http://news.yahoo.com/self-proclaimed-atheist-charged-in-slayings-of-north-carolina-muslim-students-204302578.html
QuoteThe middle-aged white man charged with fatally shooting three young Muslim students near the University of North Carolina is a self-proclaimed atheist whose Facebook page is full of rants.
"There's nothing complicated about it, and I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge, and to condemn me as an inadequate human being — which your religion does with self-righteous gusto," the suspect, Craig Stephen Hicks, wrote on Facebook, without calling out any specific religious doctrine.
He added: "... the moment that your religion claims any kind of jurisdiction over my experience, you insult me on a level that you can't even begin to comprehend."
For now, Chapel Hill police say they are still investigating and have no evidence of a hate crime. Instead, they believe Tuesday's killings were sparked by a long-standing dispute over parking spaces at the condominium complex where Hicks and two of the three victims, Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, and his wife Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21, were neighbors. Abu-Salha's sister, Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, was also slain.
But Dr. Mohammad Abu-Salha, the women's father, said Yusor told family members last week that she had "a hateful neighbor" who didn't like their religion and culture. According to the Raleigh News & Observer, Dr. Abu-Salha, a local psychiatrist, said police told him Hicks shot the three inside their apartment.
"It was execution style, a bullet in every head," the father told the newspaper Wednesday. "This was not a dispute over a parking space; this was a hate crime. This man had picked on my daughter and her husband a couple of times before, and he talked with them with his gun in his belt. And they were uncomfortable with him, but they did not know he would go this far."
Last month, Hicks, 46, posted a photo of a holstered gun sitting on a kitchen scale.
"Yes, that is 1 pound 5.1 ounces for my loaded 38 revolver, its holster, and five extra rounds in a speedloader," Hicks wrote with the photo.
Barakat and Yusor Abu-Salha, who were married Dec. 27, lived in the unit next door to Hicks and his wife. The father said his daughter wore a traditional wore a Muslim headscarf.
"Honest to God, she said, 'He hates us for what we are and how we look,'" Dr. Abu-Salha told the News & Observer.
On Wednesday afternoon, Karen Hicks told reporters that her husband didn't act out of bigotry.
"I can say that it is my absolute belief that this incident had nothing up do with religion or the victims' faith, but in fact was related to long-standing parking disputes my husband had with various neighbors regardless of their race, religion or creed," Karen Hicks said.
Imad Ahmad, 24, was Barakat's roommate for more than a year before the slain couple got married. He told the AP that Hicks would knock on their door about once a month to complain that they were parking in one of the spaces designated for visitors.
"He would come over to the door. Knock on the door and then have a gun on his hip, saying you guys need to not park here," said Ahmad, recalling that Hicks carried the handgun in a holster.
An attorney for Karen Hicks, Michele English, said Craig Hicks had a concealed-weapons permit.
In Facebook posts, Hicks' anti-religious views appeared to target all faiths. Two days before the shootings, he shared a post titled, "Why are radical Christians and radical Muslims so opposed to each others' influence when they agree about so many ideological issues?"
Hicks, a paralegal studies student at Durham County Technical College since 2012, also wrote on Facebook that he doesn't care for political parties, only constitutional rights.
"Some call me a gun-toting Liberal, others call me an open-minded Conservative," he posted.
His interests on Facebook seem to run the gamut from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender causes to Second Amendment rights and sports humor. A day before the shooting, he shared a funny puppy video on his timeline.
"I don't fall into any category, as I do not follow any decision blindly for a group," Hicks wrote about himself.
The Southern Poverty Law Center, a national civil rights organization, told Yahoo News that Hicks is not in its database of known extremists. According to his Facebook page, Hicks is a fan of the Alabama-based hate watchdog group.
According to public records, Hicks has no previous criminal history. On Wednesday, a judge ordered him held without bail on three counts of first-degree murder. A probable cause hearing is scheduled for March 4. Police say Hicks is cooperating with investigators.
Meanwhile, in a message to residents, the mayor of Chapel Hill tried to calm fears and reassure the community after the deaths.
"The Chapel Hill Police Department is using all available resources to determine whether hate was a motivating factor," Mark Kleinschmidt said in a statement. "All we know for certain at this time is that it was a senseless and tragic act surrounding a longstanding dispute.
"I share strong feelings of outrage and shock with my fellow citizens and University students — as well as concerned people everywhere. We do not know whether anti-Muslim bias played a role in this crime, but I do recognize the fear that members of our community may feel. Chapel Hill is a place for everyone, a place where Muslim lives matter."
Alrighty then.
:hmm: Nah, that's silly, he lives in Rochester.
Car driver kills other car drivers, no surprise there, nothing to see, please move along.
Quote from: mongers on February 11, 2015, 09:46:12 PM
Car driver kills other car drivers, no surprise there, nothing to see, please move along.
wtf?
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 09:56:32 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 11, 2015, 09:46:12 PM
Car driver kills other car drivers, no surprise there, nothing to see, please move along.
wtf?
I think mongers fell off his bike one too many times
Quote from: garbon on February 11, 2015, 09:56:32 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 11, 2015, 09:46:12 PM
Car driver kills other car drivers, no surprise there, nothing to see, please move along.
wtf?
lol : mongersd.
Man the FBI has got to keep an eye on all these angry white dudes. The carnage just keeps piling up.
:berkut:
His wife said it was motivated by religion but by parking disputes.
Is there an alternative way of being an Atheist other than it being self-proclaimed? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 03:22:47 AM
His wife said it was motivated by religion but by parking disputes.
Yeah, if it's a hate crime the penalty would likely be higher, and the chances of NGRM verdict goes out the window.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on February 12, 2015, 03:47:26 AM
Is there an alternative way of being an Atheist other than it being self-proclaimed? :huh:
Not believing in a religion.
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 03:22:47 AM
His wife said it was motivated by religion but by parking disputes.
He is heterosexual too then. But not self-proclaimed, no sir, we had to deduce that from his marriage.............what an underhand bastard.
I hope that the heterosexual and atheist communities come forth and denounce this man.
I'm trying to see what your point is, but I can't quite grasp it.
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2015, 04:30:56 AM
I'm trying to see what your point is, but I can't quite grasp it.
RH is mocking those who demand that moderate Moslems have to speak up and denounce every act of terror by radical Moslems.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on February 12, 2015, 03:47:26 AM
Is there an alternative way of being an Atheist other than it being self-proclaimed? :huh:
I think there is an exam involved. Have to go to classes.
Maybe self proclaimed is code for Viking brand atheism?
Quote from: HVC on February 12, 2015, 08:34:30 AM
Maybe self proclaimed is code for Viking brand atheism?
The word for that is "militant".
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on February 12, 2015, 03:47:26 AM
Is there an alternative way of being an Atheist other than it being self-proclaimed? :huh:
Being proclaimed an atheist by God would sort of spoil the notion. :(
Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2015, 08:56:21 AM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on February 12, 2015, 03:47:26 AM
Is there an alternative way of being an Atheist other than it being self-proclaimed? :huh:
Being proclaimed an atheist by God would sort of spoil the notion. :(
I have a God-given right to Atheism!
I'm surprised nobody is tackling this from the Chapel Hill angle, what with the recent death of Dean Smith. I wonder if the media can get Jordan to comment.
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
On a different note, I like the wife noting that he is not hateful, it was a parking dispute. Because clearly it isn't hatefulness that drives you to murder 3 people over a parking spot.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:51:14 AM
On a different note, I like the wife noting that he is not hateful, it was a parking dispute. Because clearly it isn't hatefulness that drives you to murder 3 people over a parking spot.
Indeed. Though probably the legal result of having hate crime legislation where shooting people in the head is less bad if done over a parking spot. Though with a crime this severe I cannot imagine it matters much either way.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:51:14 AM
On a different note, I like the wife noting that he is not hateful, it was a parking dispute. Because clearly it isn't hatefulness that drives you to murder 3 people over a parking spot.
Well, apparently you are better off being a cold blooded murderer rather than committing a hate crime.
The hate crime legislation makes more sense with regard to lesser offences, eg screaming "f**** Muslims!" at people during a dispute over a parking space, I think most would agree this is worse than people simply squabbling with raised voices. Such a scenario is also far more common than a triple murder as well of course. In the case of this particular crime, the triple murder is heinous enough in itself, unless he is a member of an organised anti-religious hate group I can't get excited about the killer's atheism.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
Dunno, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with people believing in the fantasies of their choice, as long as they don't force their fantasies upon others.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2015, 10:14:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
Dunno, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with people believing in the fantasies of their choice, as long as they don't force their fantasies upon others.
May God have mercy on your soul. :(
Burn all Dawkins books.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2015, 10:14:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
Dunno, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with people believing in the fantasies of their choice, as long as they don't force their fantasies upon others.
All people who are anti-religious may well be atheists. BUT
Not all atheists are anti-religious.
Self proclaimed atheists are the worst.
I am glad I was proclaimed by my pastor instead.
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2015, 10:14:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
Dunno, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with people believing in the fantasies of their choice, as long as they don't force their fantasies upon others.
And there are many Muslims who don't go around slaughtering people.
It's only a matter of time & location.
Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 10:20:10 AM
Self proclaimed atheists are the worst.
I am glad I was proclaimed by my pastor instead.
They held an unconfirmation. And no-one showed up. ;)
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 12, 2015, 10:04:14 AM
The hate crime legislation makes more sense with regard to lesser offences, eg screaming "f**** Muslims!" at people during a dispute over a parking space, I think most would agree this is worse than people simply squabbling with raised voices. Such a scenario is also far more common than a triple murder as well of course. In the case of this particular crime, the triple murder is heinous enough in itself, unless he is a member of an organised anti-religious hate group I can't get excited about the killer's atheism.
Hate crime legislation almost never makes sense to me. I don't consider slurs during an argument to be something that should rise to the level of a crime, and if used while committing some other offense shouldn't make that offense worse. Pretty much the only speech in that type of situation that would be worthy of concern would be threats of physical violence.
Prosecute people for their actions, not for hating.
Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 10:38:26 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on February 12, 2015, 10:04:14 AM
The hate crime legislation makes more sense with regard to lesser offences, eg screaming "f**** Muslims!" at people during a dispute over a parking space, I think most would agree this is worse than people simply squabbling with raised voices. Such a scenario is also far more common than a triple murder as well of course. In the case of this particular crime, the triple murder is heinous enough in itself, unless he is a member of an organised anti-religious hate group I can't get excited about the killer's atheism.
Hate crime legislation almost never makes sense to me. I don't consider slurs during an argument to be something that should rise to the level of a crime, and if used while committing some other offense shouldn't make that offense worse. Pretty much the only speech in that type of situation that would be worthy of concern would be threats of physical violence.
Prosecute people for their actions, not for hating.
Doesn't motive typically factor into how people are prosecuted?
My impression from the internet is that there are more athiests in the US than atheists.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
Doesn't motive typically factor into how people are prosecuted?
Motive, as in whether the accused intended to do what they did? Sure, of course. It makes a difference if you accidentally or intentionally shoot someone, but not whether you hate particular groups of people.
I guess what I'm getting at I don't see why a crime should be considered more severe for particular instigating reasons. Does it matter if the offender acts because of the perceived traits of the target instead of, say, the target cut the offender off in traffic? In either case the offender is unable to deal with the world without acting in a violent or dangerous manner.
Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 10:58:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
Doesn't motive typically factor into how people are prosecuted?
Motive, as in whether the accused intended to do what they did? Sure, of course. It makes a difference if you accidentally or intentionally shoot someone, but not whether you hate particular groups of people.
I guess what I'm getting at I don't see why a crime should be considered more severe for particular instigating reasons. Does it matter if the offender acts because of the perceived traits of the target instead of, say, the target cut the offender off in traffic? In either case the offender is unable to deal with the world without acting in a violent or dangerous manner.
I'm always a little grey on the whole hate crime thing but I would say that yes if an offender acted because they wanted to strike fear into the hearts of the group they hate (terrorism) that such should be dealt with more harshly.
Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2015, 10:14:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
Dunno, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with people believing in the fantasies of their choice, as long as they don't force their fantasies upon others.
All people who are anti-religious may well be atheists. BUT
Not all atheists are anti-religious.
Yep. There's a difference between the whole 'new atheism' and many, many other varieties.
QuoteOpinion
Why Muslim lives don't matter
In Chapel Hill shootings, Muslim identity eclipsed the three victims' American-ness.
12 Feb 2015 05:30 GMT | Media, Human Rights, Politics, War & Conflict, US & Canada
Al Jazeera English
Irrespective of what rallying cries, signs or adapted hashtags proclaim, Muslim lives in America don't matter. The aftermath of the murder of the three American students in Chapel Hill, and the broader context that spurred it, reconfirms this brutal truth.
The three victims - Deah Barakat, 23, his wife Yusor Mohammad, 21, and her sister Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha, 19, were killed at approximately 5:11pm on Tuesday. The identity of the killer, Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, was revealed roughly seven hours later.
Despite the release of these facts, and probative evidence that the executions were likely a hate crime, national media outlets remained silent. History affirms that a reversal of racial and religious identities - an Arab and Muslim culprit and white victims - would have spurred immediate media attention, on a national and global scale. However, given that Barakat and the Abu-Salha sisters were Arab and Muslim, the media lagged to cover the story.
In addition to media devaluation of Muslim lives, state-sponsored government policies targeting Muslim Americans affirm the conflation of Muslim identity with a terrorist threat. Institutional policy, in the form of state surveillance, profiling and counter-radicalisations programming, tie Muslim identity to suspicion and subversion, which emboldens the hate-fuelled violence inflicted by private citizens, like Hicks.
Between media misrepresentation and neglect, and systematic state surveillance and suppression of Muslims, the facts in the US lead to the undeniable conclusion that Muslim lives don't matter.
'Muslim villains'
It is perhaps fantasy to expect the same outlets that repeatedly misrepresent Muslims to pivot swiftly and rush to cover their victimhood. The Charlie Hebdo attack in early January, and the string of crises involving Muslim culprits before it, affirms the assessment that "Muslim lives are only newsworthy when they are behind a gun. Not in front of it".
However, the "three victims were American citizens" sympathisers cried. Or, "upward-bound students with bright futures, and pristine records". Two of them, Deah and Yusor, were newlyweds, only four weeks separated from their wedding. A life together, with kids and a white picket fence, was in their horizon.
Neither citizenship nor conventional measures of American achievements insulated the victims from hate. They were Muslims. That marker mattered most. Muslim identity trumped, and very likely for Hicks, eclipsed the three victims' American-ness.
Their religion mattered most for US media outlets as well, who lagged to cover the story.
CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC finally released stories of the murders Wednesday morning: More than 12 hours after the three young adults' lives were taken leaving Muslims to wonder: If the victims were white and non-Muslims, and the culprit Muslim, would mainstream media outlets be so slow to respond and report?
No. Muslims lives only matter when they're villains. Not victims. This is reaffirmed by news story after news story, and distorted accounts that tab "parking disputes" instead of hate as the primary motives of murder.
When state policy drives micro-violence
State-run programming targeting Muslims marks members of that demographic as presumptively suspicious. NSA surveillance and counter-extremism programming, PATRIOT and Suspicious Activity Reporting strategies, are shaped within government walls. But these policies also shape stereotypes and spur violence far beyond them.
This comprehensive programming, which is both synchronised and expanding, is built upon age-old perceptions of Muslims as "enemy combatants", "national security risks", and "unassimilable".
Past laws that restricted the naturalisation of Muslims were built upon racist and Orientalist tropes. However, state policies that profile and persecute today are still based on these very baselines.
In addition to enabling discriminatory state tactics, anti-Muslim laws and programming sanction widely held stereotypes of Muslims as violent and unruly, threatening and anti-American. By endorsing these stereotypes, this network of anti-Muslim laws and programming embolden private citizens, like Hicks, to take justice into their own hands.
It would be a misnomer to single out anti-Muslim laws and policies as spurring Islamophobic and anti-Arab culture. Rather, it pronounces this already existing psychosis, which is magnified by slanted news coverage and cinematic misrepresentations, illustrated vividly in films such as American Sniper.
However, these laws and programmes are not the products of a Hollywood studio. Nor are they delivered by a CNN or Fox News anchor. They are shaped and enacted by statesman within the hollowed halls of government. Affixing per se vilification of "Muslim Americans" with the state seal of approval that stirs Islamophobia on the ground, and spurs unspeakable violence atop it.
From the vantage point of the state, Muslims lives matter when they are subjects of surveillance, or targets of counter-extremism; not direct, or indirect, victims of these policies.
Taking on hate
Media lags and state laws vividly reveal that Muslims lives don't matter. However, Muslim Americans cannot afford to stand idly by.
The Campaign to TAKE ON HATE, led by the National Network for Arab American Communities, a project of ACCESS, has been working with communities across the country to organise prayer vigils, lead educational workshops, and organise within the very communities where Arab and Muslim Americans are at greatest risk.
From California to New York, Michigan to Florida, citizens are coming together with their local communities to not only mourn the lives tragically lost on Tuesday, but to coordinate plans to counter government profiling, private discrimination and violence, and their nefarious intersection.
If halls of American power echo, time and again, that Muslim lives don't matter, the strongest rebuttal must come from Muslim Americans themselves. A rebuttal that goes beyond rallying cries, signs and hashtags. And proclaimed through sustained action, and en mass mobilisation against halls of power that systematically strip Muslims lives of value.
The logic behind hate crimes is that the crime victimizes people not directly at the receiving end of the crime. If you lynch a black man in the South, you're not just murdering the black man, you're also terrorizing the black people still alive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2015, 11:04:38 AM
Quote from: Malthus on February 12, 2015, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: celedhring on February 12, 2015, 10:14:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
Dunno, I'm an atheist and I'm fine with people believing in the fantasies of their choice, as long as they don't force their fantasies upon others.
All people who are anti-religious may well be atheists. BUT
Not all atheists are anti-religious.
Yep. There's a difference between the whole 'new atheism' and many, many other varieties.
It seems a little bit suspect to say that the suspect's atheism is irrelevant while not saying anything about whether the victims' religion is really relevant.
edit: or what Seed's article speaks about.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 11:04:08 AM
I'm always a little grey on the whole hate crime thing but I would say that yes if an offender acted because they wanted to strike fear into the hearts of the group they hate (terrorism) that such should be dealt with more harshly.
I'd agree to the extent that the possibility of repeat offenses can be a factor. So an unrepentant, multiple offense terrorist should be treated more harshly when dropping an M-80 in a toilet than a high schooler. I don't think it should require specific legislation for the cases of "hate crimes" or "terrorism" though.
QuoteDespite the release of these facts, and probative evidence that the executions were likely a hate crime, national media outlets remained silent. History affirms that a reversal of racial and religious identities - an Arab and Muslim culprit and white victims - would have spurred immediate media attention, on a national and global scale. However, given that Barakat and the Abu-Salha sisters were Arab and Muslim, the media lagged to cover the story.
Does history actually affirm this? I cannot recall a story where Arab Muslims killed white victims in the US. I mean yes there is 9/11 but if this crazy white dude had killed thousands of Muslims in downtown Manhattan that probably would have been a big deal.
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 11:12:14 AM
The logic behind hate crimes is that the crime victimizes people not directly at the receiving end of the crime. If you lynch a black man in the South, you're not just murdering the black man, you're also terrorizing the black people still alive.
If you murder a white girl all America is terrorized.
Man, it's getting tiresome having people claim victimhood because some crime didn't become a big enough media frenzy.
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 11:12:14 AM
The logic behind hate crimes is that the crime victimizes people not directly at the receiving end of the crime. If you lynch a black man in the South, you're not just murdering the black man, you're also terrorizing the black people still alive.
I understand the logic, I was just saying that is the reason the defense is rushing to assure us this nutcase murdered these people because of a parking space.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 11:08:16 AM
QuoteOpinion
Why Muslim lives don't matter
blahblahblah
:bleeding:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 11:08:16 AM
Their religion mattered most for US media outlets as well, who lagged to cover the story.
CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC finally released stories of the murders Wednesday morning: More than 12 hours after the three young adults' lives were taken leaving Muslims to wonder: If the victims were white and non-Muslims, and the culprit Muslim, would mainstream media outlets be so slow to respond and report?
No. Muslims lives only matter when they're villains. Not victims. This is reaffirmed by news story after news story, and distorted accounts that tab "parking disputes" instead of hate as the primary motives of murder.
It was a major story on the evening news the very next day. What more can anyone ask for?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 12, 2015, 11:16:27 AM
Man, it's getting tiresome having people claim victimhood because some crime didn't become a big enough media frenzy.
Especially when they make claims with no evidence, not even an anecdotal counter-example that makes sense. I mean Charlie Hebdo? That is not even the same country and it involved many more people. It is an appeal to the prejudices of the readers that of course we are all racists and want all Muslims to die because...take my word for it that is just how it is. Because.
I mean at least have something like 'remember that time an Arab American killed a few white devils and the media made it circus?' Of course there has never been such a story.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
I think the distinction is meaningful. Deists, for instance, are anti-religious but not atheists.
Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 11:12:14 AM
The logic behind hate crimes is that the crime victimizes people not directly at the receiving end of the crime. If you lynch a black man in the South, you're not just murdering the black man, you're also terrorizing the black people still alive.
The best way to do that is to prosecute the criminals. Lynching was effective at terrorizing because the crime went unpunished and was to some extent condoned.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
The Greeks didn't worship the Gods because they loved them, but because they were dicks who'd make their lives a living hell if they didn't. Does that count as anti-religious non-atheists? :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 11:23:22 AM
Deists, for instance, are anti-religious but not atheists.
Lucky for America that's not what the Founding Fathers believed! :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:22:05 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 12, 2015, 11:16:27 AM
Man, it's getting tiresome having people claim victimhood because some crime didn't become a big enough media frenzy.
Especially when they make claims with no evidence, not even an anecdotal counter-example that makes sense. I mean Charlie Hebdo? That is not even the same country and it involved many more people. It is an appeal to the prejudices of the readers that of course we are all racists and want all Muslims to die because...take my word for it that is just how it is. Because.
I mean at least have something like 'remember that time an Arab American killed a few white devils and the media made it circus?' Of course there has never been such a story.
I don't think that is at all what the article is trying to say.
Besides, I can remember a rather recent time when there were a few muslims who killed a few white people and the media made it a circus. Why I even seem to recall an entire city shutting down during the manhunt.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2015, 11:25:48 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:23:16 AM
That he was an atheist seems moot; that he was anti-religious seems quite germane. Newspapers miss the distinction; film at 11.
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
The Greeks didn't worship the Gods because they loved them, but because they were dicks who'd make their lives a living hell if they didn't. Does that count as anti-religious non-atheists? :hmm:
Sorry, I'm not as old as grumbler and thus did not encounter those individuals. :(
Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 11:23:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 09:48:52 AM
Is it a distinction with meaningful difference? I can't speak for you but pretty much every time that I encounter someone who is anti-religious, they are an atheist.
I think the distinction is meaningful. Deists, for instance, are anti-religious but not atheists.
I don't think I've ever encountered a deist - or at least someone that was open about being one.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 11:27:49 AM
Besides, I can remember a rather recent time when there were a few muslims who killed a few white people and the media made it a circus. Why I even seem to recall an entire city shutting down during the manhunt.
Since I obviously don't why be so cryptic?
And what is the article trying to say? I am only going by the words that were typed. Care to elaborate? Besides I am only discussing this one aspect of that article.
Boston marathon bombing, I assume.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 12, 2015, 11:31:39 AM
Boston marathon bombing, I assume.
We had no way of knowing they were Muslims at first. And a bombing in a public place at a major event is a bit different is it not? I don't see how that is even remotely comparable. Surely garbon is referring to something more logical and relevant.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:30:01 AM
Since I obviously don't why be so cryptic?
I didn't think I was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:30:01 AM
And what is the article trying to say? I am only going by the words that were typed. Care to elaborate?
I don't think the article was saying that there is a conspiracy but simply it is part of the societal structure on how people think about Muslims. I don't think it is any shocker to note that Islam is typically painted poorly in news media.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:32:27 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 12, 2015, 11:31:39 AM
Boston marathon bombing, I assume.
We had no way of knowing they were Muslims at first. And a bombing in a public place is a bit different is it not? I don't see how that is even remotely comparable. Surely garbon is referring to something more logical and relevant.
Oh fuck you. You asked about a time that the media went mental about Muslims (Well actually in a bizarre way you went specifically to Arab-Americans). Really I think it is fairly rare now that we don't immediately from the initial jump assume that Muslims are involved in shooting events that make national/international news.
edit: And by 'we', I don't actually mean to include myself.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 11:33:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:30:01 AM
Since I obviously don't why be so cryptic?
I didn't think I was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev
Oh for Godsake :bleeding:
QuoteI don't think the article was saying that there is a conspiracy but simply it is part of the societal structure on how people think about Muslims.
I never claimed it claimed it was a conspiracy. I said it just said there was this effect created by these societal structures without providing any evidence that is the case. THe claim was it would have been reported differently if the opposite was true and that the reporting has been lacking. I see no evidence at all to back this up.
QuoteI don't think it is any shocker to note that Islam is typically painted poorly in news media.
Islam in the Middle East? Sure but I do not recall the newsmedia going after American Muslims much, if ever. Besides you cannot just take this and then be allowed to just make up whatever you want as an impact without something to back it up. Particularly a claim that we do not think Muslim lives matter at all. I see nothing, not one thing, that allows the writer to come to this conclusion.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:39:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 11:33:35 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:30:01 AM
Since I obviously don't why be so cryptic?
I didn't think I was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev
Oh for Godsake :bleeding:
QuoteI don't think the article was saying that there is a conspiracy but simply it is part of the societal structure on how people think about Muslims.
I never claimed it claimed it was a conspiracy. I said it just said there was this effect created by these societal structures without providing any evidence that is the case. THe claim was it would have been reported differently if the opposite was true and that the reporting has been lacking. I see no evidence at all to back this up.
QuoteI don't think it is any shocker to note that Islam is typically painted poorly in news media.
Islam in the Middle East? Sure but I do not recall the newsmedia going after American Muslims much, if ever. Besides you cannot just take this and then be allowed to just make up whatever you want as an impact without something to back it up. Particularly a claim that we do not think Muslim lives matter at all. I see nothing, not one thing, that allows the writer to come to this conclusion.
Have fun in your fun bubble, Texas. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 11:35:13 AM
Oh fuck you. You asked about a time that the media went mental about Muslims (Well actually in a bizarre way you went specifically to Arab-Americans). Really I think it is fairly rare now that we don't immediately from the initial jump assume that Muslims are involved in shooting events that make national/international news.
edit: And by 'we', I don't actually mean to include myself.
Because the article specifically said 'Arab and Muslim'. And the Boston Marathon bombing was a big story before we had any idea it had anything to do with Muslims.
Is this assumption actually made? Virtually all shootings in the US are made by angry white dudes, I think most people assume that is who the culprit is when we hear of a shooting in the US. When Sandyhook, or whatever happens, nobody starts going 'those Muslims are at it again'! Or maybe they do. I just have never heard that before.
Quote
Have fun in your fun bubble, Texas. :rolleyes:
Hey we are the ones portrayed as dangerous gun nuts who shoot people right and left. Nice you decided to use the state I am from as an insult as if that is relevant to a damn thing.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:46:26 AM
Quote
Have fun in your fun bubble, Texas. :rolleyes:
Hey we are the ones portrayed as dangerous gun nuts who shoot people right and left.
:lol: Welcome to the bubble Valmy. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:44:24 AM
Virtually all shootings in the US are made by angry white dudes,
Mass public shootings of random people, sure. But this wasn't a case of that, it was personal.
I thought maybe garbon was referring to the parking lot shooters shortly after 9/11.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks
But even there the fact they were Muslims was a surprise at the end.
QuoteMass public shootings of random people, sure. But this wasn't a case of that, it was personal.
Good point. But he still fits the profile.
Am I crazy here? Does anybody think, when they hear of a shooting at a school or something in the US, think Muslims are involved? Any articles that speculate that? Am I really living a bubble?
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 12:03:55 PM
Am I crazy here? Does anybody think, when they hear of a shooting at a school or something in the US, think Muslims are involved? Any articles that speculate that? Am I really living a bubble?
No
Of course you are not.
Shootings in the US like this are terrifyingly routine. The fact that the victims happen to be Muslim is not really news except that people want to make it news. The culture of victimhood runs up against the culture of gun fetish worship. Yawn.
Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 12:07:12 PM
The fact that the victims happen to be Muslim is not really news except that people want to make it news.
If by "people" you are referring to media outlets, then yes.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 12:08:08 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 12:07:12 PM
The fact that the victims happen to be Muslim is not really news except that people want to make it news.
If by "people" you are referring to media outlets, then yes.
I believe he means people who aren't him.
That said, V, it was probably an overreach on my part. -_- Looking at some of the high profile shootings, the only one I could quickly find was that in the case of the Colorado shooting, there were questions as the day of on whether or not the shooter was linked with Islam.
What I did find though is something else, which is that every time there is a whiff of something being suspected as perpetrated by a Muslim, it is suddenly an act of terror.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/claire-mccaskill-terrorism-boston-marathon-sandy-hook-90213.html
QuoteClaire McCaskill: If Boston bombings are terrorism, why not Sandy Hook?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011403054.html?sid=ST2011011106086
QuoteWas it tragedy in Tucson? Or terror?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/boston-marathon-terrorism-aurora-sandy-hook
QuoteWhy is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?
The last is Greenwald but I still think he makes some good points.
QuoteWhy is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?
Boston: Linked to a terrorist organization
Colubine: Couple emo kids going wacko. The benchmark to LE's change in tactics on active shooter.
Sandy Hook: White Boy's cheese slipped off his cracker.
Tucson: See #3
Aurora: See #3
2-5 not terrorism
If the killer had been a conservative dude, the media would have exploded attacking the Tea Party.
But since it was an atheist, no media coverage, or it would undermine the argument that atheist people better than religious and that religion is the source of violence.
Remember when they tried to sell the shooter of that Gilford woman from Arizona as a tea party member?
When they found out the dude was a liberal they tried to hide it, claim the dude was just crazy, not mentioning his politics.
"Gilford woman" = Gabby Giffords? :hmm:
Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 10:20:10 AM
Self proclaimed atheists are the worst.
I am glad I was proclaimed by my pastor instead.
I thought divine lightning strikes were the only truly accepted standard.
Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 12:48:22 PM
But since it was an atheist, no media coverage
Indeed the lack of media coverage explains why the story is being carried by every significant media outlet in the country and beyond.
:huh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 03:41:12 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 12:48:22 PM
But since it was an atheist, no media coverage
Indeed the lack of media coverage explains why the story is being carried by every significant media outlet in the country and beyond.
:huh:
The media is sneaky that way.
Oh shit, double judden attack!
I haven't had one of those in a while.
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 12:12:56 PM
What I did find though is something else, which is that every time there is a whiff of something being suspected as perpetrated by a Muslim, it is suddenly an act of terror.
That is, indeed, a good point. That I could get behind and there is support for. It is also distinct from what the article was claiming that 'Muslim lives do not matter'.
Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 03:48:48 PM
Oh shit, double judden attack!
I haven't had one of those in a while.
You going to defend your stupid statement or just spew anti-Semitic attacks? :P
Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 12:50:07 PM
Remember when they tried to sell the shooter of that Gilford woman from Arizona as a tea party member?
When they found out the dude was a liberal they tried to hide it, claim the dude was just crazy, not mentioning his politics.
Not really. But then I don't read your media outlets.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 03:53:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 12:12:56 PM
What I did find though is something else, which is that every time there is a whiff of something being suspected as perpetrated by a Muslim, it is suddenly an act of terror.
That is, indeed, a good point. That I could get behind and there is support for. It is also distinct from what the article was claiming that 'Muslim lives do not matter'.
If the charge that "Muslim lives do not matter" is true, then why is Craig Stephen Hicks under arrest?
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2015, 05:58:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 03:53:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 12:12:56 PM
What I did find though is something else, which is that every time there is a whiff of something being suspected as perpetrated by a Muslim, it is suddenly an act of terror.
That is, indeed, a good point. That I could get behind and there is support for. It is also distinct from what the article was claiming that 'Muslim lives do not matter'.
If the charge that "Muslim lives do not matter" is true, then why is Craig Stephen Hicks under arrest?
Because he turned himself in and admitted to a crime? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 06:08:38 PM
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2015, 05:58:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 03:53:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 12:12:56 PM
What I did find though is something else, which is that every time there is a whiff of something being suspected as perpetrated by a Muslim, it is suddenly an act of terror.
That is, indeed, a good point. That I could get behind and there is support for. It is also distinct from what the article was claiming that 'Muslim lives do not matter'.
If the charge that "Muslim lives do not matter" is true, then why is Craig Stephen Hicks under arrest?
Because he turned himself in and admitted to a crime? :huh:
If Muslim lives don't matter, what's the crime?
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2015, 06:09:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 06:08:38 PM
Quote from: dps on February 12, 2015, 05:58:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 03:53:01 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 12:12:56 PM
What I did find though is something else, which is that every time there is a whiff of something being suspected as perpetrated by a Muslim, it is suddenly an act of terror.
That is, indeed, a good point. That I could get behind and there is support for. It is also distinct from what the article was claiming that 'Muslim lives do not matter'.
If the charge that "Muslim lives do not matter" is true, then why is Craig Stephen Hicks under arrest?
Because he turned himself in and admitted to a crime? :huh:
If Muslim lives don't matter, what's the crime?
I know you aren't that dense. :hug:
Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 03:48:48 PM
Oh shit, double judden attack!
I haven't had one of those in a while.
We were just surprised to see your vigorous defense of Islam against the infidel. ;)
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2015, 06:08:38 PM
Because he turned himself in and admitted to a crime? :huh:
Well when he is acquitted then we talk about how "Muslim lives do not matter".
All hail Erdogan, defender of US muslims!
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31449973 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31449973)
Quote
Chapel Hill murders: Turkish leader challenges Obama
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has criticised US President Barack Obama for his silence over the murder of three Muslim students in the US.
He said politicians were responsible for events in their countries and had to clarify their stance over them.
More than 5,000 people attended the funeral of the students who were shot dead in North Carolina on Tuesday.
With a suspect in custody, police are still investigating the motive, amid family claims it was a hate crime.
The shootings took place in the town of Chapel Hill. Initial indications are that the gunman, Craig Hicks, acted in a dispute with the victims over a parking space, according to the police.
A district prosecutor said on Wednesday there was no evidence that the victims - Deah Shaddy Barakat, wife Yusor Mohammad and her sister Razan - had been targeted because of their faith.
However, at Thursday's funeral, the local police chief said his force would investigate every lead, including the possibility of a hate crime.
The murders have resonated both within US and around the world, especially on social media. The hashtag ChapelHillShooting has been used hundreds of thousands of times.
Speaking on a visit to Mexico, Mr Erdogan criticised Mr Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and US Vice-President Joe Biden for not having made any statement about the murder of the "three Muslims".
"If you stay silent when faced with an incident like this, and don't make a statement, the world will stay silent towards you," he said.
"As politicians, we are responsible for everything that happens in our countries and we have to show our positions."
Mr Erdogan is a devout Sunni Muslim who has been increasingly critical of the treatment of Muslims living in Western societies.
His relations with the Obama administration have also come under strain over the conflict in Syria and Iraq.
Turkey and the US are allies in the campaign against Islamic State militants, but differences over tactics have emerged over the last six months.
'Making this country peaceful'
Thursday's funeral was held at the athletic fields of North Carolina State University where all three victims had been students. Police estimate 5,500 people attended the event.
The BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan says many mourners felt the murders were sparked by something far deeper than a parking row.
"When we say this was a hate crime, it is all about protecting all other children in the USA,'' the father of the two sisters killed in the attack, Dr Mohammad Yousif Abu-Salha, said.
"It's all about making this country that they loved, where they lived and died, peaceful for everybody else.''
Mr Hicks gave himself up to police and has been charged with the murders. His Facebook profile included a photo that read "Atheists for Equality". He also frequently posted quotes critical of religion.
But Mr Hicks's wife Karen said the incident had nothing to do with religion and her husband treated everyone equally. He also apparently had a history of conflicts with neighbours over parking spaces.
Mr Barakat was a dental student at the university and his wife was planning to enrol in the school in the next term.
Muslim and civil rights organisations are organising more vigils across the country for Thursday evening.
There has been criticism of a perceived lack of coverage in the mainstream media with the hashtag MuslimLivesMatter mentioned almost 100,000 times in the day following the shooting.
The modern age is bizarre. This just happened on Tuesday. It was all over the news on Wednesday. And somehow that was way too slow for everybody.