Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Res Ipsa wrote:Doc, could you please unpack how atheist rhetoric motivates and atheist to shoot up a school full of kids?
I don't know if that's really necessary in the same vein that someone who is religious shoots up a school, airport, or whatever. The point was that Leftists pin violent behavior on the religious convictions of the assaulter, while Leftist ideology is often linked with atheists, so if they commit an atrocity it'd be natural to link their behavior to secularism or godlessness. I'm trying to demonstrate the fallacy of linking alt-right'ism or (((whatever this is))), in context of EAllusion and others saying that Conservative violence is a natural result of religious extremism (especially if it's Evangelical in nature). If you're going to do that you have to take ownership over Leftist extremism by linking (((atheism))) as a driver of anti-social behavior.
Just as Conservatives are going to decry the analogous linking of violence to their ideology, Leftists are going to decry any sort of linking of violence to their own brand of nutjobbery. They're blind to their own rhetoric, ownership of media outlets that constantly berate the Right, and the production of crazies while simultaneously blaming the Right and right-wing media outlets for producing the same.
Just look at a few of the posters here who are incredibly vicious and blind to their own behavior, and when it's mirrored back at them they absolutely lose their minds. It's the oddest thing...
- Doc
Doc, atheists are all over the board politically. But I see what you did there. You equivocated from "atheist rhetoric" to "leftist rhetoric," whatever you think that is. You divide the world into left and right teams, making sweeping generalizations about both, and then you respond to others as if they are doing the same thing you are. But they're not.
You're the only one here that's made the sweeping claim that the "right" has to "own" the behavior of the shooter. But you're arguing with EA as if it's him that's making that claim. He's not, and it only takes minimal reading comprehension to understand that.
If you want to demonstrate that atheist rhetoric motivates atheists to commit violence, then you need to provide examples of that rhetoric and provide at least an argument as to how that rhetoric propelled an atheist to commit violence. You haven't even tried.
On the other hand, the President amped up one of dozens of caravans that have come from Central America into a crisis -- feeding the ideology of the shooter who very likely sees immigration of brown people as an existential threat to the white race. Conspiracy theories that Soros, the puppetmaster Jew, was funding the caravan fed his delusion of a global conspiracy of jews to destroy the white race. At least one congressman and a VP at Campbell's soup tweeted that conspiracy theory into the mainstream. And so the shooter went to war for the white race by murdering jews.
Now, can you make a similar case, using specific rhetoric, that there are atheist shooters out there who were encouraged to kill by "atheist rhetoric?"
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
