An update, the shooter is apparently claiming that he went to protest the Milo event as well,
We may have a problem of definition. Here is mine for the alt right:
1. Christian fundamentalist
2. Low iq
3. Openly and proudly racist and anti-semitic
4. Conspiracy theorists
5. A notable lack of morality/empathy toward people not associated with their group
6. Incapable of critical/rational thought
You must admit that is a nice base from which terrorists could arise.
If you disagree with my definition, please give me yours for the alt-right. Take note that I formed this opinion from posts by alt-righters on youtube videos. There are some pretty toxic thoughts expressed there.
Also note that law enforcement itself has expressed that right wing terrorism is the biggest threat. This is not my assertion, it is THEIR assertion. You assert that left wing terrorism is just as significant. Can you back that up?
By those standards the Klan never actually lynched that many people either. Doing heck of job here protecting your own.
Citation, please.I think we're in agreement. My opinion is just that if Milo goes around telling people to fight each other (which he does), then he and his supporters shouldn't feign surprise when people actually start fighting each other.
and yet time and time again we see the left destroy cities with riots.
Pretty amazing that the police did not hold nor charge him for the shooting.
I suppose the only thing bothering me about the case of self defense is we (the public) expect shooters to prove their innocence.
And without knowing all the facts and eyewitness accounts, it leaves an uncomfortable feeling.
I imagine it's a matter of time before a prosecutor looks to move on this. Time to build a case, yes? Unless there isn't one...
And OP, your edit to the title appears to be wrong via your own source.
"Proving innocence" is antithetical to how our system works.
Proving innocence- You do not want to start along that road.
Did you really think Zimmerman did not have to prove his innocence? Of course he did.
Innocence til proven guilty is flipped on its head for people who do not dispute being a shooter, or acting / killing in self defense.
Self defense places a burden on the actor.
I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm saying that's our system as it is. Do you disagree?
According to this http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/uw-shooting/, the shooter is a Yiannopoulos supporter.
"The man’s Facebook page indicates he is a supporter of Trump, Yiannopoulos and the National Rifle Association."
Did you really think Zimmerman did not have to prove his innocence? Of course he did.
Innocence til proven guilty is flipped on its head for people who do not dispute being a shooter, or acting / killing in self defense.
Self defense places a burden on the actor.
Lol dummy that was the point. Measuring by a few specific things hides the broader picture. You have to consider far more than his point and the article posted. You are correct the KKK was far more than lynching. Why you thought to bring that up is weird because you agree with me, but you are acting as if you don't.
But, your point that the alt right is considered a bigger threat falls flat when you break it down. There are far more "alt-right" people in this country.
Right, because the alt-right is full of people that have literally stuck people into gas chambers.
Well, I think the alt-right has the same problem as BLM, and modern feminism. The term was applied, but the group does not have a clearly defined position.
Take Milo. He is Catholic, but not fundamentalist. Seems to be at least average if not above IQ (hard to tell with brits), not openly racist, does not seem anti-semitic ect. I would imagine he would be considered alt-right still, but he does not conform to many of your standards. It would be unfair to say you are wrong just based on that though, as we both agree there is an alt-right.
If you consider alt-right to be a pro-white religious sect of the right, then your argument fits. I think the problem with the term is that it also gets applied to people that are against "sjw". There does not seem to be an underlying theme in how the term is used, so anyone that is considered to be on the right can also be labeled as alt-right in different ways.
In your definition, those are things that I would agree would breed crazies. #1 alone is a huge factor in that context. I think what I disagree with is how the article framed the situation by comparing alt-right to Islamic terrorism as explained before. The context of "bigger" largely due to the fact that there are far more relative to population. Also consider that MLK Jr. was considered to be a large threat.
I think comparing the alt-right to the Nazis and putting people into gas chambers is very hyperbolic. Even if you are arguing that they appear to be on similar paths, the vast distance of racial nationalism to gassing Jews is so large that it strips away major parts that the Nazis represented.
Is there any point to pretending that you'll ever understand anything?:
"By those standards the Klan never actually lynched that many people either. Doing heck of job here protecting your own."
To make the point beyond obvious, there have literally been far more brown genocide types on this forum than any sjw's, not far off the alt-right count; but hey conservatives, don't take your eyes off the prize least it might not be blind to them.
That would mean that the actions by total members is far lower in the far right group. That would then mean that your chances of something happening per individual encounter is far lower when compared to Islamic terrorism. The basis of your argument is in agreement with mine, but you cant pull your head out of your ass to see it.
Judging the KKK by a single metric is just as misguided as judging Islamic terrorism and far right extremists by a single and or a few metrics. Neither is going to capture a reasonable picture.
Even if your argument is that there are more of those types of people on here, it still does not changed that there has not been brown genocide done. Advocating for genocide would be bad, but doing genocide is worse.
It's quite amusing to watch someone who has yet to understand anything anyone's ever argued pretend to be the exact opposite. It's pretty obvious the point is that the effect of white nationalist racism extends far beyond terrorist body counts, given minorities have successfully been kept in their place without one--not that you'll ever rub that brain cell hard enough to start grasping what's being said.
Good, so you agree that the article linked does not support the claim, which may or may not be true. Got it.
The point has little to do with the article but rather your reply. This is why you have the rep you do.
You mean my point? Do you not remember responding to my point that the argument being made in the article falls flat?