Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American

[JBond]

Taking self loathing to a new level.

An interesting yet needlessly wordy read. The author has a long history of self loathing. Obviously he is incredibly uninformed and misguided in his presumptions, but it does provide a glimpse into the mindset of the left.

As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being.

This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes.

Likewise, in the context of terrorist attacks, such privilege means white non-Islamic terrorists are typically portrayed not as representative of whole groups or ideologies, but as “lone wolf” threats to be dealt with as isolated law enforcement matters. Meanwhile, non-white or developing-world terrorism suspects are often reflexively portrayed as representative of larger conspiracies, ideologies and religions that must be dealt with as systemic threats — the kind potentially requiring everything from law enforcement action to military operations to civil liberties legislation to foreign policy shifts.

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

 

[Jon88]

If he turns out to be a Muslim we'll bomb/kill the group he was affiliated with since it will probably be overseas.

If he's white it will probably be home grown and we'll make arrests. We usually don't bomb people in this country.

Fucking moron needs to be shot.

 

[ThaBigP]

Taking self loathing to a new level.

An interesting yet needlessly wordy read. The author has a long history of self loathing. Obviously he is incredibly uninformed and misguided in his presumptions, but it does provide a glimpse into the mindset of the left.



http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

The author obviously hasn't tried being a gun owner in the wake of a sensational mass shooting ...

 

[Hoofbite]

I take it you didn't make it past the headline?

 

[ThaBigP]

I take it you didn't make it past the headline?

Quite the contrary. And the author is wrong. Gun owners are told they collectively have blood on their hands for these tragedies for bitterly clinging to their 2A; that but for them we'd not have these tragedies. The author insists this is not the case. I restate, the author is wrong. Further, every mass shooting the media and those who comment on articles salivate that it's some "OFWG right-wing, cammo-clad gun-nut kook ... probably a Tea Partier" when invariably it turns out to be some whacked-out XBoxer Prozac head. Sigh.

 

[Hoofbite]

Quite the contrary. And the author is wrong. Gun owners are told they collectively have blood on their hands for these tragedies for bitterly clinging to their 2A; that but for them we'd not have these tragedies. The author insists this is not the case. I restate, the author is wrong. Further, every mass shooting the media and those who comment on articles salivate that it's some "OFWG right-wing, cammo-clad gun-nut kook ... probably a Tea Partier" when invariably it turns out to be some whacked-out XBoxer Prozac head. Sigh.

He's talking about the political response, not media response. I think you're stretching a bit to work that angle. There's a huge difference between the two and I think you'd be hard pressed to even work the gun aspect into this framework because Republican politicians are no less pro-gun after these shootings. The author is talking about the bipartisan response after foreign terrorist attacks that reduce the liberties of the populace here. I think the fact that the gun control measures didn't pass is pretty much a big indication that your example doesn't work.

I think this is a pretty good summation of the article.

Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.

 

[JBond]

The summary is odd. So if your are anti defense, pro illegal immigration and claim to want to protect civil liberties at the same time you are actively trying to restrict them, you should want the crazy loons in Boston to be white? Whatever...

 

[Hoofbite]

The summary is odd. So if your are anti defense, pro illegal immigration and claim to want to protect civil liberties at the same time you are actively trying to restrict them, you should want the crazy loons in Boston to be white? Whatever...

Did you read the article at all?

He's not saying that is his position or any one person's position. He's saying that no matter your affiliation and what you may believe, the outcome is dependent on the bomber's race/culture/identity and because of that it should matter to YOU and EVERYONE.

Here's a couple of quick points.

1. "Terrorist" acts committed by white people AREN'T viewed to be representative of all white people. The white terrorist is viewed as a lone wolf so we don't have to take actions (or take actions to a great extent) to ensure our security because it's not going to happen again.

2. "Terrorist" acts committed by non-white ARE viewed to be representatives of all people from that culture. The non-white terrorist is viewed basically as "just the beginning" so we must act to protect ourselves in the future. The actions taken are those that invade people's privacy. More nut fondling at the airport, more ability for the government to access your information, other shit like that. And while he didn't state it, I will. These laws are pasted hastily so there's very little discussion on them.

Again, the quote I posted:

Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks.

And another:

Though FBI data show fewer terrorist plots involving Muslims than terrorist plots involving non-Muslims, America has mobilized a full-on war effort exclusively against the prospect of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, the moniker “War on Terrorism” has come to specifically mean “War on Islamic Terrorism,” involving everything from new laws like the Patriot Act, to a new torture regime, to new federal agencies like the Transportation Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security, to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to mass surveillance of Muslim communities.

So what he's saying is, if you don't want more legislation that allows your privacy to be compromised and you want America to work on the real issues here at home (stuff like reducing spending, immigration reform and whatever else) you should probably hope the the terrorist is white because then we'll largely move on with our lives. But, if it turns out that he is not white you can expect some more shit to come through the pipeline that resembles The Patriot Act (or whatever else) and it will basically eat up all the legislative time and we'll get nowhere from where we are now except we'll have a few details of our lives thrown out there for the world to see.

That's what his article says. He has however written in a form that mocks the idea of "White Privilege". It's a jab of sorts. We don't expect white people to be terrorists so when they are we dismiss it. At the same time, he saying that you better hope he is or else this country will likely be mired in a few more years of stagnant bullshit as we try to root out some enemy. IMO, he's set up a "lesser of two evils" choice. Break your idea that white people are terrorists by hoping this guy is so that we can all do without bullshit legislation or maintain your position on white people and terrorism and watch the country go into panic mode and force bills through the pipeline that fuck us all over.

Quite honestly, I think his article pretty solid. I don't care for his political jabs towards the end (and didn't even bother to check his links to see if they were reasonably stated) because I think the article would have been much more effective without immediately drawing battle lines but his points on the identity of the bomber and the political implications are pretty well stated.

It's a shame that you appear to have read the headline, took time to post it here and didn't even give the content of the article a second of consideration.

 

[JBond]

I did read the article. I am glad you enjoyed it. I just disagree with many of his ideas. Until very recently acts of terror against our nation were treated a crime to be investigated by police type forces. FBI etc. That was the Clinton doctrine regarding attacks. We essentially did nothing when we are attacked. 9/11 changed that, as it should have.

I have no idea why he believes the progressive agenda regarding illegals, slashing the military, and continued encroachment on the Bill of Rights will slow down based on the skin tone of the attacker(s). It is a silly premise in my opinion. If the attacker(s) being a white guy stops all that, then I guess I agree with him and hope they were white.

In my opinion the color of the bombers skin will have little overall effect on what the government does. It will be spun one way or another resulting in greater power for the government and less for the governed.

 

[Hoofbite]

I did read the article. I am glad you enjoyed it. I just disagree with many of his ideas. Until very recently acts of terror against our nation were treated a crime to be investigated by police type forces. FBI etc. That was the Clinton doctrine regarding attacks. We essentially did nothing when we are attacked. 9/11 changed that, as it should have.

I have no idea why he believes the progressive agenda regarding illegals, slashing the military, and continued encroachment on the Bill of Rights will slow down based on the skin tone of the attacker(s). It is a silly premise in my opinion. If the attacker(s) being a white guy stops all that, then I guess I agree with him and hope they were white.

In my opinion the color of the bombers skin will have little overall effect on what the government does. It will be spun one way or another resulting in greater power for the government and less for the governed.

You can disagree but I think there's some validity to it. I think The Patriot Act is a bit of an extreme in that the scale of the attack likely would have warranted something no matter what but I also think there are circumstances that are notable that provide support to his claim.

Shoe bomber makes us have to take our shoes off.

Underwear bomber likely played a hand in x-raying the hell out of people.......although its' going away now because the company could find a way to securely handle the pictures or something to that extent.

And then you compare it to the domestic terrorism and how little nationwide reform there has been as a result of those acts.

Another reason I think he has a point but not necessarily related to being white or whatnot is that we just don't have large groups of domestic terrorists organizing in the US.....well, that we know of it. If this bomber represents a larger group of organized terrorism, the likelihood of there being more money, resources and time spent combating it is going to be significantly greater.

All in all, I don't think his article is really that far off base. Provided there was some stronghold of thousands of terrorists in the US we'd likely get the same outcome but because that just isn't the case, an attack from the outside will result in a respons on behalf of the US that will be far more draining on the country than an attack from the inside would. Not to say it shouldn't but those are just the facts.

 

[ThaBigP]

He's talking about the political response, not media response. I think you're stretching a bit to work that angle. There's a huge difference between the two and I think you'd be hard pressed to even work the gun aspect into this framework because Republican politicians are no less pro-gun after these shootings. The author is talking about the bipartisan response after foreign terrorist attacks that reduce the liberties of the populace here. I think the fact that the gun control measures didn't pass is pretty much a big indication that your example doesn't work.

I think this is a pretty good summation of the article.

He's actually covering the spectrum, "governmental, political and societal response" as he calls it. And you mean to tell me that DEMANDS! for such laws matters not if the bill in the Senate comes up a few votes short? How about all the states that did slam through such laws with narry a hitch? I understand what he's trying to get at, even if he's being a bit myopic. Quite ironically, the "right-wing extremists" he touts include, according to the DHS, those who are "reverent of individual liberty". So while admonishing us for allowing a police/surveilance state to emerge to "save us from 'em moose-limbs", he pleads for that activity to be retasked against "'em right-wang 'stremists!". Who buy coffee with cash. Have more than 7 days worth of food on-hand. Or are reverent of individual liberty. Which is the broad-brush standard the DHS is using, lumping them in with the KKK or Aryan Nation. It's all six of one, half-dozen of the other. We're either going to have a totalitarian police state to "save us from 'em moose-limbs" or to "save us from 'em right-wang 'stremists". The stadium is bursting at the seams with people rooting for one police state or the other, each side sleeping quite soundly at night comforted by the delusion they have a monopoly on the preservation of civil liberties.