Police in the town of Savage, Minnesota, are now investigating an attack on a little girl at a local school by assailants, schoolchildren, who told officials they beat her up because "she wasn't Muslim."
You are completely missing the following which I have repeated so many times so I’m just assuming now you aren’t even paying attention, but here I go again:
in order for the original comparison between white supremacists and “radical” Muslims (which you have still not defined) to be worth making at all, you need to show the difference between a Muslim and a white supremacist. We’ve already established not all Muslim’s interpret the Islamic teachings as requiring them to be violent or forcefully spread their faith, so we should also expect the same from at least some white supremacists you want to make the argument that they’re not as bad. So can you name a single white supremacist who is not a racist?
white supremacy (and racism) is still prevalent. Just because it doesn’t hit your murder threshold for concern doesn’t mean it hasn’t literally shaped out society’s history and continues to do so. There’s more harm that can be done systemically than simply the murder of a few in one nation at a single point in time, so your insistence on only keeping the conversation there is indicative that you don’t want to address the larger problem because it’s too hard for you to argue away.
I cannot make it simpler than that. If you still don’t understand then I suggest doing some research on your own, preferably outside of the conservative bubble.
in order for the original comparison between white supremacists and “radical” Muslims (which you have still not defined) to be worth making at all, you need to show the difference between a Muslim and a white supremacist.
Why do I need show a difference?
so we should also expect the same from at least some white supremacists you want to make the argument that they’re not as bad. So can you name a single white supremacist who is not a racist?
Why does there need to be a good white supremists for their actions to pose a serious threat to society? They can be bad but still do little to no harm to the population as a whole.
white supremacy (and racism) is still prevalent. Just because it doesn’t hit your murder threshold for concern doesn’t mean it hasn’t literally shaped out society’s history and continues to do so.
The murder statistic, which you provided, is merely a quantifiable metric to show how rare white supremacy is. Since you have yet to provide any statistic to show white supremacy is common it’s safe to assume white supremacy is uncommon.
doesn’t mean it hasn’t literally shaped out society’s history
How does the saying go past results are not an indication of future performence.
These are the same problems with your argument through this whole thread you’ve yet to provide any evidence to back your claims.
Your inability to understand the claims and their defenses is not my problem. You’re forcing this thread to go around and around because you can’t accept it, so there’s nowhere for us to go from here.
JFC that’s what I’ve been saying about you this entire thread.
Considering I asked first, I’ll answer your questions as soon as you answer mine (name one White Supremacist who is not a racist). Otherwise, we’re done here.
As I said multiple times many different ways, but I guess it still has not sunk in, there does not need to be a good white supremacists for white supremacy not to be a threat, rarity is what makes white supremacy not a threat.
I’ve been waiting for you’re counter argument to this but you’ve been unwilling/unable to provide one.
I haven’t countered this because you can just look at the history of western civilization for all the examples of white supremacy being a threat you could possibly want.
Which is another reason why using prevalence of recent, local violence is a dumb argument to take here, because white supremacy has historically been such a huge threat to so many people that I can’t believe you’d actually try and make the point that “it’s not that bad in this specific area at this specific time.”
The fact that you’re only focusing on recent violence in the US due to white supremacy shows your argument only works in the tiniest vacuum you can come up with. That doesn’t mean you have a valid argument here. So prevalence aside, if you are trying to then make the point that one is worse than the other, you need to contend with the fact that most Muslims are not violent in the name of their faith. So for you to have any further path in this discussion you must show the same with white supremacy. In other words I’ve just been ahead of you this entire time.
Also congratulations, you’re taking the side of white supremacy 👏
You are completely missing the following which I have repeated so many times so I’m just assuming now you aren’t even paying attention, but here I go again:
in order for the original comparison between white supremacists and “radical” Muslims (which you have still not defined) to be worth making at all, you need to show the difference between a Muslim and a white supremacist. We’ve already established not all Muslim’s interpret the Islamic teachings as requiring them to be violent or forcefully spread their faith, so we should also expect the same from at least some white supremacists you want to make the argument that they’re not as bad. So can you name a single white supremacist who is not a racist?
white supremacy (and racism) is still prevalent. Just because it doesn’t hit your murder threshold for concern doesn’t mean it hasn’t literally shaped out society’s history and continues to do so. There’s more harm that can be done systemically than simply the murder of a few in one nation at a single point in time, so your insistence on only keeping the conversation there is indicative that you don’t want to address the larger problem because it’s too hard for you to argue away.
I cannot make it simpler than that. If you still don’t understand then I suggest doing some research on your own, preferably outside of the conservative bubble.
Why do I need show a difference?
Why does there need to be a good white supremists for their actions to pose a serious threat to society? They can be bad but still do little to no harm to the population as a whole.
The murder statistic, which you provided, is merely a quantifiable metric to show how rare white supremacy is. Since you have yet to provide any statistic to show white supremacy is common it’s safe to assume white supremacy is uncommon.
How does the saying go past results are not an indication of future performence.
These are the same problems with your argument through this whole thread you’ve yet to provide any evidence to back your claims.
Ok I guess you just aren’t going to get it. ¯\_(ツ)\_/¯
I can’t “get it” because you are unable defend your claims.
Your inability to understand the claims and their defenses is not my problem. You’re forcing this thread to go around and around because you can’t accept it, so there’s nowhere for us to go from here.
There is, you could answer my questions, some that I’ve been asking through this whole thread.
JFC that’s what I’ve been saying about you this entire thread.
Considering I asked first, I’ll answer your questions as soon as you answer mine (name one White Supremacist who is not a racist). Otherwise, we’re done here.
As I said multiple times many different ways, but I guess it still has not sunk in, there does not need to be a good white supremacists for white supremacy not to be a threat, rarity is what makes white supremacy not a threat.
I’ve been waiting for you’re counter argument to this but you’ve been unwilling/unable to provide one.
I haven’t countered this because you can just look at the history of western civilization for all the examples of white supremacy being a threat you could possibly want.
Which is another reason why using prevalence of recent, local violence is a dumb argument to take here, because white supremacy has historically been such a huge threat to so many people that I can’t believe you’d actually try and make the point that “it’s not that bad in this specific area at this specific time.”
The fact that you’re only focusing on recent violence in the US due to white supremacy shows your argument only works in the tiniest vacuum you can come up with. That doesn’t mean you have a valid argument here. So prevalence aside, if you are trying to then make the point that one is worse than the other, you need to contend with the fact that most Muslims are not violent in the name of their faith. So for you to have any further path in this discussion you must show the same with white supremacy. In other words I’ve just been ahead of you this entire time.
Also congratulations, you’re taking the side of white supremacy 👏