Those are 2 statements by Jeremy Christian, from his appearance in the courtroom as he was arraigned after the murders on the MAX Green Line train in Portland. I read those statements first "in the NYT, which uses the verb "shouted" and a photograph of Christian with his mouth wide open to convey the tone of his speech. I was unsatisfied with the NYT because it shifted to the subject of Mayor Tom Wheeler's rejection of permits for "alt-right" events in Portland.
Looking for more detail about the arraignment, I switched to The Washington Post, which has video of Christian making the above-quoted statements. The video makes a different impression:
I was surprised how scripted Christian sounded, as if he were delivering a memorized speech. I also heard an additional sentence, after "Leave this country if you hate our freedom": "Death to Antifa." I'd been inclined to think of Christian as a ranting lunatic, but the delivery of these lines makes him seem more controlled in his structure of beliefs — not that the beliefs are cogent.
Christian leaps from the love of freedom of speech to a sentence of death to those who don't like freedom of speech. "Free speech or die" seems like a variation on "Live free or die," but you have to misunderstand "Live free or die," which is supposed to express willingness to die for the cause of freedom, not a desire for other people to drop dead if they don't value freedom above everything else.
Perhaps it's disgusting to analyze the words of a person who has done something so evil, but Christian's words are being quoted and used. He's not being hidden away and denied a voice, so it's not as if I can close the door and say don't listen to the rants of a madman.
He's being quoted and used as a jumping off point for things people want to say, and what's particularly irritating — aside from the rank sensationalism of bloody murder — is the blithe assumption that Christian's agenda is racism. You can see that the arraignment quotes have no racist content at all. The statements from the murder scene (and in a recording made of him on a train on an earlier occasion) were anti-religion (and not just anti-Muslim). Where's the racism?
The WaPo article proceeds to talk about the "long and violent history of white supremacist and other racist activities" in the Pacific Northwest. It gives us a quote from a professor of urban studies at Portland State University, Karen Gibson: “The idea that Portland is so liberal supersedes this dark, hidden secret about racism.” Maybe so, but the article never establishes that Christian is a racist.
WaPo drags in Donald Trump:
Some residents said President Donald Trump has caused those racist demons to stir again....Primed, we hear next about Mayor Wheeler's effort to stop the planned rally, which, we're told, is billed on Facebook as "a Trump Free Speech Rally." Then this paragraph galumphs in:
“I don’t have that feeling like it can’t happen here — the way people talk about Portland — because we’ve got racism. We’ve got all kinds of things,” said Murr Brewster, who came to see a memorial at the city’s transit center. “It’s everywhere and the trouble is, it’s getting more and more prevalent.”
Christian attended a similar rally in late April wearing an American flag around his neck and carrying a baseball bat. Police confiscated the bat, and he was then caught on camera clashing with counter-protesters.That might put him on the pro-Trump side. But where's the racism? Was he armed with a bat because he wanted to fight the counter-protesters? That fits with "Leave this country if you hate our freedom. Death to Antifa."
Elsewhere, I'm seeing assertions that Christian was actually for Bernie Sanders. And here's a piece in The Oregonian, premised on a deep read of Christian's Facebook page: "His posts reveal a comic book collector with nebulous political affiliations who above all else seemed to hate circumcision and Hillary Clinton." And:
The question of whether Christian was a Trump supporter or a Sanders supporter, doesn't have an either/or answer, except: he definitely was not a Clinton supporter.I'd say that sounds like a Bernie Sanders supporter. After Sanders dropped out and endorsed Hillary, he had nowhere to go. I don't know why white supremacists are getting blamed for Christian's insanely murderous rage. It would make more sense to blame the those who've been inflaming anger on the far left.
"Bernie Sanders was the President I wanted," wrote Christian in December. "He voiced my heart and mind. The one who spoke about the way America should gone. Away from the Military and Prison Industrial Complexes. The Trump is who America needs now that Bernie got ripped off."
But on Nov. 11, he posted that he was unable to bring himself to vote for Trump.
"I've had it!!! I gonna kill everybody who voted for Trump or Hillary!!!" he said in another post in early January. "It's all your fault!!! You're what's wrong with this country!!! Reveal yourselves immediately and face your DOOM!!!"
But back to the NYT, where this post began, because after reading The Washington Post, I did see more reason in the shift from what Christian said at the arraignment to Tom Wheeler's rejection of pro-free-speech rallies. Christian made free speech sound like an ugly, evil cause related to murder. Now, you should see that the violence Wheeler uses to justify repressing a free-speech rally is violence from those who oppose the rally, the counter-protesters. But Christian's extolling of free speech may obscure that. His jumbled, awful remarks at the arraignment are useful to anyone who would like to shape our brains to think: Free speech = Violence. And: To suppress speech is to suppress violence.
And who doesn't wish that the police could have arrested Jeremy Christian when they had him speaking and carrying a baseball bat at a rally?
Posts
363 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 363 of 363Inga said...
"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear."
William E. Gladstone
What you don’t understand is that 19th century classic liberalism was closer to what is now described as conservatism. American leftists forever ruined the word “liberal;” however, in countries like Australia, it retains its’ original meaning. Hence the Liberal Party in Australia is in fact conservative.
Who mistrusts the people more than Wall Street, Hollywood leftists, and the political and entertainment elite in this country? Inga , you side with the 1 percent.
n.n: I kind of agree; from what I've seen, he's just an angry person doing things that aren't logical to me because I don't know what his goal is.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
and
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The American Conservative.
Anything else is an unprincipled attribution of a label that has different significance in different societies.
exiledonmainstreet said...
Inga, an awful lot of conservatives are former liberals. We grew up.
Actually it has more to do with change in definitions. The conservatives haven't changed all that much, it is just if you believe in actual diversity and liberty and freedom you are a conservative now, and if you believe in group think enforced by violence, a police state, and bureaucratic tyranny you are a liberal.
"my style is to push the envelope to the right, primarily to give more moderate right-wingers more maneuver space to bring their points home."
It's called "moving the Overton window".
So, what's wrong with being a "racist"? A racist is a person who believes there are behavioral differences between races that are the result of genetic differences between races. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for this belief. Can it be morally wrong to believe something that is factually correct?
As I've said all along - I'm here for the intellectual honesty of the hostess.
The various and particular selection of topics I also find interesting. Bob Dylan-centricity notwithstanding, there are enough references to Zappa and maybe even one time to Jimmy Carl Black or something he said on an album, to give her true NYC street cred.
And my Dad was a Violet also (PhD Musicology)....so there's ... that.
I guess.
Matthew Sablan:
That may be, but we are not aware of his other actions. What we do know is that a potential for violence was built up, stoked, then released when the man was trapped and broken.
If Conservatives distrust the people... why do they want weaker government and stronger individual liberties?”
Explain that, Inga. It’s your side that thinks people are so stupid they can’t pay for birth control themselves, furnish an ID at the polls or be responsible gun owners. They don’t know that apples are better for them than Doritos, so the government has to tell them. They need safe spaces and mollycoddling. We can’t describe Islamic terrorism as Islamic terrorism because it might cause a pogrom.
Liberals infantilize “the people” – but hey, it’s for their own good!
The three men thought the two teen girls were in danger, they were protecting them.
Let's, as Professor Althouse tried to do yesterday, examine the facts.
They did believe they were protecting them. They did try to act honorably in that situation. No one is disputing these facts, so they bear no repeating. They also do not disprove that they were the aggressors and that their actions could have been avoided.
They took actions and can be accountable for them. They were not simply victims who were minding their own business.
From what were they protecting the girls? He didn't touch them. He wasn't limiting their movement. He hadn't brandished a weapon. He was talking to them. Perhaps at times In a loud voice. I ride the subway every day. This happens all the time.
That alone is nothing. He could have been saying, "HOW DO YOU GIRLS LIKE PORTLAND? DO YOU LIVE HERE OR ARE YOU VISITING?" and they likely would have done nothing.
So the issue was the words he was using. If he had said, "I REALLY DON'T LIKE GIRLS WITH BLACK HAIR. I LIKE GIRLS WITH BLONDE HAIR. I THINK ALL GIRLS SHOULD HAVE BLONDE HAIR", again, no one would have moved.
And he did say lots of things to lots of people, and no one moved: "According to some preliminary witness statements, he was kind of spewing hate about a lot of different things," said Simpson. "So not specifically and exclusively anti-Muslim. ... So that's why it's hard to say at this point was he directing it at any one person, or was it just kind of in general to everyone around him."
He was approached and engaged because of the particular words he was using, some anti-Muslim comments, and the fact that one girl was wearing a hijab, indicating she was a Muslim.
That was their trigger to engage him. Nothing else was. In all the hatred spewed at all the different people, nothing moved those guys off of their seats until he moved into the part of the train with the woman with the hijab.
He was surrounded by people who don't pay taxes while railing against non-taxpayers. No one moved. He railed against Trump while surrounded by Trump voters. No one moved. He said other things about others in his presence. No one moved. He said something anti-Muslim in a car with at least one Muslim girl. Three people approached him.
If I had been on that train would I have protected those girls? Yes. I have done so before. Is there anything in the record that tells me for sure I would have had to? Not in what I have read.
Jupiter:
While there is a place to consider physical (e.g. genetic) differences, the moral axioms or articles of faith: intrinsic value and individual dignity, imply that people should be considered as more than the sum of their parts. This is why judging people by the "content of their character", rather than by the "color of their skin", is not only insightful, but internally, externally, and mutual consistent, which will presumably reduce the dysfunction engendered by alternative conceptions.
"As Churchill supposedly said, "If you're not a Liberal when you're twenty, you have no heart. If you're not a Conservative when you're forty, you have no brain."
Looking at GOP economic policies implemented at the state level(Kansas and Louisiana) and the latest Trump budget, I'm afraid the evidence suggests that conservatives lack the ability to do basic math.
Apart from a few conservative and libertarian wonks like Avik Roy and Megan McArdle, I'm afraid that the modern conservative movement is completely devoid of good policy ideas.
Mock: Many people afflicted with schizotypal personality disorder experience occasional psychotic detachment, which is a degree of psychosis. Mental illness is a spectrum, and psychosis is not even exclusively confined to the chronically ill. Acute psychosis can strike someone with no history of disabling neurosis. It can, and often is, the product of drug abuse. Cocaine, methadone, methamphetamine, alcohol, even pot can produce episodic psychosis. Lately, we've seen a surge of suicides among veterans, many of whom were under treatment for depression or PTSD, which may be connected to poorly managed treatment with anti-depressants, which are known to induce psychosis and even homicidal ideation.
Inga: "the 3 men thought the 2 girls were in danger, they were protecting them. Back to blaming the victim, I see"
Then maybe clean your specracles. No one is blaming the victims, we are simply skeptical of the usual Michael Brown narrative. We want to know what "protecting" them means.
If "protecting the girls" means they told him to back off, then he's a murderer who should hang.
But Inga, what if "protecting the girks" means the 3 men physically attacked him? You've been harping against political violence for days now so:
1) do you believe a Nazi has the right to defend himself?
2) do you believe a Nazi has the right to defend himself with lethal force if he has a reasonable fear of loss of life or grievous bodily harm?
"I'm afraid the evidence suggests that conservatives lack the ability to do basic math."
This is humorous, considering it comes from a proponent of the Tax and Spend party.
Leftists think money for more government programs rains down from the heavens like manna.
AA.....there were some YouTube videos out there during the anti-Walker protests that scared the hell out of me. Like when the bus was surrounded and attacked. Or even the male legislator who yelled "YOU'RE FxCKING DEAD" to a female Republican. Or when the Republican legislator was surrounded outside the capital building.
Inga said,
Is this how the right reacts to every incident of violence by the right now, to blame the victim?
So Inga is back to claiming Christian was on the right. How quickly she abandoned her attempt to sound reasonable and even handed.
So, the issue of leftist economics is not smoothing functions, it is perpetual smoothing functions that are spiritually destructive and sponsor corruption; it is not living wages, it is devaluation of capital and labor that artificially raise the cost of living; it is not affordable and available, it is anti-capitalist practices (e.g. monopolies and practices) that undermine organic pricing; it is not health care, it is financialization conflation and deteriorating education.
So, the choices are "revitalization, rehabilitation, and reconciliation" or "redistributive change, perpetual poverty, and [class] diversity".
Questor, you sound like you have a psychiatric background. My theory is that Christian is suffering from meth psychosis. Could you take a look at it from that angle and tell me what you think?
If Christian is on meth, I imagine we'd find out pretty quick, since I'm sure there'd be a drug test (though maybe he'd refuse and have to be compelled? Dunno. Still, you'd think a drug test would be kind of standard after a violent outburst like this.)
Fen, a mentally ill methhead murdered his parents with a screwdriver this past week here.
Abby Someone wrote: When I read comments by some Althouse commenters on the far right that are already promising some sort of civil war if Trump gets impeached or if anti Trumpers don't shut up, I wonder who really wants the violence, left or right. The right started this nonsense back when Obama became President...
Bullshit. Or should I say psychotic? Inga's thinking is certainly divorced from reality, her ludicrous impeachment fantasy being just one example, but I'm no doctor...
The Republican assemblyman from La Crosse received a very specific death threat. I will look for it on line.
"So Inga is back to claiming..."
Yup. Her concern for the 3 victims is fake. They are merely useful props for her hectoring of conservatives. Pretty sick and broken.
"The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about" - some dead white guy
Earnest, those aren't racist expressions, they are xenophobic.
When a white man yells "go back to Africa" to an African American, we don't call it xenophobia, we call it racism.
That is, most of us call it racism.
"We will hunt you down. We will slit your throats. We will drink your blood. I will have your decapitated head on a pike in the Madison town square. This is your last warning."
We feel that you and your republican dictators have to die. This is how it's going to happen:...We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough...So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun.
YOUR STAFF MEMBERS HAVE NOW BEEN ADDED TO THE HIT LIST... PLEASE ADVISE THEM OF THE IMPENDING DANGER LEADING TO THIER DEATHS.
Someone slipped a note under GOP State Sen. Glenn Grothman's office door. In red letters, it said, "THE ONLY GOOD Republican is a DEAD Republican."
Wisconsin Tea Party Patriots coordinator Mike Hintz told WISN-TV what happened when his cell phone rang on March 12: "There was a male caller on the phone and he said, 'I hope you're wearing a bullet-proof vest' and hung up . . . I took it to mean this person was threatening my life by shooting me."
Yes, people, to Liberals, are just mice in a maze to be manipulated, engineered and browbeaten into acceptable behavior. The world, to them, is one big Skinner Box.
Jupiter, I've sometimes thought of you as racist. You have the right. But recognizing racial and cultural difference doesn't mean--to me, anyway--giving some more status than others. There are some cultures I abhor but that doesn't mean I devalue members of those cultures. YMMV.
"Michael Dewayne Jones, the oldest assailant, was white. "
He was MOSTLY white, in other words,he was black.
“You have a black person, a black person of mixed race and a white person,” he said about the suspects. “I don’t know where you can get race. It is not the case here."
You get racism from that because the black person, the mixed race person, and the "white" person got together to kill a white man for no apparent reason other than his race.
Once again, ARM proves himself a lying Black Supremacist.
A racist is a person who believes there are behavioral differences between races that are the result of genetic differences between races. There is a great deal of scientific evidence for this belief.
A show about human origins that I saw on PBS said that black Africans are the only people in the world without Neanderthal genes. I would say a racist is someone who thinks that's important and not merely interesting.
Biodiversity above all!
Nyamujal: "Looking at GOP economic policies implemented at the state level(Kansas and Louisiana) and the latest Trump budget, I'm afraid the evidence suggests that conservatives lack the ability to do basic math."
For instance, to prove the point one might conjure up a word problem such as "how many citizens does it take to fill up a Peoples Paradise mass grave?" knowing that the lefties are the only ones very very VERY proficient, as well as practiced, at just such "problems".
Better yet, the left is even more proficient at "forgetting" about those problems as they arrange to create ever more in new locations.
Dave, I'm not at all surprised. Just dealt with this months ago. Meth pyschosis:
Friend claiming he overheard his ex plotting to shoot him. Claims he's being followed and stalked. I let him stay with me for a week.
He started claiming he overheard me talking to FBI agents in other room (house was empty) plotting to shoot him. Paranoid that there were hidden cameras in ceiling. Everyone we encountered was an "agent" out to get him, even the 9 year olds playing frisbee.
Audial hallucinations. Rage. Paranoia. More rage with no societal awareness, ie intense verbal harassment of people over minor annoyances. Very poor judgement.
Last day he claimed he overheard neighbor lady plotting to kill him. That's when I realized I was in way over my head and sent him to his parents to get treatment.
"So Inga is back to claiming Christian was on the right. How quickly she abandoned her attempt to sound reasonable and even handed."
You're right to point this out. No I don't consider Christian a rightist, I was actually thinking of Gianforte. I should've made the distinction.
"Your stupid comments online are protected by the First Amendment dummy."
Oh Inga. You can do better than that (the "dummy" addition makes it far worse).
If the on-line comments here were protected by the 1st Amendment, Ms. Althouse could not ban any poster. Yet, though her largess is extraordinary she has, in fact, done so.
You might want to tighten up you grasp of the Constitution just a weeeeee bit.
They should sent this creep to Egypt to defend other Christians. But that would be a copt out.
A white man screams at a Muslim-American “go back to Saudi Arabia.”
A white man screams at an African-American “go back to Africa.”
A white man screams at a Jewish-American “go back to Germany.”
All three drink from the same cup of hate, so I have to suspect the motives of those who say otherwise.
My theory is that Christian is suffering from meth psychosis. Could you take a look at it from that angle and tell me what you think?
Meth-heads who experience drug-induced psychosis tend to be very violent, but it is usually unfocused, or more precisely focused on whoever is nearby, girlfriends and children all too often. Christian has such a long history of violent rhetoric aimed at political "enemies". I'd suspect paranoid schizophrenia first.
Antifa and white supremacists/skinheads come to the table with that violent ideology.
You might be old enough to remember the KKK murders at a largely black rally in Greensboro, NC. The victims, mostly white commie community organizers IIRC (one a doctor in my town), had incited the klansmen to show up.
Nyamujal said...
Looking at GOP economic policies implemented at the state level(Kansas and Louisiana) and the latest Trump budget, I'm afraid the evidence suggests that conservatives lack the ability to do basic math.
CalPERS.
*drops mic*
Abby Someone wrote: You're right to point this out. No I don't consider Christian a rightist, I was actually thinking of Gianforte. I should've made the distinction.
Actually thinking... well, it just goes to show there's a fist time for everything. Too bad it was such an unthoughtful thought.
"The three men thought the two teen girls were in danger, they were protecting them."
I doubt it. It seems at least as likely that at least the hippie was virtue signaling. He didn't have to get physically involved in something that up to then was possibly only disagreeable speech. He may have been the type who believes it's his moral imperative to silence all dissent from the basket of Deplorables. He was probably influenced by the leftist culture of "I'll ride with you" diaper-pin wearers and videos that show how easy it is to stop or prevent violence by eating chips and sending out good vibes -- virtuous, no-consequence acts of kindness.
I'm not blaming the victims, but merely considering the possibility that they were at least partly to blame.
"When a white man yells go back to Africa that's racism"
Only because it is assumed the white man wants the black man gone because of the color of his skin.
Christian's problem with Muslims appears to be centered around Islam. He assumes they are 5th collumnists bringing the Jihad into America (as they did in Europe) and he wants them gone.
Really, the Left's hyperbole over "racism" has made it difficult to have a conversation. It's like they are from an alternate reality where criticing Obama is "racist"...
"A show about human origins that I saw on PBS said that black Africans are the only people in the world without Neanderthal genes. I would say a racist is someone who thinks that's important and not merely interesting."
I'm a practicing racist, and I doubt that particular difference is very important. But who knows. What we know is that blacks differ greatly from most other races at a very large number of genes, and that cities, or parts of cities, inhabited largely by blacks have high crime rates and low economic productivity. And that blacks are convicted of crimes at much higher rates than other races. I am tired of being blamed for it.
Thanks for the look, Quaestor. Makes sense.
I used to think of political beliefs in a linear way, from far left to far right, with a center. But over the past few years I’ve found that it’s not a line at all, it’s a circle. I know people on the far right and far left that hold the same beliefs, mostly conspiracy theories, with a lot of crazy talk. And I think this is where Christian is in that circle, it’s neither left or right, he’s in the crazy spot.
Also reading the Oregonian article there’s this:
“Burley believes that Christian's "lone wolf" act of violence, and the apparent contradictions in his belief system bely a deeper problem.
"These are political acts of violence that are the responsibility of white nationalists," he told us.
Burley said that historically, it has been the case that higher level people in far-right extremist movements rile up people down the line and it is those people, who are often marginalized, that commit the violence.
Burley cited the murder of Mulugeta Seraw by three racist skinheads in Portland in 1988 -- which was ultimately found to be the responsibility not just of the men who physically killed Seraw but of the men who ran the skinhead organization that incited them -- as an example.
The figureheads and spokespeople of these groups have "a very big effect on influencing the rank and file," Burley said. "We're talking about an unstable person that was led into a mindset of violent revolution and egged on until he kind of burst."
Jupiter says what alot of people see but are too afraid speak on. That takes courage, especially in this era of witch hunts.
We should be able to explore racial differences without being accused of supporting racial superiority.
Hell, I remember the Spanish Inquisition merely for discussing the theory of _simultaneous_ evolution. Gee, the concept that groups of primates evolved independently of each other in differing regions threatened some shibboleth....
The victims, mostly white commie community organizers IIRC (one a doctor in my town), had incited the klansmen to show up.
The Communists were brandishing a few weapons while chanting "Death to the Klan!" and other time-honored shibboleths of the left. The KKK goons showed up with their guns. Insults were exchanged. Then bullets. The Communists made the mistake of arming themselves without developing combat skills, so when push came to shove came to fusillade, they got the worst of it.
At the subsequent trial, the state could not prove which side opened fire and consequently could not discredit the Klan defendants' claim of self-defense. They walked. The lesson is don't be surprised if people take your violent rhetoric seriously.
Only because it is assumed the white man wants the black man gone because of the color of his skin.
Enlighten us, Fen, with the non-racist reasons a white man tells an African-American to go back to Africa.
Earnest: "I have to suspect the motives of those who say otherwise "
You should avoid doing that. Because, as I demonstrated in my response to you upthread, you really haven't thought it through and you aren't intelligent enough to make such a judgement - you mistook hatred of religion for hatred of race.
A show about human origins that I saw on PBS said that black Africans are the only people in the world without Neanderthal genes.
This is more incorrect than correct. While it is apparently true that certain indigenous people living in southern Africa, Namibia mostly, lack Neanderthal genetic markers, it is not true of most Africans, black or otherwise.
Enlighten us, Fen, with the non-racist reasons a white man tells an African-American to go back to Africa.
It seems you're a bit of a racist yourself, Earnest Prole, else how can you so blithely assume an African-American can't have an opinion.
Earnest: "the non-racist reason a white man tells a black man to go back to Africa"
You've overstayed your visa?
Are you really going to play this game with me? Are you one of those people who sees everything through white v black lenses?
Get over it. Skin color should be no more relevant than hair color. These days, clinging to critical race theory is like collecting 8 track tapes.
A white man screams at a Muslim-American “go back to Saudi Arabia.”
Nothing to do with hate or racism. An ideological culture has sworn to kill us 'infidels'. It is in our interests to keep them out.
you mistook hatred of religion for hatred of race
To the victims of genocide the distinction is not cost-effective.
A white man screams at a Muslim-American “go back to Saudi Arabia.”
Nothing to do with hate or racism. An ideological culture has sworn to kill us 'infidels'. It is in our interests to keep them out.
Checkmate.
"the non-racist reason a white man tells a black man to go back to Africa "
2) we're out of Vibranium
3) American women are spoiled brats and your wife needs you
4) I've appointed you regional director of our Zaire operations
...this could be fun
I don't think you understand what "checkmate" means. Despising a culture that treats women as slaves is not racism.
Some random weirdo wants to tell Charlize Theron to go back to Africa. Is he a racist?
Earnest Prole?
Earnest Prole wrote: Checkmate.
Mockturtle gets to say that. She cleaned your clock, Prole. That was Q-R5 if I ever saw one.
"the non-racist reason a white man tells a black man to go back to Africa"
My comment read "African-American," not "black man." It appears racism has infected the cut-and-paste function on your computer.
Fen wrote: I don't think you understand what "checkmate" means.
Oh, let Earnest Prole cling to his delusions. They're all he's got.
are eating it up like biscuits and gravy
Um-mm, biscuits and gravy!
Fen wrote: Only because it is assumed the white man wants the black man gone because of the color of his skin.
Earnest Prole wrote: ProleEnlighten us, Fen, with the non-racist reasons a white man tells an African-American to go back to Africa.
It appears your device has the same virus, Earnest Prole. I recommend Avast!.
@ Earnest Prole
"My comment read "African-American," not "black man." It appears racism has infected the cut-and-paste function on your computer."
Charlize Theron is not a man.
Nobody here is abusing Chuck simply for being anti-Trump, Inga you ignorant slut.
He's being (rightly) abused for being disingenuous about it.
Oh, and: taking a video with your cellphone is NOT "protecting", not in any rational world.
Oh that's funny Earnest. I'm a racist for saying black man but it's okay for you to say white man? Why is this wrong for me but okay for you?
And in the future, please use the term European-American instead of "white"
When refering to me specifically to my race, use the slightly more cumbersome Anglo-Saxon-Cherokee Mutt.
Mary:
Both linear and circular models of belief systems are simplified models that remove useful information. In reality, belief systems are a constellation of vectors, each representing a belief, that together can be perceived as "character". These constellations (e.g. individuals) interact in complex ways to reach a political or social consensus.
@ Fen
I need to be referred as a Cherokee-Irish-Scots-German-Puerto Rican-Mexican mutt.
@ Earnest Prole
Please note the important distinctions in the presentation of my preferred identity. Fen and I are different and demand proper respect. #SafeSpaces
Blogger Earnest Prole said...
Only because it is assumed the white man wants the black man gone because of the color of his skin.
Enlighten us, Fen, with the non-racist reasons a white man tells an African-American to go back to Africa.
5/31/17, 12:33 PM
Oh, blabbity blah. You know, it's true that Chuck has disappeared - I swear, I didn't lay a finger on him; I was denied the pleasure - but now we have this earnest prole with the commie star (Senegal? Heineken?) posting much the same, though playing more even tempered.
Has anyone seen Chuck and Earnest Prole together? Has anyone noted their blogger IDs? How long has EP been around here, does anyone remember him?
Charlize Theron is not a man.
And she is a native African who survived the left's [class] incursions and elective war for what was likely control of her native land's natural and anthropogenic resources (a la Libya, Ukraine).
BTW Inga,
You asked people to sound off about this case. Let me say that I would like to reserve judgment until all possible facts are in. Is that okay with you?
If it makes you feel better I assume the guy is a tinfoil type rather than a hero, but I do have an eye wide open on the Moon Unit fellow who seems to have tripped his trigger.
And in that sense...I blame former President Barack Hussein Obama. The guy who said Get in their faces.
Inga, this is what happens when people get in people's faces.
Earnest Prole: "Checkmate"
Hardly, as Islam is not a race.
A comment directly to Althouse:
I agree with your project of questioning the establishment media; like you I believe reporters often don’t tell us what we need to make sense of the news, sometimes for ideological reasons and sometimes because they aren’t that bright (some may say that’s a distinction without a difference).
I disagree with your passivity in the face of that reality. With a few keystrokes you could have accessed the foundational evidence of hatred in this case, the video of the African-American teenage girl accosted by the perpetrator, saying "He told us to go back to Saudi Arabia and he told us we shouldn't be here, to get out of his country.” I linked to it above.
Since the Holocaust we’ve treated religious hatred and racial hatred as the same thing. There may be an academic debate worth having over whether they are one and the same, or a related but separate kind of hatred. Because that debate tends to attract the kind of people who believe Hitler was making a theological point, care is required in its framing.
n.n, haven't responded because I can't figure out cut n pasre on stupid smart bphone, but just wanted to say you've been rocking the thread. Very interesting comments back to back to back. Had trick?
@Drago, actually I identify as an African-American but prefer to be called black. Heh. And I present as a pre-op tiger, tail and fangs coming soon.
And don't you dare tell me tigers are not indeginous to Africa. Cause that would be racist.
Enlighten us, Fen, with the non-racist reasons a white man tells an African-American to go back to Africa.
5/31/17, 12:33 PM
He left the stove on?
Kidding, just kidding, lighten up already, will you?
JAORE: "You might want to tighten up you grasp of the Constitution just a weeeeee bit."
Nonsense. The left tells us the Constitution is simply a tool of the white oppressors and must be discarded.
Plus its really old or something and did you know it's a 100 years old!!
From another blog that does mostly scientific posts.
Comment sections suffer from entropy as they grow past a certain size,
@Ernest Prole:Checkmate.
Islam is not a race. Muslims come in all races, however you define race.
Saudi Arabian is not a race either.
Since the Holocaust we’ve treated religious hatred and racial hatred as the same thing.
Not quite. The National Socialists never made that argument. I don't see the need to discredit your premise since it is obvious to anyone who bothers to learn the history in depth. But it does open the door to many questions. One is Hamas. Is that organization racist? How about Iran? Also racist? Sarah Silverman is a Jew who likes to mock Christians. Is she a racist?
Earnest Prole wrote: Since the Holocaust we’ve treated religious hatred and racial hatred as the same thing.
And just who is this we? It would take an act of profound indifference to logic to conflate these two unrelated things. Kindly use the singular pronoun when speaking about your own prejudices.
I think it likely that Earnest is Chuck.
Because Earnest keeps getting tripped up by amateur mistakes that someone steeped in critical race theory would have made and corrected a long time ago.
Like an "expert chess master" falling for Fool's Mate.
“Since the Holocaust we’ve treated religious hatred and racial hatred as the same thing.”
Nope. The Nazis believed Jews were a separate and inferior race. They didn’t a if the Jew was a secular atheist or an ultra-Orthodox Hasid. They didn’t care if the Jew had converted to Christianity. St. Edith Stein was born Jewish but became a Catholic nun. She ended up in the gas chambers, as did half-Jews who knew nothing whatsoever about the Jewish religion.
Certainly they delighted in doing things like forcing religious Jews to desecrate the Torah, but their animus was based far more on pseudo-science and eugenics than it was on theology.
Of course, I still maintain that all trolls on Althouse are just a bored Meade trying to liven up the joint.
I mean c'mon, I know its what I would do. Just as a social experiment.
'Honey, I think I broke your blog"
And Arabs are Caucasian.
“Islam is not a race. Muslims come in all races, however you define race.
Saudi Arabian is not a race either.”
I would be far warier of a white person who converted to Islam than I would be of a Hindu from India or a Copt from Egypt. Conservatives who thought John Walker Lindh should have swung by the neck for treason also voted for Bobby Jindal and like Clarence Thomas.
Honey, I think I broke your blog
Meade is really Gerald Broflovski, who is really the usual suspects. Nah. I don't believe it. Not until skankhunter45 appears and makes an obscene suggestion to Inga. Then I'll believe it.
Hey, it's satire. It's funny. It's a social experiment. [Bang! thud.] Oops.
And just who is this we? It would take an act of profound indifference to logic to conflate these two unrelated things.
Here, let me google anti-semitism for you.
So now "riling up" is a problem? Like BLM and its supporters (including the then-President) "riling up" hatred of cops, and then naturally 5 cops are killed in Dallas.
Don't bother with Google, Prole. It is evident you know little about the subject.
Anti-Semitism is simply Jew-Hatred. The Jews have a distinctive religion that spawned two other creeds, but they are not a race. Most Jews are of European origin, but not all of them. Then there are the Sephardim and the Mizrahi. There are some who are African and archetypically black. And there are some who outwardly appear to be Han, the Kaifeng. But they are Jews because that is their heritage. Anti-Semites hate Jews for any available reason. It's not religious hatred because the paradigm anti-Semite doesn't cease to hate a Jew if that Jew is in fact Christian by confession. Nor can anti-Semitism logically be race-hatred, since the Jews are not a race.
BTW In case, you didn't notice. Checkmate.
Aren't the Arabs Semitic? That would make anti-semitism just a shorthand for Jew Hatred.
Spellcheck says semitism is misspelt, as is misspelt. What a post I'm having!
Math is just a racist white supremacist construct used to keep people of color down.
Just like Physics.
We know this because leftists tell us this: https://heatst.com/culture-wars/feminist-scholar-creates-intersectional-quantum-physics-to-fight-oppression/
Quaestor: "BTW In case, you didn't notice. Checkmate."
Actual checkmate. As opposed to the "fools checkmate" some lesser intellects believe they have achieved even though they find themselves above a checkers game.
In Intersectional Quantum Physics some down quarks are really up quarks that suffer oppression from the charmed quarks.
His posts reveal a comic book collector with nebulous political affiliations who above all else seemed to hate circumcision and Hillary Clinton.
What do we know about Sanders and Cliton and Trump in this regard?
Nor can anti-Semitism logically be race-hatred, since the Jews are not a race.
As I noted, debates about the distinction between religious hatred and racial hatred tend to attract people who make excuses for both. Perhaps I may discourage that tendency by saying that since the Holocaust we’ve considered religious hatred and racial hatred equally loathsome. By “we,” I mean those who believe every person is created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights. The Portland murderer believed otherwise, as do a number of commenters here.
Somewhere up there, Althouse requested links to videos.
This one shows a part of the rally (near the start, I think), with rallygoers, and anti-free-speech activists trying to disrupt, but not being violent in this bit of video. It has Christian yelling at someone and calling him a "White Nigger" (about three and a half minutes in). I can't tell whether he called anyone that without the modifier, but other rallygoers were remonstrating with him about using that word.
This one shows Christian being asked by the rally organizers(?) to leave, complaining that he wanted to talk to "your group's philosopher", and at one point claiming to be Jewish. The police(?) ask him to leave(?) and he walks off to derisive chanting by the group. Hard to hear the video on this one and I wasn't sure what he was saying half the time.
This is a longer clip from a different angle of the incident about. After he leaves, he comes back, he stands a little apart from the group and yells things that are fairly nuts.
@ Earnest Prole
Is one of those unalienable rights the right to self defense? Can that right, that unalienable right, be alienated because of the beliefs of the person defending? Is one of those rights due process under the law?
Bernard Goetz wants me to ask. He has his reasons.
@ jaed
So you're saying he's a fan of former West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd?
Semite and Semitic are really stupid words, capitalized or not. It refers of course to Noah's son Shem who is credited by Genesis to be the ancestor of Abraham. Shem had a brother called Ham and another brother called Darryl and another brother called Darryl. Actually, that's not true. The other brother was Japheth. There was no Spam, according to Torah, but that's not true because Spam begat Quaestor eventually. Some say Ham is really Yam, which is odd if you care to ask the pig.
Semitic makes sense only in terms of language. Arabs who speak Arabic are Semites. Iranians who speak Farsi are not, even though Farsi is often written in Arabic script. Stupid. Crazy.
Earnest Prole wrote: Perhaps I may discourage that tendency by saying that since the Holocaust we’ve considered religious hatred and racial hatred equally loathsome.
I find that concise and self-evident. Congrats.
The Portland murderer believed otherwise, as do a number of commenters here.
That has the distinct odor of rank bullshit. Try again.
The reason this section devolves occasionally into madness here is because the quality of the lefties commenting here is so wanting. Shallow, illogical, emotional. Grasping at any innuendo and conjecture as sole evidence of the correctness of their position.
The conservatives know their stuff here and enjoy the intellectual atmosphere that Ms. Althouse tries to provide. It's a safe space for conservatives to come and argue (in the classic sense) with an intellectually honest and learned liberal. Generally, we believe in the strength of our arguments and are willing to debate them. The Leftist commenters here can't do that. When forced to debate the reasoning behind their statements they fall back on calling people 'dummy' while they themselves exhibit a complete misunderstanding of our most basic Right as codified in our most basic law, the Constitution. And I am sure that the irony goes completely unnoticed by the perpetrator.
I have to believe that the Professor had hoped that more people like her would come in to debate and that this blog would a haven for reason, dissent, agreement, and civil discourse. It can never be that. The Left's arguments are weak and require an adept intellect to defend them, such as they are. But it would be a grind for them to do so. And for what? Better to stay in friendly waters where one can lay back an float.
No, what we get here are those kant-belchers who, once they sense that they have been cornered yet again, resort to flinging their poo. But then again, flinging their poo was why they came here in the first place.
@ Quaestor
Do you detect from Earnest Prole's comment that some of the commenters are not included in the 'we' and are therefore othered? I wonder how much those not-in-the-we are devalued? Do you think they are devalued down to punching, like the Nazis? Or do you think they are devalued to nothing, as the Nazis did to gypsies?
Is one of those unalienable rights the right to self defense?
The First Amendment would not exist without the Second.
@Birkel
Had me that tambourine. You can play the violin. Hey!
Quaestor observes: Some say Ham is really Yam, which is odd if you care to ask the pig.
Is that why Popeye says, "I Yam what I Yam"?
As I noted, debates about the distinction between religious hatred and racial hatred tend to attract people who make excuses for both.
Uh, doesn't a debate have two sides? That's 'intellectual honesty' on display there, folks.
No, you aren't some racism monger....
Congrats.
Hand me that tambourine, damnit! My fingers labour under a Romani curse,
@ Earnest Prole
So if this person, potentially crazy and thoroughly unlikable, reasonably believed he was attacked by three men, you could see yourself voting not guilty?
(I have absolutely no knowledge of the facts of the case. I assume competent counsel will be provided and defenses offered, if this gets to a trial. And I assume the facts and defenses will be developed zealously in accordance with the ethical requirements of the Oregon Bar.)
@ Quaestor
You can have my tambourine when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. HA!
Is that why Popeye says, "I Yam what I Yam"?
Let's see... Ham (or Yam, take your druthers) was a hewer of wood. From wood one can build ships. Ships need sailors...
And here I am thinking Popeye was just being cryptic.
So if this person, potentially crazy . . . reasonably believed . . .
Some questions answer themselves.
@ Earnest Prole
I agree. You answered the question "Do you believe in due process under the law."
Birkel I have absolutely no knowledge of the facts of the case.
You obviously haven't been paying attention. J.J. Christian has had his trial. He's guilty, guilty, guilty. Inga, Prole, and ARM served on the jury. Just ask them.
PS
How can you play the violin with cold dead fingers?
You answered the question "Do you believe in due process under the law."
I take it you mean to imply it is impossible to form an opinion on a violent act until the perpetrator has been convicted and exhausted all appeals. As we discussed the other day, by that standard O.J. Simpson didn't murder his wife.
@ Earnest Prole
You didn't get my Bernard Goetz reference, did you? So I can say that you are likely in your 20s.
Get to googling.
@ Quaestor
I am remarkably untalented, musically. My play would not suffer.
You didn't get my Bernard Goetz reference, did you?
Lordy. Some time in the past ten years I've probably referenced Bernard Goetz myself here.
@ Earnest Prole
Then you admit a man may be thoroughly unlikable, have caused the death other(s) and still be not guilty under the law? Choose a position. Your inconsistency is unfortunate.
As we discussed the other day, by that standard O.J. Simpson didn't murder his wife.
Innocent until proven guilty is a noble principle because it demands we accept an occasional injustice in silence. This is hard for some people to swallow peaceably, but this difference is one reason why Aristotle spoke of natural aristocrats.
You guys should drop the pretense and openly support Christian. You know you want to. From your point of view he’s a hero. Those awful liberals were curtailing his freedom of speech and trying to prevent him from harassing Muslims, who should be expelled from this country anyway. Those liberals deserved to die. Besides, it was self defense! Tell me you don’t believe that in your heart of hearts.
@ Vinegar
I think the institution of the courts is more important than any single defendant. I believe in due process and a zealous defense. If you would like to declare "sentence first, trial later" is a better position, please declare it openly instead of hiding behind your politics.
I must be psychic or something. I no sooner finishing typing a comment referencing the Aristotelian concept of the natural aristocrat, when up pops an example of the counterpart. What are the odds?
@ Quaestor
I will bet you the odds are 100%.
J.J. Christian has had his trial. He's guilty, guilty, guilty
They said the same thing about the White Hispanic American who was assaulted by Obama's "son", then the social justice warriors went on an adventure to terrorize anyone who looked like him or could be unreasonable connected to him, with the president and press leading them on.
Pro-Choice is a twilight religious/moral philosophy that presumes guilt, identifies people by the "color of their skin", and normalizes/promotes the rite of elective abortion (e.g. selective-child) and clinical clinical cannibalism (e.g. Planned Parenthood), too.
I think we all understand the responsibility jurors have to consider suspects innocent until proven guilty, and that unless we are one of the twelve jurors we are not bound legally or morally from forming opinions about a crime.
On a related note, if you're interested in pursuing a self-defense case for your client you'll need to explain why he was recorded threatening to stab the conductor and others the day before the murders.
On a related note, if you're interested in pursuing a self-defense case for your client you'll need to explain why he was recorded threatening to stab the conductor and others the day before the murders.
If Christain is charged with capital murder the prosecution will not bring that up in court because it is probably inadmissible. The defense may use it in a plea of diminished capacity, however.
If you want to understand criminal law, there's one thing you must grasp firmly, else you'll always be bewildered by the outcome of trials. The defendant doesn't have to explain ANYTHING.
@Birkel
Nice strawman, did I say I didn't believe in due process? I'm merely pointing out that many of the commenters here are sympathetic to Christian and will remain so even if he's found guilty.
It was an elective abortion. No one is disputing this. Whether he Planned it or not will come out in a jury trial. This isn't Libya (or Ukraine). This isn't one of Obama's elective wars, where heads of states (and American ambassadors) are aborted in a street trial.
The national left and international left-wing organizations have been radicalized through their faith in the twilight fringe and adoption of the Pro-Choice quasi-religious/moral/legal doctrine.
Earnest "Not a Lawyer" Prole: "On a related note, if you're interested in pursuing a self-defense case for your client you'll need to explain why he was recorded threatening to stab the conductor and others the day before the murders."
Why does the defense have to explain the intent of the individual who recorded something?
Vinegar: "Nice strawman, did I say I didn't believe in due process? I'm merely pointing out that many of the commenters here are sympathetic to Christian and will remain so even if he's found guilty."
Lol
Nice strawman about supposedly sympathetic commenters!
Too rich.
Don't you have some hate crime hoaxes to perpetrate somewhere?
Quaestor makes a prediction. Note this down anyone who's interested.
J.J. Christian will not be tried for capital murder. The state will charge 1st-degree manslaughter. The defense will argue diminished capacity. There will be plea bargaining. Christain will plead guilty to Class B felony manslaughter and receive ten years.
Quaestor: "J.J. Christian will not be tried for capital murder. The state will charge 1st-degree manslaughter. The defense will argue diminished capacity. There will be plea bargaining. Christain will plead guilty to Class B felony manslaughter and receive ten years."
If the defense is really clever they will convince this guy to convert to Islam and claim he was "correcting" some non-hijabbed gals when these westerners piped up and got what was coming to them.
There is not a single lefty around that would criticize that.
Clarification: Ten years on each count, which may run concurrently.
Quaestor makes a prediction.
If his defense attorney can't successfully plead insanity with the wealth of evidence available, he probably belongs in another line of work.
"The video makes a different impression...."
Hence, Trump.
If his defense attorney can't successfully plead insanity with the wealth of evidence available, he probably belongs in another line of work.
"Insanity" is old hat. Juries don't buy it because they are instructed to define insanity as the inability to distinguish right from wrong. That's a very, very hard sell unless the defendant can be shown to believe his victim was a literal demon or such like. Diminished capacity is a far easier plea to win. Defendants who plead so still get prison terms, but they get psychiatric care and counseling as well. James Holmes brought plenty of evidence of his madness to trial, but he still got life.
3 Comments that stood out for me:
1. Michael's comment:
>Paranoid schizophrenics often have quite well organized delusions.
>The deinstitutionizing movement of the 1960s left these people on the street with no >treatment. Families are often desperate to get them help but they can do nothing.
For this I blame both parties at least in CA. Win win for both. Democrats more freedom, and Republican's cut direct costs. Unfortunately society pays in so many other indirect ways. And no, I don't have a perfect solution. The old system had issues, and so does the current one. I wish we had politician's brave enough to try something different, but with the instant lynch mobs out there, a politician would have to be crazy to do so.
2. Inga's Comment
>To me he seems like a man with a very loose touch with reality.
3. And AA's Comment in another thread about how she road the NYC Subway for 10 years, and the safest thing was to leave a person alone.
There is a lot of back and forth finger pointing in this thread, but a bit repetitive and not that interesting.
Interesting point about trying to discern AA's politics, I would use cruel neutrality. For whatever reason the anti Trump press coverage and the political one sided of major news coverage is so over the top, that it gives her so many opportunities to write about. I guess it all comes down to clicks for news coverage, and what gets the greatest exposure. I agree with Scott Adams view, where we seem to have two major viewpoints. One is that Trump is horrible, and the other he is not driven by Media, both the traditional and new. And there is no gray area between the two views. Unfortunately we live in a world that is not usually that simple.
Is it possible to have mindful news reporting, or is that too boring and would never be commercially successful?
Read My Brother Ron. It's almost the best book on the subject. The best by a family member.
Thanks Michael!
A friend's Brothers experience exposed me to the system about 30 years ago. He needed help, but there was nothing his family could do. Sad.
And going to SF or downtown LA with hordes of homeless, reminds me of how broken the current system still is.
@ Michael
Bought it! I followed your link, so I hope Althouse gets the commission.
I don;t know how to link through AA. Anyway, it's good. He has a good blog.
I bought the Kindle version and converted the file to iBooks format so my 'puter can read it to me with it sonorous Received English accent.
Cramer has also written extensively on the Second Amendment. He's instantly one of my favorites authors.
Did someone here have a brother who was let out of a looney bin?
The great thing about Republican control of government is that all those services will continue to be further cut to the bone. Get ready for some heavy-duty deinstitutionaliza- I mean, deregulation!
It's ok. I'm sure some as yet unseen "market forces" will pay to provide these economically disadvantaged cases with the services they need, right?
Thread's over!
And going to SF or downtown LA with hordes of homeless, reminds me of how broken the current system still is.
In the past five years homelessness has exploded in the Bay Area -- and I say that having watched it wax and wane for more than thirty years. So in the spirit of Quaestor, I'm going to make a prediction: In 6–12 months the media will suddenly discover homelessness exists and blame it on Trump and the Republicans.
Speaking of books, Michael K, I'm nearing the end of Citizens. Very well written! Thanks again for another great recommendation.
@ Vinegar
And I am pointing out that you are making shit up. Nobody said anything supportive. If they did, quote it. What you might post is your interpretation of others. But that is because you are uncharitable to people you have othered.
Can I get a ruling?
Is "Leftist projection" a redundancy?
Is "Leftist projection" a redundancy?
More of a tautology, but I'll rule it in as you have it.
Citizens is good. "Paris in the Terror" is also excellent although often hard to find.
After reading a history on the subject I recommend A Place of Greater Safety by Hilary Mantell. It's a novel, but it makes clear how the French Revolution was operated by a tiny clique of men, many of whom knew each other from childhood, and how that familiarity and those long-standing friendships failed to prevent the Terror from consuming them all.
Citizens is good. "Paris in the Terror" is also excellent although often hard to find.
I read that one last--bought both through Amazon. Again, on your excellent recommendation. I still recommend Carlyle's The French Revolution. Once you get into the flow of his narrative, you will be hooked [at least, I was]. The best FR book written, IMHO.
I listened to a Great Course on the French Revolution a month or so ago. It was about 25 hours.
I read Peasants into Frenchmen about ten years ago. It was heavy going but had some interesting insights.
Prior to the Revolution, few outside of Paris spoke French.
Quaestor said...
How can you play the violin with cold dead fingers?
5/31/17, 4:06 PM
Use toes...
Post a Comment