-22
Nashville Covenant School Shooter Audrey Hale's Manifesto Released By Steven Crowder
(www.tampafp.com)
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
-22 points (22.5% liked)
Conservative
373 readers
26 users here now
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't care what a mass shooter believes, releasing their manifesto is always the wrong thing to do. It encourages other insane people killing people to get their manifestos published.
I think the push by conservatives to make people aware of it is a response to perceptions that there seems to be a concerted effort to cover up the motives of the shooter. And the implication being that his motives are influenced by leftwing identity politics rhetoric such as CRT and general anti-white and anti-Christian attitudes in leftist spaces. And that platforms and such sympathize with these so they want to cover it up. And this all being a response to a broad narrative that right wing rhetoric is causing terrorism.
I don't care what a mass shooter believes. Mass shooters are, by definition, insane. Their specific type of insanity is not important, and sharing their ramblings encourages other insane people.
Then why keep stats on the politics of the shooter?
I don't. If you're asking why law enforcement keeps those stats, I would imagine that information is pretty important to their jobs. If you're asking why the news publishes that information, I'd argue that it really isn't news unless there's a sudden and inexplicable trend. Like if every mass shooter mentioned the same radio personality or political leader as a contributing factor in their insanity, then it's probably in the public interest to mention that part.
Pretty much. Hell its gotten so bad leftists think conservatives are worse than Hamas.
https://reddthat.com/post/7488855
I know which one directly threatens the safety of my children and tried to overthrow the US government and install a fascist dictator.
Anyone who thinks Hamas is a bigger threat to the US than the GOP's goal of Christian Nationalism is delusional.
Didn't a whole lot of people from Palestine just attack the white house.... Funny. I haven't seen any arrests plastered all over the news.
Lmao!
I sure feel targeted by Hamas because a few people (who were not affiliated with Hamas) tried to climb a fence and got immediately shut down.
Holy shit, at least try to make a relevant comment.
Look behind you, it's Hamas!
Goddamn that's funny.
This you? https://lemmy.world/comment/5137078
Can you not read? Of course it's me.
Yeah, thats the point I was making. Now, is it terrorism?
Is what terrorism?
Attacking the white house.
What violence was done?
Attacking the white house
LMAO!
So pathetic. Do you not realize what terrorism is?
Did you have a point? Or were you just wanting to reminisce about the last time you were wrong?
He acted because he believed the dehumanizing rhetoric of CRT. Letting people see CRT for the hate it really is needs to happen.
Oh no, bad thing happened, so clearly [latest right wing boogeyman] is responsible! Let's not even offer supporting evidence.
The supporting evidence is his manifesto. His hate for "powerfull" "wealthy" white people came from the idea that they harmed him and were responsible for his problems.
Maybe you should actually read the article before claiming you have evidence:
So you've shifted from his manifesto not being littered with CRT ideology to the police will not confirm that the journal is authentic.
No, I still hold the position that the right wing is using CRT as a boogeyman, and an unconfirmed manifesto (that doesn't even having anything to do with CRT, let alone being littered with it) in no way supports your claim.
It's pretty obvious you can't or won't read his manifesto.
Yeah, it's almost like I don't want to lend any credence to terrorists/terrorist orgs.
Yet you can claim to know what's in it without reading it.
If your water stops working in your bathroom, but you still have water pressure in other parts of the house. Without looking in the pipes, is it wrong to say that there is a clog?
Even though you never looked?
I never claimed to know what's in Hale’s manifesto if there actually is one, and I don't need to because I know what leads to a metaphorical clog, and CRT ain't it.
The only way to know if water stopped working in your bathroom is to observe it you have to look. Further bathrooms have shutoffs, it's far more likely the shutoff was enabled. Water pipes getting clogged in a specific area is very uncommon so it would be wrong to think your pipes are clogged. It looks like you know as much about plumbing as the manifesto.
It's a metaphor. If you can't even try to understand what I'm saying then I don't know what to tell you.
It's a terrible metaphor. Claiming knowledge about something without ever seeing it is impossible.
Humans can't see X rays. Yet we claim immense knowledge of them.
You need to work on your metaphors. We can observe xrays.
No we can't. X rays are beyond the range of human vision.
Observe != see. Read carefully
So we can know something with indirect observation? Congratulations for getting up to speed, now please apply what you've learned to my original metaphor.
Youu haven't observed the manifesto indirectly. You shitty metaphors still doesn't work.
Like I already said, I don't need to, to know CRT isn't the problem here.
You've said over and over that you want to better understand conservatives, then you say stuff like this. You also whine that you can't just defeat the point of the sub by posting lefty shit.
Do you honestly want to understand, or is that just an excuse?
No I haven't. I understand conservatism plenty. It's all about fighting literally anything that would make the world better, more empathetic, more prosperous, more fair, and actively pushing for regression and death of humanity.
I'm not here to understand conservatism better. I'm here to stay in the loop, keep my debate skills in check, a bit of entertainment, and on the off chance a fence sitter is passing by, hopefully enough context for them to see through conservative bullshit.