Sorry, I'll stop.Previous page: whataboutery about a terrorist attack is bad.
This page: but what about--
Stop it, please.
The animal will never see the light of day again, so that's all that really matters innit?The court case is going to be an absolute farce. Tarrant will literally be justifying this with memes and other stupid ****. His manifesto is so hypocritical and his real motivations so transparent
Not at all, there’s nothing wrong about pointing out inconsistencies in arguments, and there’s no problems with pointing out issues with consistency and hence the sincerity of an argument.And not to incite an argument, but isn't whataboutism just citing a relevant counter example to point out the hypocrisy of your opponents argument? Or maybe I don't understand the term. I steer clear of online political discussion for the most part
They'll have a closed court so he can't.The court case is going to be an absolute farce. Tarrant will literally be justifying this with memes and other stupid ****. His manifesto is so hypocritical and his real motivations so transparent
If you want to call out hypocrisy just do it directly.And not to incite an argument, but isn't whataboutism just citing a relevant counter example to point out the hypocrisy of your opponents argument? Or maybe I don't understand the term. I steer clear of online political discussion for the most part
Tend to agreeI didn't ask for a reason why he chose Christchurch. Bringing up claims an Islamist terrorist was radicalised in Christchurch is not only irrelevant, it's in incredibly poor ****ing taste and smacks of Fraser Annings "this is their fault" type of thinking. Why he chose the place doesn't matter. And so does your reasoning he killed because others have killed. What a simple and glib explanation. Case closed everyone, it's understandable that this white guy killed innocent Muslims at a Mosque because some Muslims killed innocents elsewhere.
I mean, you can certainly take quite a bit out of the totality of what he wrote even if not completely at face value. The stuff he wrote on his gun about Tours and Vienna is an old staple of the European far-right which sees Western European "Christendom" and Islamic civilisation as locked in an eternal struggle to the death.Tend to agree
Regardless though, the guy addresses this in the manifesto, claims he chose NZ more or less arbitrarily, but apparently was to some degree attempting to serve out revenge for what he seemed to interpret as a sort of Islamic colonisation of Europe and also for terror attacks carried out by islamic extremists.
Depends how much you take at face value from what he wrote.
You could say that about any ideologue IMO. Very few will know the ins and outs of all of their ideological superstructure, but having that around them gives them a feeling of will-to-power that disables the usual moral guardrails that functional humans normally have and allows them to do, well, this.Yeah but he's just borrowing that, for mine. Whilst whether he's trolling or fervently believes this stuff doesn't change that 50 people are just as dead either way, it doesn't offer much predictive power in my view.