech.

In order for unpopular opinions to be expressed freely, you would need to remove the disincentives for expressing unpopular opinions, such as potential public shaming, loss of employment, boycotts, and so forth. If anyone has ever looked at hate sites like Stormfront or some subreddits, you'll see people posting a wide variety of horrific opinions with the veil of anonymity and protection from moderators. By offering people the same protection in public life, more unpopular opinions could be expressed.

I can't help but feel it is inappropriate to examine this paragraph without the following one. I am specifically referring to the "racist opinions are protected under free speech, so if you don't like it then shut up" crowd of hypocrites.


The latter is not supportive of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. You seem to be arguing against freedom of speech on the grounds that some people are hypocrites. I consider this to be illogical.[/quote]
I'm not arguing against freedom of speech.

He was a racist who was largely influenced by White Nationalists. You can tell because he parrots their ideology.

To deny or minimize the association raises some doubts about character. But even Republicans now have no choice but to admit it.

It's irresponsible to simply paint him as a single bad person when so many people actually AGREE with him. They might not agree that killing is right but they still agree with everything else he says.

This doesn't make any sense. He was racist against blacks and killed black people violently. How is that not violent racism? You're misunderstanding the phrase "violent racism." The word "violent" is being used to describe the quality of the racism, not the severity of violence.

Also, your reference to the killer's drug use was confusing. If you don't believe it was the/a cause, why mention it?

The inevitable trial will focus largely on the actions of the accused, not his speech, written or verbal, unless it is relevant to prove motive and premeditation. But, watch for others including any defense lawyers to argue that his speech cuts both ways what with his black friends who have already stated that he never spoke with them as he apparently did with his white friends. Any admitted or tested drug use will make it easier for the defense to argue the influence of such use (legal and illegal) as a mitigating factor to show that he enjoyed a diminished capacity to conclude right from wrong at the moment of his alleged acts. Now, little of this changes what appears to be conclusive evidence: that he was witnessed committing murders. So, I suspect that the trial will focus largely on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, not guilt.

It's wrong to paint him as a single bad person as opposed to what? Do you believe there was a conspiracy here, that he was getting assistance from someone else? I want to understand why this happen without regard to scoring points for a political agenda. The fact that some people agree with some things he said doesn't mean anything, what he said without the violent act attached to it is just stupidity and stupidity isn't against the law. By most accounts, Roof was a troubled isolated young man and even in his manifesto one of the repeating themes was his critique of other white nationalists and white people in general so I get that he didn't feel at home any where. This is just me trying to understand why this happened like everyone else.

Right. I'm just not really seeing a line of argument that fits with the discussion.

Ana said "why are some people denying that this is racist?"

You said "some people don't think it is racist unless it breaks the law" (slightly strange position as racist speech is not illegal in the US)

The issue is not his speech so much as his actions, the murders. As murder is illegal, his actions clearly broke the law - so, following from your statement, it is possible his actions were racist.

I had a similar reaction when I first heard of the news but then I took a look myself at some online hate groups and was rather "enlightened" by some of the comments I was reading. Over and over and over again, people agreeing with his words but condemning his actions (they get to claim the moral high ground while simultaneously "understanding" why he did what he did).

I'm not explaining this well, just take a look for yourself.

Just as one example, read the article here and THEN read the comments.
http://conservative-headlines.com/2015/ ... e-killing/