Explosions at churches and hotels in Sri Lanka: '20 killed and 160 injured'

[Stelio Kontos]

That’s a good point, by trying to protect and make the language political, which people see threw right away, they undermine their main objective.

Obfuscating the truth, even with good intentions, makes the issue you are trying to fix worse. Because now people think you are hiding something.

I do think there is an ideological aspect to it, though, because even when looking at history there's a tendency to handwave away what one group does while emphasizing what another does.

Example: the Crusades. The Crusades were brutal, and western Christians were incredibly heavy-handed in their attacks into Muslim-occupied lands. And we hear constantly about how nightmarish an act it was in historic discussions. What gets swept under the rug, figuratively-speaking, was the over 300 years of Islamic invasions, slave raids, and attacks that precipitated the First Crusade.

There is an ideological tenet to emphasize how evil and bad Westerners/Christians are, at the behest of our own leaders and intelligentsia, as a means of, I guess policing ourselves? Focus on all the horrors we committed, and not anything going the other way, as a means to keeping ourselves from ever doing so again, which necessarily means we downplay/mitigate whatever might be done to us by people that the new narrative have defined as perpetual victims of whites/westerners/Christians. Because if we do give the same weight to what is done TO us, we have to be just as judgmental and heavy-handed with them as we are with ourselves for having the wrong groupthink.

I dunno, pisspoor attempt at trying to explain what I mean.

[Dextroden]

"What other white supremacists did terror attacks"

"The other obvious one"

Dextroden: "lol ignoring other terrorist attacks."

You're really saying this attack is going to be used to forget Breivik?

Holy balls that's a great joke.

[Dacien]

That’s a good point, by trying to protect and make the language political, which people see threw right away, they undermine their main objective.

Obfuscating the truth, even with good intentions, makes the issue you are trying to fix worse. Because now people think you are hiding something.

That's a great point in return. It struck me as odd the moment I heard of it. Thought about it and I think I've worked it through pretty easily, but you're absolutely right, it was a glaringly odd way to refer to the victims. It became a conversation. Which makes them look like they care more about some victims than others. Which isn't true, of course, but it looks that way. And it will be capitalized upon by their adversaries. Political messaging is a tightrope, and oh how they all sway.

[Dextroden]

I do think there is an ideological aspect to it, though, because even when looking at history there's a tendency to handwave away what one group does while emphasizing what another does.

Example: the Crusades. The Crusades were brutal, and western Christians were incredibly heavy-handed in their attacks into Muslim-occupied lands. And we hear constantly about how nightmarish an act it was in historic discussions. What gets swept under the rug, figuratively-speaking, was the over 300 years of Islamic invasions, slave raids, and attacks that precipitated the First Crusade.

There is an ideological tenet to emphasize how evil and bad Westerners/Christians are, at the behest of our own leaders and intelligentsia, as a means of, I guess policing ourselves? Focus on all the horrors we committed, and not anything going the other way, as a means to keeping ourselves from ever doing so again, which necessarily means we downplay/mitigate whatever might be done to us by people that the new narrative have defined as perpetual victims of whites/westerners/Christians. Because if we do give the same weight to what is done TO us, we have to be just as judgmental and heavy-handed with them as we are with ourselves for having the wrong groupthink.

I dunno, pisspoor attempt at trying to explain what I mean.

I get what you mean. But that, unfortunately, can also create the vision that people won't actually stand up against it to try and save face.

I could understand trying not to spread hate. But, plenty of people took a Hardline stance on extremist violence in one instance and put on the kid gloves for the next. That's not a good look when you only care about one. Something Republicans get mocked for Everytime politicians do a hopes and prayers tweet in response to a shooting but then get hot about Muslim terrorism.

[Josuke]

You're really saying this attack is going to be used to forget Breivik?

Holy balls that's a great joke.

Not at all.

[Dextroden]

Not at all.

What is disgusting is how this massacre has been used to ignore terror attacks of different ideologies.

You chose Breivik. If it's not him, which terrorist attack is being removed from memory by acknowledging this one?

[Josuke]

What annoys me is that you seem to think that I took a specific stance (against Muslims). I was playing WoW, some friends knew I had visited Sri Lanka very recently and directed me to this website. I just posted my experiences here, those being that I never encountered any tensions between the religions the times I was there.

Then you start talking about other terrorist attacks, which have no relevance at all. You should indeed be ridiculed for that.

If that is what you gathered. I just took a critical stance because you're a new account who only posted in off topic.

Hey the same thing happened in the Christchurch attack.

The attitudes of different terrorist attacks is something that should be ridiculed

- - - Updated - - -

You chose Breivik. If it's not him, which terrorist attack is being removed from memory by acknowledging this one?

Nothing is being removed by acknowledging it.

It's the things that come out of the woodwork.

[Dextroden]

If that is what you gathered. I just took a critical stance because you're a new account who only posted in off topic.

Hey the same thing happened in the Christchurch attack.

The attitudes of different terrorist attacks is something that should be ridiculed

- - - Updated - - -



Nothing is being removed by acknowledging it.

Except you said it's being used to forget terrorist attacks. Which ones are being forgotten?

[Xjev]

Seriously feck religion, all kind of it, I thought we got rid of it during renaissance era, how is it having a come back

[Demsi]

Seriously feck religion, all kind of it, I thought we got rid of it during renaissance era, how is it having a come back

Are you like historically illiterate or?

[Theodarzna]

https://twitter.com/petemont/status/1120316542938419201

yikes, trust you and the rest of the bro rogan brigade to be giving equally dumb takes.

are you theo and connal all the same account or something?

A nice spin there, but that is all that is, spin on your part to cover up a curious trait, ommitting the community of attacked when it doesn't fit a certain narrative.

[Josuke]

Except you said it's being used to forget terrorist attacks. Which ones are being forgotten?

None of them if I bring them up

[Theodarzna]

Jews celebrate Easter, so "easter worshippers" is not narrowing it down properly...what dickheads..

and if it had been jews targeted, i doubt those tweets would be so vague..

Do Jews celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Interesting... I am guessing your knowledge of Judaism is kind of thin.

[Khaza-R]

I normally try to steer clear of the left vs right attacks but I have to say the article by Washington Post was one of the most vile pieces of journalism I've seen in years.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...94483445710848

[Theodarzna]

I normally try to steer clear of the left vs right attacks but I have to say the article by Washington Post was one of the most vile pieces of journalism I've seen in years.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...94483445710848

Lol, yeah people notice a strange and curious disjunction in how some communities are treated versus ones our elites view with lavish favor for some inexplicable reason, and we ask why.

[Malaky]

Thats disgusting. Its not even logically to kill that many random people just because you have an ideological difference with someone else.

Remember that any non-believer is a sinner worthy of death according to the doctrine. It IS logical from their point of view. They're all "enemies", regardless.

Bleah.

[Theodarzna]

That’s a good point, by trying to protect and make the language political, which people see threw right away, they undermine their main objective.

Obfuscating the truth, even with good intentions, makes the issue you are trying to fix worse. Because now people think you are hiding something.

I would not say it is with good intentions on their part.

[Dacien]

A nice spin there, but that is all that is, spin on your part to cover up a curious trait, ommitting the community of attacked when it doesn't fit a certain narrative.

Imagine it was Ramadan and Donald Trump tweeted, "My Heart and Prayers go out to all the Ramadan Worshippers who died today in Christchurch! Can't let this happen! Get smart!"

He'd be raked over the coals. Or imagine a Fox News headline, "Dozens of Quran adherents slain in Mosque shooting."

It's just odd when you tiptoe around their religion when their religion is central to the event.

[Ooid]

I normally try to steer clear of the left vs right attacks but I have to say the article by Washington Post was one of the most vile pieces of journalism I've seen in years.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...94483445710848

"Oh no now their side has evidence to support their claims. This is the bigger tragedy!"
What a bunch of hacks.

[Stelio Kontos]

I normally try to steer clear of the left vs right attacks but I have to say the article by Washington Post was one of the most vile pieces of journalism I've seen in years.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...94483445710848

Oof, that was some sleazy journalism in that article.