Turns Out People Get Angry When You Say White Americans Are Terroriosts Too....

g under p

http://www.globalpost.com/article/6594328/2015/06/25/white-supremacy-terrorism

Let us run a headline by you.
“White Americans are the biggest terror threat in the United States.”
That was the headline of an article we published in late June about a new study that found non-Muslim extremists in the United States had killed nearly twice as many Americans since 9/11 as Muslim “jihadists.” Many of the non-Muslim extremists — whom we’ll just call terrorists from now on — were motivated by right-wing anti-government beliefs or white supremacist ideologies. Nearly all of them were white US citizens.
Some readers saw what we were trying to do and applauded it. We were stating one of the study’s key findings about who was actually committing deadly acts of terrorism on US soil. We chose to describe those terrorists as “white Americans” not just because they were Americans and they were white, but because we were highlighting how the study unraveled a common post-9/11 assumption about terrorism in the United States — that it’s mainly the work of Muslims and foreigners. It’s not.
Other readers were mad. Really mad.
Some of them objected to our decision to call the terrorists “white Americans” instead of “some white Americans” or “white American extremists.” Without qualifying the term, they argued, we were claiming that ALL white Americans were a terror threat. Other readers worried that the headline, though correct, was unnecessarily divisive. Some thought it was unfair to focus on racial data when the study's summary didn't call attention to it.
Other readers reported us to Facebook for posting hate speech. They called us racists and race-baiters. They said we were ignoring “white genocide.” They asked why were weren’t talking about “black-on-white crime.” One person threatened to file a discrimination lawsuit.
It was a powerful reaction, and one we thought merited more discussion. So let’s take a closer look at the study and why we framed our story the way we did.

Very interesting read on our perception in this country as to whom can become a terrorist whether they're radical Muslim or just an American.

Peace

HughFreakingDillon

facts always anger the ignorant.

jnimhaoileoin

interesting indeed

brianlux

I wonder if those same people who object to this article are also not fans of or even hate Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that calls out hate groups in attempt to educate people and improve society.

CH156378

ter·ror·ist
ˈterərəst/
noun
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

synonyms: extremist, fanatic


ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

josevolution

CH156378 said:

ter·ror·ist
ˈterərəst/
noun
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

synonyms: extremist, fanatic


ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/
noun

the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

yeah old white dude who kills in the name of religious beliefs ....

CH156378

Ex: The terrorist used terrorism in an attempt to intimidate women from making their own healthcare decisions.

DarthMaeglin

This line stuck out to me, and seems a perfectly reasonable perspective:

"Some of them objected to our decision to call the terrorists “white Americans” instead of “some white Americans” or “white American extremists.” "

Had the headline been "Muslims (or any other group) are the biggest terror threat in the United States" it would be equally objectionable. That said, I'm pretty sure most of us recognize that "extremist" is understood, regardless of which group is being named. However, in my opinion, media outlets need to stress the accuracy of their words, it seems sloppiness is rampant these days (not trying to go off on a tangent here, sorry, lol).

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

This line stuck out to me, and seems a perfectly reasonable perspective:

"Some of them objected to our decision to call the terrorists “white Americans” instead of “some white Americans” or “white American extremists.” "

Had the headline been "Muslims (or any other group) are the biggest terror threat in the United States" it would be equally objectionable. That said, I'm pretty sure most of us recognize that "extremist" is understood, regardless of which group is being named. However, in my opinion, media outlets need to stress the accuracy of their words, it seems sloppiness is rampant these days (not trying to go off on a tangent here, sorry, lol).

Just sayind "white Americans" make perfect grammatical sense in the context of the article though. And it is ridiculous to have to qualify it. If it were reasonable for anyone to assume that ALL white Americans are a terrorist threat, okay. But it's not reasonable to assume that, and no one would. The people complaining are being unreasonable, and should therefore not be listened to. Listening to people who are being unreasonable is already fucking things up enough (just like when one dumbass parent in a school complains about something that is totally fine, and the next thing you know, a book is being banned from the library).

rgambs

DarthMaeglin said:

This line stuck out to me, and seems a perfectly reasonable perspective:

"Some of them objected to our decision to call the terrorists “white Americans” instead of “some white Americans” or “white American extremists.” "

Had the headline been "Muslims (or any other group) are the biggest terror threat in the United States" it would be equally objectionable. That said, I'm pretty sure most of us recognize that "extremist" is understood, regardless of which group is being named. However, in my opinion, media outlets need to stress the accuracy of their words, it seems sloppiness is rampant these days (not trying to go off on a tangent here, sorry, lol).

I believe the point is that people have a problem with the absence of the qualifier when describing white terrorism, but those same people see no problem with the lack of qualifier in reports describing Muslim terrorism. That makes me think it was deliberately worded thus.

DarthMaeglin

I guess, then, if they were going for sensationalism, they achieved it? It really is too bad we need to cater to the locode (lowest common denominator), but that's the type of overly-sensitive culture in which we currently find ourselves (unfortunately, in my opinion).

Just my two cents, but if generalizations are wrong for one, they're wrong for all. But who am I (see my quote below, lol)?

PJ_Soul

DarthMaeglin said:

I guess, then, if they were going for sensationalism, they achieved it? It really is too bad we need to cater to the locode (lowest common denominator), but that's the type of overly-sensitive culture in which we currently find ourselves (unfortunately, in my opinion).

Just my two cents, but if generalizations are wrong for one, they're wrong for all. But who am I (see my quote below, lol)?

Sure, but that headline wasn't a generalization in the way that some idiots were trying to say it was. It's a matter of English grammar and the fact that it's a headline to an article that goes on to make the qualifications. Headlines aren't supposed to qualify like that.

DarthMaeglin

While it may be grammatically correct, the statement clearly paints all "white Americans" as potential terrorists (a point that could be argued for any group, given the proper circumstances).

If a similar headline ran here in Canada, I'd find it just as inflammatory and objectionable. As I said, sensationalism, not journalism, but that's more the norm than the exception in that industry these days ("Snowmaggedon," lol?!?).

I'm going to take a couple moments to read the entire article instead of the excerpt posted, lol.

brianlux

I can see making an argument for having the headline be more specific but I think the issue goes beyond just the headline, right?

DarthMaeglin

Dagnabbit, didn't get through the full thing before my ride showed up, I'll follow up later/tomorrow, lol. (Just explaining any further lack or response tonight, lol. Enjoy, all!)

ldent42

brianlux said:

I can see making an argument for having the headline be more specific but I think the issue goes beyond just the headline, right?

The issue definitely goes beyond the headline. In this case, I think the article itself is focusing on how readers reacted TO THAT HEADLINE. so it makes sense to focus on it here.

brianlux

ldent42 said:

brianlux said:

I can see making an argument for having the headline be more specific but I think the issue goes beyond just the headline, right?

The issue definitely goes beyond the headline. In this case, I think the article itself is focusing on how readers reacted TO THAT HEADLINE. so it makes sense to focus on it here.

Okey dokey!

tempo_n_groove

I recall an article that listed the IRA as a "terrorist group". They (IRA) didn't like the sound of that and decided to change their ways and go about them in a more civilized matter.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I'd consider the attacks on US mosques more a terrorist act than this senseless tragedy.

I get this twit was motivated with his ideology, but it feels more of a nutjob being a nutjob than it does a calculated, planned and systematic attack.

People can call it what they want though- it, ultimately, makes no difference. People are dead because some mutant felt the need to express himself through intensely violent methods.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'd consider the attacks on US mosques more a terrorist act than this senseless tragedy.

I get this twit was motivated with his ideology, but it feels more of a nutjob being a nutjob than it does a calculated, planned and systematic attack.

People can call it what they want though- it, ultimately, makes no difference. People are dead because some mutant felt the need to express himself through intensely violent methods.

Sure... although it brings up more issues than that. An attack on PP/the right to choose deserves special attention. It highlights the political issue of abortion, which is an issue still raging in the US. Being in Canada that fact kind of blows my mind.

bootlegger10

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I'd consider the attacks on US mosques more a terrorist act than this senseless tragedy.

I get this twit was motivated with his ideology, but it feels more of a nutjob being a nutjob than it does a calculated, planned and systematic attack.

People can call it what they want though- it, ultimately, makes no difference. People are dead because some mutant felt the need to express himself through intensely violent methods.

Sure... although it brings up more issues than that. An attack on PP/the right to choose deserves special attention. It highlights the political issue of abortion, which is an issue still raging in the US. Being in Canada that fact kind of blows my mind.

I can never understand why people can't comprehend that some think killing a fetus is "wrong". If abortion is legal I'm not going to prevent someone from doing it, but I don't think it is strange that someone can think it is murder. To me, two reasonable people can have differing views on abortion.