Right wing terrorist attacks numbered 74 last year, which is more than any weekend in Chicago, other than one cherry picked one, apparently. It also isn't terrorism what is happening in Chicago and those 87 shootings weren't the result of random terrorist acts on civilians. Most are gang on gang violence, which is still a big deal, but different. And, again, why not both? Is there some reason we have to choose to deal with one or the other? Plus, which one, mainly, is a federal issue and which one is a local issue? I mean, there are so many difference things at play here. Mainly, why so quick to dismiss the growing problem of white supremacist attacks with some straw man reference to gang violence to distract from someone correctly stating we need to address the problem of white supremacist organizations? This particularly when we know these groups have made a specific and pointed effort to infiltrate the police force and military.
When those 30 acts of violence touch hundreds of people, they aren't 30 acts of violence. They are the equivalent of thousands of acts of violence. It isn't a boogeyman. It's a real thing. It's a real national thing. Shootings in Chicago affect Chicago. White supremacy affects America. Oddy, the President is focused on America. The mayor of Chicago is focused on Chicago. That's just how our government works.
I wouldn't expect either of you to agree on which is more of a threat to people in America. It's too obvious and not PC to discuss
We're not arguing which is more of a threat. Nothing of the sort was ever mentioned or inferred. You, on the other hand, are arguing one isn't a threat, essentially, and we shouldn't really concern ourselves with it. We have argued the definition of terrorism, essential concerns of white supremacist groups and who is responsible for dealing with these situations, as well as how they are different.
Stat I just read thru 8/31/20 was 5 deaths blamed on domestic terrorism, 2 of which were police officers, one loner regarding abortion, and a protestor shot. So it appears through August of last year for 2020, 1 may have been related to white supremacy. Not even a blip on the radar
The study also said the low number of fatalities was due to effective intervention by the FBI and law enforcement and the increase in organization and fund raising of violent domestic terror groups. It also notes this goes further than deaths in terms of threats of violence, foiled violent plans, attacks without fatalities and so forth. It seems as if devoting some resources to this is worthwhile.
Chicago was just an example. Not sure why you are so focused on it instead of the point. Another example, in midtown and downtown memphis, are the people in the neighborhoods and on the streets more of a threat to people walking down the street, or are white supremecists. Easy answer, has been the same answer for a long time, and won't change. Whether you label them a terrorist group or overstate their danger to people, the true danger lies much closer and it aint white supremecists committing acts based on politics or race.
Because it's a bad example, and a worse point. As I'll demonstrate below, with your latest attempt at a bad example: And the bigger danger to people in downtown and midtown Memphis is cars. So we shouldn't even focus on the folks on the street. We should do more traffic tickets.
you didn't like the car wreck example when talking about danger of covid, but now want to use it when discussing if white supremacists are more danger to society than one's own neighbor? That's a no go. Sorry. Its a simple point, in regards to threat level and % chance a black person in Memphis will be a victim of violence by another black person vs by a white supremacist. Same for white person being attacked by another white person, much more likely than it being a hate crime by the black panthers or muslim brotherhood. It's not a bad point. Its an obvious and simple one that you are complicating, intentionally or unintentional.
Whoa now. The car example demonstrates the danger of COVID. I don't have to receive treatment at a hospital 5% of the time I get in a car. India isn't freaking out because they have a rising uptick in cars.
You're missing the point then and now. I'm not dismissing car accidents or COVID or white supremacists. You are, as it suits you. You dismissed COVID because of car accidents. Now you want to dismiss white supremacy because of gang violence. But you don't want to dismiss gang violence in favor of car accidents. You are inconsistent. You are making bad points. There is no complication, except on your end. Here is the Smiff Notes: If we're going to just consider things that are the most likely, then we just consider car accidents, since its most likely. But if we're not going to do that, because it's dumb, then let's consider it all. And that means COVID, car accidents, gang violence, white supremacy, foreign terrorism, and the like. But only some of those things are national issues, and let's let national groups focus on national issues, and let local groups focus on local issues. As our government was built.
no, those are float notes. Smiff notes: white supremacy isn't near as big of a threat to black, asian or mexican folk, as are there own race. Period. Whether labeled terrorist organization or dancing around the local vs national gibberish. Not even a blip on the radar
ST's are a 3rd of the game. White supremacy violence doesn't acct for 1/3rd of the violence in this country. Probably not even 1%. If football was set up to have 99 offensive and defensive plays in a game an 1 punt, not much time would be spend on it at all.
Excellent counter. More like 20% of plays, not 1/3, so we have a known minimum of 20% affected that we should "pay attention to". What is the floor? 10%? 5%? 1%? When do we say "don't worry about W, it is only X% vs Y's Z%!" I argue that it is any % we should be worried about. We spend time and effort on the most esoteric of diseases, because if you contract said disease, it affects YOU. It affects people. Do we spend as much on it as cancer or heart disease? Of course not, but we still try to cure it. Biden said one line about white supremacy in his entire speech. He talked about it. And that is important. I don't understand the idea that it is a zero-sum game, that if we spend $1 on this it is useless and we could have spent that $1 on the problem we are already spending $10000 on. It is nonsense.
It's a play on Cliff notes... but, clearly, it was a play ran too fast, and thrown too high. Why does that matter? Why is it more important to say that someone is a threat to their own race, than to say that there are a bunch of people, out there, that absolutely want to harm you? Want to enslave you? Want to make it so that your race doesn't exist any more? Why... why is it more important to say "Yo dude, you're black, so if you're going to get killed, it's going to be a black dude?" Than it is, to you, to say "Yo dude, you're black. There are some people who want your entire race to die." Why?
His mention of it was a bullshit political scare tactic to appeal to his voter base, many of which refer to Trump and his followers as white supremecists. I'm not going to argue with you about it. That's my opinion and won't change. White supremecist violence is a blip on the radar in the big picture, which everyone wants to skip over.
There are Muslims, blacks and Asians who want me to die because I'm a middle aged white American man. Do I worry about them? They probably outnumber the white supremecists 10x. Why is it important to speak about reality vs the "gravest danger to this country" being a small group of white rednecks, who are labeled as trumpists and trump supporters and trump himself, and in turn the entire republikkkan party by, by the dem president? You can figure it out.
