The Confederate Flag

[Thunderfoot]

As a white person, "honky" and "cracker" are funny terms to me. They don't register as insults to me, at all. They certainly don't register as being racial epithets with the weight of historical oppression behind them.

And historically, the N-word was just another racial epithet at one time - but over time.... Any racial epithet is just that - racial.

 

[MechaPilot]

And historically, the N-word was just another racial epithet at one time - but over time.... Any racial epithet is just that - racial.

Yeah, but someone using a racial insult against me doesn't bother me at all. It's equivalent to any of a dozen cuss words that roll right off my back. Of course, that's probably because American society hasn't systematically used those epithets to define me and demean the personhood of my race over the course of centuries.

Who uses a slur or says something offensive matters, especially if it becomes a part of everyday society for a long time.

 

[Kramodlog]

Once you have kidnapped him, in the eyes of most of your audience, you get no leniency in his resulting death. The kidnapping put him at risk, so it is the kidnapper's fault, period. Attempts to whitewash the event will tend to turn the audience more against you. If you want to appear reasonable to this crowd, you probably need to accept and own the wrongdoings, rather than try to diminish them.

I'm not trying to whitewash anything. We are just discussing events that happened a while back and for some weird reason I think discussing what actually happened matters. Silly me.

 

[Kramodlog]

Governments blow it out of proportion because the populace blows it out of proportion. The populace does so because it doesn't have the information to have a sense of proportion at the time. And, this is *intended* by the terrorists.

The US faced terrorism before 9/11. Homegrown, like Oklahoma, and Islamist, like when the Twin Towers were bombed in the 90s. Yet, terrorism didn't become a thing until 9/11. Is it the population or the mediatic coverage and the politicians who make it an issue?

 

[Kramodlog]

So, you kidnap someone, that person tries to escape and is killed, by you, in the process, and that's manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter?

In what way is this not murder? If I get hit by a bus while running from my kidnappers, they are still charged with murder. Once you kidnap someone, and that person dies, it's murder. Full stop.

Tell that to legislators who make these laws and judges andlawyers who use these distinctions in court.

Why in Canada a mother that kills her new born is charged with infanticide and not murder?

Infanticide

233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.

http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/233-infanticide

 

[Kramodlog]

But people acting as if the death of a politician who was kidnapped by terrorists is no big deal,

Who is that person that said that?

wasn't even really murder so much as an accident,

It is what happened. Sorry for carring about facts.

and the government whose politician was kidnapped was overreacting by reacting basically at all really bothers me.

The government hid what really happened during the trials. One of the kidnappers, Paul Rose, wasn't there when Laporte died, yet the government still tried him as if he was there. The government recorded conversations between the accused and their lawyers, which is unlawful. All these things do not change the crimes committed, but it does indicate that the rule of law was ignored. That bothers me. That 450 innocent people were arrested for no other reasons than their political ideas bothers me. That people here trivialize this behavior of the government, while accusing me of trivializing terrorism, is worrisome and that bothers me.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not trying to whitewash anything. We are just discussing events that happened a while back and for some weird reason I think discussing what actually happened matters. Silly me.

Statements to the effect of, "They didn't *really* murder him. They only kinda-sorta murdered him," is whitewashing. Trying to make it look better with a cheap and easy veneer for apparent cleanliness.

They kidnapped a guy. They killed him by "accidentally" strangling him in a struggle when he tried to escape? That's still killing him.

 

[Umbran]

The US faced terrorism before 9/11.

Yep.

Yet, terrorism didn't become a thing until 9/11.

This is not correct. Terrorism has been a thing in the USA for my entire life. It is just that 9/11 was the largest single terrorist event on our soil, so it got the largest response. But each terrorist attack and shooting is a thing, and there are discussions, and resulting actions - Oklahoma City led to our putting materials in explosives so they can be traced, for example.

But, more about our consciousness: There was, back in 1983, a TV movie that scared the bejebuss out of a younger me. It was called "". It was presented "War of the Worlds" style, as a series of fake news broadcasts. In the film, a bunch of terrorists bring a nuclear weapon into the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

Oh, hey. You can find it, in its entirely, on Youtube: [url]https://youtu.be/NKY-2zkWJuo

So, anyway, terrorism has been a thing to us for a long time. If it wasn't our own, it was elsewhere, and we worried about it - Ireland, the Middle East, wherever.

Is it the population or the mediatic coverage and the politicians who make it an issue?

All three. Human nature and response to fear combine poorly with how some segments of the media make money, and how politicians maintain themselves in power. If the populace actually used their heads, it wouldn't be an issue. If the media were not willing to use sensationalist techniques, the fear would die down. If fewer politicians weren't willing to play off our fears for their own personal power and benefit, the governmental reaction would remain sane.

There's more than enough blame to go around.

 

[Janx]

Yep.



This is not correct. Terrorism has been a thing in the USA for my entire life. It is just that 9/11 was the largest single terrorist event on our soil, so it got the largest response. But each terrorist attack and shooting is a thing, and there are discussions, and resulting actions - Oklahoma City led to our putting materials in explosives so they can be traced, for example.

But, more about our consciousness: There was, back in 1983, a TV movie that scared the bejebuss out of a younger me. It was called "". It was presented "War of the Worlds" style, as a series of fake news broadcasts. In the film, a bunch of terrorists bring a nuclear weapon into the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

Oh, hey. You can find it, in its entirely, on Youtube: [url]https://youtu.be/NKY-2zkWJuo

So, anyway, terrorism has been a thing to us for a long time. If it wasn't our own, it was elsewhere, and we worried about it - Ireland, the Middle East, wherever.



All three. Human nature and response to fear combine poorly with how some segments of the media make money, and how politicians maintain themselves in power. If the populace actually used their heads, it wouldn't be an issue. If the media were not willing to use sensationalist techniques, the fear would die down. If fewer politicians weren't willing to play off our fears for their own personal power and benefit, the governmental reaction would remain sane.

There's more than enough blame to go around.

Yup, I wrote a paper in college on the topic pre 9/11. It was a thing, which was why I wrote it.

And technically, since 9/11, the majority of terror attacks in the USA have been right-wing extremists.

As to the third point about fear, that is what the State of Fear book that I'm reading by Crighton is getting to its point. It's useful to keep folks worried about something. The crime rate has gone down since the 90s, yet folks think there's more crime than ever.

 

[Kramodlog]

They kidnapped a guy. They killed him by "accidentally" strangling him in a struggle when he tried to escape? That's still killing him.

Yup, but legally there are different types of killings.

Jacques Rose, one of the kidnappers, had to go through four trials before he was found guilty of something. And it wasn't murder.