Do you think this is a valid argument or simply an excuse?

Question

I'm going to leave my two cents out for a bit then jump right in.

Answer

i stopped reading that shit . cuz it’s not even about “words losing their power” or “terrorism has to fit into certain categories” , it’s about white . privilege . how come white terrorists have the privilege of being portrayed as lone wolves , as mentally ill , as gun owners who got a little too enthusiastic , but black and brown american citizens get crucified in the media for much ! much ! less ! fuck that , i’m calling paddock a terrorist , i’m calling anyone who agrees with what he did a terrorist , and guess what ! if you don’t think that—now more than ever—we need stricter gun laws , i’m calling you a sympathizer ! language DOESNT fucking matter when innocent people are losing their lives year after year to senseless violence that can be prevented !!

Answer

What............................terrorism is terrorism, no ifs ands or buts. Why does this person even have a job as a writer......

Answer

Listen let’s stop this bullshit.
The main headline about him listed his fucking hobbies. YOU HEAR ME HIS FUCKING HOBBIES!!!!!
This is why America will never be great any fucking thing because we spend more time giving white murderers the best excuse the media can find.
DYLAN ROOF GOT BURGER KING AFTER KILLING 9 BLACK PEOPLE IN A CHURCH BECAUSE HE WAS HUNGRY.
Now this is the true second greatest example of white privilege idc how you try to split it.
In the state of Nevada they define exactly what he did as terrorism. So why wouldn’t we?

Answer

I don’t think it has to be this complicated. “Terrorism” doesn’t mean the person has to be affiliated with an official organization (ie. ISIS or Antifa or whoever else...) Terrorism at its core means someone/anyone who uses violence and intimidation to achieve a political goal. It could be any goal! Separation and division among our citizens, death of a certain people group or ulterior agenda...or literally just havoc on a country or community to cause chaos. So yes, regardless of this man (or men’s) affiliation, he was a terrorist. Plain and simple. Call it what it is. It doesn’t matter who he was, he did what he did and that’s it. It’s awful!

Answer

No, he is a terrorist. End of story.

Answer

So white men are not terrorist, just people of colour. The author is asking us to reserve the word for the appropriate persons.  
Honestly, I'm going to take a nap I can only handle a certain amount of shit per day

Answer

It's 100% terrorism. The way the media has been covering this makes me sick as hell. They keep painting this lovely background of his life and how he just couldn't possibly be capable of something like this. I don't know why they would cover his demon existence like that. 
Oh wait, yes I do. It's called being white. I promise you if he was brown or black we'd be calling him a terrorist and painting the ugliest picture we could. We wouldn't call him "insane" we'd be calling him ISIS. 
This piece of shit was not some deranged psycho that was pushed to his breaking point, like it wasn't his fucking fault. He was a terrorist terrorist terrorist

Answer

It took me a few times to try and get through this, and when I did it reminded me of two U.S. Supreme Court Cases: Ozawa v. United States and United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind. In the first case (1922), Takao Ozawa, a Japanese man tried to get citizenship on the basis that the naturalization laws applied to him because he was white in skin color. The court found that, "The effect of the conclusion that the words "white person" mean a Caucasian is not to establish a sharp line of demarcation between those who are not entitled to naturalization, but rather a zone of more or less debatable ground outside of which, upon the one hand, are those clearly eligible, and outside of which, upon the other hand, are those clearly ineligible for citizenship citizenship...The appellant, in the case now under consideration, however, is clearly of a race which is not Caucasian and therefore belongs entirely outside the zone on the negative side." In short, he was white but not Caucasian. A few months later in 1923, an Indian man tried to get citizenship since he was Caucasian. You'll never guess what the courts found! "Caucasian is a conventional word of much flexibility, as a study of the literature dealing with racial question will disclose, and while it and the words "white persons" are treated as synonymous for the purpose of that case, they are not of identical meaning." In other words, he's Caucasian but not white. How convenient. The author of this article comes from a long history of manipulating the discourse in order to protect the interests of the status quo. It's no different than what was done in 1923, except those who are meant to be silenced and kept in "place" by these acts engage them with a critical conscious lens. In other words, we smell right through your bullshit.

Answer

I've tried posting two updates and they didn't show up. I haven't voted yet so I'm not sure why I can't. I haven't forgotten, I'm just tired and these babies are hungry. But I'll be back to discuss.

Answer

So this white guy isn’t a terrorist? Cool. So if they were black or Arab would they still not be a terrorist?

Do you think this is a valid argument or simply an excuse?

The Top Baby Tracker App: Embrace New Beginnings with Tender Care

The Top Fertility Tracker App: Your Path to Achieving Pregnancy

The Top Pregnancy App: Nurturing Your Journey to Motherhood

The Top Period Tracker for Empowering Your Menstrual Health Journey