Daily Show's Jon Stewart on Charleston shooting: 'This was a terrorist attack

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/daily-sh ... z3dVpwSSZ5

I agree that it is wrong to just say this guy is an isolated nutcase. He is just the most racist, crazy tip of an iceberg that goes deep into society. Without a lot of white people being angry about Obama's election and without the economic pressures brought on by income stratification you don't get this guy. And you don't get all of these shootings of unarmed black people by police. We can't be sure that this guy would have acted without those two factors (Obama's election, economic pressures), but we would be foolish to ignore likely underlying causes even if they can never be proven . I have no idea what the solution is...except do something about the gap of the haves and have nots. And as whites get used to some minority power over them-- and the world does not end--hopefully things will get better.

I believe the salient points he makes are:
1) the disparity of reaction between acts of terror by foreigners (2 wars, trillions sent, drones set loose, torture) and the quiet acceptance that when an American kills 8 - "what are gonna do?"

2) the continued acceptance of symbols of the Confederacy despite the fact that its existence was about the continuance of racially based slavery...

Worth a read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ow/396290/

I disagree. I think the causes are more immediate. That flag has been there a long time...

freeman3

I disagree. I think the causes are more immediate. That flag has been there a long time..

.

Yes, the flag has been there for a long time. I guess thats the point.
The flag is a symbol of racism and slavery. That it continues to be used to celebrate "heritage" is abhorrent.

Getting rid of its use in the public sphere would be a significant symbol of recognition and acceptance.
Something.

freeman3 wrote:I disagree. I think the causes are more immediate. That flag has been there a long time...

Since the Confederacy split from the USA in order to protect the slavery system, in fact.

The flag is not a proximate cause, but it is part of a culture of apologetics for the Confederacy and what it represents. It is used as a rallying point for actual racists, and an excuse for legitimising their views - especially when it is also used as a nostalgic symbol.

We have to ask ourselves, as we would if a young Arab man shot up a roomful of people and claimed to have done it because they hated infidels:

Was he radicalised? Were people feeding his hatred?

And yes, what the hell is going on when he can so easily get a gun and kill innocent people.

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I disagree. I think the causes are more immediate. That flag has been there a long time...

Since the Confederacy split from the USA in order to protect the slavery system, in fact.

The flag is not a proximate cause, but it is part of a culture of apologetics for the Confederacy and what it represents. It is used as a rallying point for actual racists, and an excuse for legitimising their views - especially when it is also used as a nostalgic symbol.

We have to ask ourselves, as we would if a young Arab man shot up a roomful of people and claimed to have done it because they hated infidels:

Was he radicalised? Were people feeding his hatred?

And yes, what the hell is going on when he can so easily get a gun and kill innocent people.

Concerning the Arab man... Would that be called terrorism?

Regarding the gun... Punish the parents severely if they provided a firearm to a felon (drug/trespassing charges).

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

freeman3 wrote:I disagree. I think the causes are more immediate. That flag has been there a long time...

Since the Confederacy split from the USA in order to protect the slavery system, in fact.

The flag is not a proximate cause, but it is part of a culture of apologetics for the Confederacy and what it represents. It is used as a rallying point for actual racists, and an excuse for legitimising their views - especially when it is also used as a nostalgic symbol.

We have to ask ourselves, as we would if a young Arab man shot up a roomful of people and claimed to have done it because they hated infidels:

Was he radicalised? Were people feeding his hatred?

And yes, what the hell is going on when he can so easily get a gun and kill innocent people.

Concerning the Arab man... Would that be called terrorism?

In most cases I think it would. Terrorism is largely about the motive, rather than the acts - the motive being to create terror ("to start a race war").

Regarding the gun... Punish the parents severely if they provided a firearm to a felon (drug/trespassing charges).

Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted is a really effective policy, I always find.

Why then, did Pres. Obama fail to call Maj. Hasan's attack on unarmed soldiers a terrorist attack?

Hasan was radicalized.
Hasan used religion as a motive.
Hasan killed MORE than this schmuck in South Carolina.

BOTH are terrorism. Failure to call them both what they are is problematic.

As for the parental culpability, as you saying we should do nothing to the parents because the "horse has bolted"? Perhaps you feel similarly to other crimes?

bbauska wrote:Why then, did Pres. Obama fail to call Maj. Hasan's attack on unarmed soldiers a terrorist attack?

Hasan was radicalized.
Hasan used religion as a motive.
Hasan killed MORE than this schmuck in South Carolina.

BOTH are terrorism. Failure to call them both what they are is problematic.

I am not President Obama. Ask him.

As for the parental culpability, as you saying we should do nothing to the parents because the "horse has bolted"? Perhaps you feel similarly to other crimes?

I'm saying that as the only suggestion you have made so far in terms of this tragedy, it's pretty inconsequential. What if the problem was not so much arming him, but giving him the hatred in the first place? You think that there could have been an parental culpability there?

Sure, prosecute them for supplying a weapon, but don't expect that to make any difference to the chances of any future massacre.

The question is whether this is solely a South Carolinian problem or whether there are broader forces in American society involved here. Or you can get really local like Brad and focus on the parents. If the issue is limited to South Carolina then taking out the flag may help. Or it may not help. My thinking is the issues run deeper than the continued use of Confederate symbols, however offensive to black people. Coincidentally, I just got a rental car from Enterprise and had a chat with a black woman who was from South Carolina. She had no southern accent at all. I bring that up just to indicate that influences are much more widespread than they used to be.

It is not a local problem.

It is a world-wide problem of evil in the world. Murder and mass murder happen all around the world.

It is not a gun problem. To say that it is disregards the killings in Sweden (summer camp - 69 dead), France (Hebdo - 11 people), England (12 dead in Cumbria), China (29 dead - rail station).

I want the mentally deranged man to be executed, just like I wand James Holmes to be executed. We do not need to re-hash gun control. The countries listed above all have gun control, but there have been mass killings regardless.

Evil is out there. Evil people use things besides guns to kill. Much better to curb evil when it manifests itself. Laws and regulations cannot stop violence. It is crystal clear that evil people continue to perform evil acts regardless of laws and regulations. We need to stop the people who are doing this.

What do the shooters at Sandy Hook, Colorado, and this schmuck have in common? Perhaps it is mental disorders?

Yes, this is horrible, and I cannot begin to imagine the pain of the families. To politicize this is not right. Call it what it is.

Pure evil, and it does not deserve a possibility of absolution from anyone but his Lord, if he chooses to get it. It is not the responsibility of humanity to absolve him.

freeman3

If the issue is limited to South Carolina then taking out the flag may help. Or it may not help. My thinking is the issues run deeper than the continued use of Confederate symbols, however offensive to black people.

Symbols are very important.Eliminating a symbol doesn't eliminate the short term problem of instilled racism. However over time, eliminating the symbol is a step to changing an instilled attitude. Tolerance of symbols of racism subtlely indicate that the attitudes are acceptable. even if they have to be mostly private in expression.

One thing Brad and I agree on (I think) is the absurdity of people forgiving this guy for his (for want of a better word) evil acts. Why has this notion evolved that we are required to forgive someone for their acts no matter how depraved? Does Christianity really require this? I thought that such an absolution was between a person and God--am I wrong? I saw a member of one of the victim's families say that they forgive him...I suppose it is a good thing to let go of anger at some point so that a person can move on but forgiveness? I find that to be a bit much.

I'm not sure what difference it makes whether we choose to call this an act of terrorism or not really. I must say my instinctive answer to the question is no, it isn't terrorism. The term isn't clearly defined so I guess it could be, but this feels a little different to me. Not all hate crimes are terrorist attacks. Ultimately it doesn't matter though.