Crime Six Dead and at least Eleven, including a nine-month-old baby, Injured after Mass Stabbing in Sydney Shopping Centre. Suspect shot dead by police.

Was it bigotry or playing the odds of who did what based on historical events? That line seems to get blurred more often today.
Nope, still the first one, plain as day.
 
But you understand why though right? It's not 100% bigotry.
It 100% is by definition. Let me ask you a question. How many brown people people of any origin who live in Australia are not Muslim? Do you have any idea? I don't. And that's why I don't assume an apparently brown looking person in a shitty photo is a Muslim extremist even if my absolute first thought upon seeing the picture was, "Oh, that looks like a brown person." That was not my first thought, mind you, just for the record. I thought it was obvious from the poor lighting you couldn't tell any such thing.
 
It 100% is by definition. Let me ask you a question. How many brown people people of any origin who live in Australia are not Muslim? Do you have any idea? I don't. And that's why I don't assume an apparently brown looking person in a shitty photo is a Muslim extremist even if my absolute first thought upon seeing the picture was, "Oh, that looks like a brown person." That was not my first thought, mind you, just for the record. I thought it was obvious from the poor lighting you couldn't tell any such thing.
I have no clue how many Muslims live in Australia. Do Muslims not travel to other countries?

I'm simply saying that regardless of where it happened you can't blame people for their initial reaction to something like this. If additional information refutes their initial thoughts and they still push the narrative, it shows their bias.
 
Do you think this is ultimately why we as a society haven't made more advancements in making mental health care more available and less stigmatized?
I think the reason is people are ultimately pretty selfish on the whole. To many, the mentally ill aren't part of society, but rather a burden to be suffered by it eternally, tolerated only to the degree necessary to make it easier for the most privileged of us to go back to ignoring the issue.

Many people regularly vote for politicians who campaign on reducing funding to social programs in order to fund tax cuts. Whenever the topic of taxing the more well to do arises these same people scoff at the idea.

Out of sight out of mind doesn't only apply to personal relationships.
 
Last sentence:
That is very authoritarian and Orwellian. Authoritarian regimes often locked people up with the excuse they were mentally ill and a danger. With a such an outloook it will be certain that society overreacts and many many innocent people are locked up and end up being mentally effed from punishment and treatement forced upon them.
Well put. Talk about a slippery slope. Who gets to decide who is locked up and who is not? It opens the door to all kinds of star chamber shenanigans.
 
Well put. Talk about a slippery slope. Who gets to decide who is locked up and who is not? It opens the door to all kinds of star chamber shenanigans.
I'm not sure if someone mentioned this earlier ITT but we seem to have arrived at a principium tertii exclusi. It's not like the only possibilities for this kind of person are total lockdown for life or nothing. He could have had some kind of community treatment where he meets a psychiatrist say every month and is under some degree of supervision, and has to take medicine or undergo treatment etc. if the psychiatrist says so. Maybe two psychiatrists and a social worker (who don't usually work together) have to approve any decisions. It seems after Cauchi went off his meds and left his parents' home, he wasn't engaging with the health system at all and went downhill. I dislike the idea of compulsory treatment but it is a bitter pill that has to be swallowed in some cases.
 
I'm not sure if someone mentioned this earlier ITT but we seem to have arrived at a principium tertii exclusi. It's not like the only possibilities for this kind of person are total lockdown for life or nothing. He could have had some kind of community treatment where he meets a psychiatrist say every month and is under some degree of supervision, and has to take medicine or undergo treatment etc. if the psychiatrist says so. Maybe two psychiatrists and a social worker (who don't usually work together) have to approve any decisions. It seems after Cauchi went off his meds and left his parents' home, he wasn't engaging with the health system at all and went downhill. I dislike the idea of compulsory treatment but it is a bitter pill that has to be swallowed in some cases.
That's not what was proposed in the post(s) to which I was responding, however, which was rather to "lock them up". And even if you present a range of degree of control options over each individual person depending upon circumstances it leaves the door wide open to issues of abuse with who is to choose which level of control to apply in each case.
 
But you understand why though right? It's not 100% bigotry.
Again making an educated guess is one thing, using this attack as an opportunity to gloat and malign Muslims before even knowing if it was an Islamist attack is another thing. The latter which is what we saw ITT and you seem intent on defending that, strange to me.
 
Again making an educated guess is one thing, using this attack as an opportunity to gloat and malign Muslims before even knowing if it was an Islamist attack is another thing. The latter which is what we saw ITT and you seem intent on defending that, strange to me.

Making the educated guess is what I was referring to. Feel free to share where I defended someone gloating. I very clearly said I understood where the initial assumption would come from. I in no way, shape, or form defended anyone gloating about it. Why pretend I did?
 
Making the educated guess is what I was referring to. Feel free to share where I defended someone gloating. I very clearly said I understood where the initial assumption would come from. I in no way, shape, or form defended anyone gloating about it. Why pretend I did?
You're defending the general attitude we saw ITT which was mainly gloating over another Islamist attack to be used as an excuse to malign Muslims.

Not sure why folks are so quick to defend the embarrassing rush to judgement here. Is it really too much to ask that we wait for confirmation before the gloating and the talking points? That people insist on defending these talking points despite the fact that they were wrong here is quite telling. This is hardly the first time either.
 
You're defending the general attitude we saw ITT which was mainly gloating over another Islamist attack to be used as an excuse to malign Muslims.

Not sure why folks are so quick to defend the embarrassing rush to judgement here. Is it really too much to ask that we wait for confirmation before the gloating and the talking points? That people insist on defending these talking points despite the fact that they were wrong here is quite telling. This is hardly the first time either.
No, I'm not. I VERY clearly said I understood their initial reaction based on historical events. I never said anything about supporting the gloating or maligning anyone . . . so please stop saying I did.
 
No, I'm not. I VERY clearly said I understood their initial reaction based on historical events. I never said anything about supporting the gloating or maligning anyone . . . so please stop saying I did.
No one here was criticizing a fair and educated guess about the attacker, they were criticizing the rushing to judgement before confirmation in an effort to malign Muslims and progressives. That you were bothered more so by the criticism of that prejudice rather than the prejudice itself is telling.
 
No one here was criticizing a fair and educated guess about the attacker, they were criticizing the rushing to judgement before confirmation in an effort to malign Muslims and progressives. That you were bothered more so by the criticism of that prejudice rather than the prejudice itself is telling.
I never said anyone criticized a fair and educated guess. I said I understood where someone's initial educated guess/thought might come from based on historical events. Again, please share with me where I supported maligning Muslims . . . or where I defended someone who did.

I'm not bothered by anything other than you twisting what I said to support your point of view. If you can't respond without doing so keep your thoughts to yourself.
 
I never said anyone criticized a fair and educated guess. I said I understood where someone's initial educated guess/thought might come from based on historical events. Again, please share with me where I supported maligning Muslims . . . or where I defended someone who did.

I'm not bothered by anything other than you twisting what I said to support your point of view. If you can't respond without doing so keep your thoughts to yourself.
You jumped into the conversation to argue against someone who was criticizing the bigotry. Like I said no one here got criticized for making an educated guess but when folks started conjuring up conspiracy theories that the authorities were trying to cover up his identify and started reading his sports jersey as Arabic then yeah at some point someone's going to point out the obvious. Why is that a problem for you?
 
Back
Top