Man arrested in machete attack at KY college told Repub student 'you are safe'

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Whose at fault? The bully caused it.

No, the bully isn't the one who went into the coffee shop with a machete/ax and attempted to hack people up.

I guess you don't believe in personal responsibility? Or is it always someone else's fault for what one does of one's own volition?

This is hilarious, someone on the right attempts to hack up a college coffee shop and the usual pouring of people come in to say how "it's not his fault," "he was a victim," "he was bullied by the left" and couldn't help himself. Disgusting.

Everyone's fault but the person who actually carried out the attack because of *his* particular political convictions.

So much for personal responsibility.

[snipped]

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
Details are very few at this time, including a true motive.

So much for crazy liberals

IIRC we know the motive. He said he went there and because he was not a liberal he was incessantly bullied, he decided he had enough and went after those he felt targeted him.

That does not make what he did alright, but from what we know so far it seems he was bullied to his breaking point just like those who commit suicide from bullying.

It was not because someone had a different viewpoint, it was because he was constantly attacked by liberals for not sharing their viewpoint.

If this was the other way around you'd say it makes him a triggered snowflake. From reading the stuff he said, I imagine he's the kind of mouthy idiot who went round seeking conflict.

Regardless, you trying to blame his actions on dems as usual is just more kool aid nonsense.

The guy is an idiot. There are idiots on both sides. I hope they throw him in jail so he can cry himself to sleep while sobbing "MAGA :'(" to himself for a few years.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Whose at fault? The bully caused it.

No, the bully isn't the one who went into the coffee shop with a machete/ax and attempted to hack people up.

I guess you don't believe in personal responsibility? Or is it always someone else's fault for what one does of one's own volition?

So...if, for example, a radical group from some religion started killing people who weren't part of or willing to convert to their religion and eventually grew in size and strength...and then maybe some countries went out and started killing them or bombing them...what would be whose fault?

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Untreated crazy people do crazy things, regardless if they identify with the right, left, or center or are indifferent to politics altogether.


It's intellectually lazy to jump on an attack and ascribe some political motive to it, at least as the story is developing. Because--this will come as a shock to everyone--the narrative always seems to fit the particular POV of the poster. Strange, isn't it?

Is this the Republican version of autistic screeching?

originally posted by: Miracula2
Is this the Republican version of autistic screeching?

It sure is.

a reply to: icanteven

Untreated crazy people do crazy things, regardless if they identify with the right, left, or center or are indifferent to politics altogether.

True.

It's intellectually lazy to jump on an attack and ascribe some political motive to it, at least as the story is developing.

It's intellectually dishonest to ignore a political motivation when the political motivation was relatively clear, both through the suspect's actions, what he allegedly said during said during said actions, his writings, and what he posted online to Facebook, all of which point to a political motivation.

the narrative always seems to fit the particular POV of the poster. Strange, isn't it?

Actually, the narrative is fairly clear, based upon the above. Strange, isn't it?

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Whose at fault? The bully caused it.

No, the bully isn't the one who went into the coffee shop with a machete/ax and attempted to hack people up.

I guess you don't believe in personal responsibility? Or is it always someone else's fault for what one does of one's own volition?

So...if, for example, a radical group from some religion started killing people who weren't part of or willing to convert to their religion and eventually grew in size and strength...and then maybe some countries went out and started killing them or bombing them...what would be whose fault?

By your logic, then, if western actions in the Middle east have the effect of creating terrorists who then retaliate against innocent people (including Americans), those terrorists are the victims since they were provoked into acting?

Would you agree with that statement?

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Whose at fault? The bully caused it.

No, the bully isn't the one who went into the coffee shop with a machete/ax and attempted to hack people up.

I guess you don't believe in personal responsibility? Or is it always someone else's fault for what one does of one's own volition?

So...if, for example, a radical group from some religion started killing people who weren't part of or willing to convert to their religion and eventually grew in size and strength...and then maybe some countries went out and started killing them or bombing them...what would be whose fault?

By your logic, then, if western actions in the Middle east have the effect of creating terrorists who then retaliate against innocent people (including Americans), those terrorists are the victims since they were provoked into acting?

Would you agree with that statement?

Nope...you don't seem to understand problem/symptom logic. The problem is where the issue begins...the symptom is everything afterward. So...if you are late to work and get fired, one symptom is that you woke up late...another is you went to sleep late...another may be that you were out partying late but the problem may be that you have a drinking problem on work nights.

Get it?

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Nope.

So, you don't agree with the statement/scenario I presented above?

you don't seem to understand problem/symptom logic.

I understand just fine. The question was:

if western actions in the Middle east have the effect of creating terrorists who then retaliate against innocent people (including Americans), those terrorists are the victims since they were provoked into acting?

Do you or do you not agree that the "terrorists" would be the victims in that case? Yes or no.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ErrorErrorError

It's not a mentality, he WAS a victim, in the same way a little girl who hurts herself because of mental abuse by her peers calling her fat and ugly is a victim.

In fact, if that girl went after those bullying her most liberals would cheer her.

I guess bullying only matters for some demographics.

Depends on what he deems Conservative. Richard Spencer isn't a Nazi by his own qualifications, but "does the world really need the black race?" Is a tad more than conservativism

a reply to: SirHardHarry

That would depend what the western action was in response to. You have to follow it back to who threw the first stone.

a reply to: Kali74

You are right. That seems pretty insightful ... kind of like when a person 'flips out' and goes homicidal, they go for their own individually-slanted 'mini genocide', trying to kill people who are not like them, and spare others of their kind.

It could happen with any type of person, anywhere, at any time, it seems.

WTF is up with our world?

Lets just hope these small incidents do not increase, but it kind of seems like they are on the rise. Or ... is there a media bias in reporting these attacks now? I actually think they are on the rise in frequency, and THAT is scary!

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: SirHardHarry

That would depend what the western action was in response to. You have to follow it back to who threw the first stone.

Then you really can't call the suspect in the OP a victim without also calling them victims in the scenario I presented, since we could *try* to continue to trace everything backwards to an original catalyst (which preceded the liberal bullying, for example, what caused them to do what they did to him?).

See, it's not so simple.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
So much for crazy liberals; here we might have a someone on the right side of the isle taking ideas right out of ISIS' playbook. Or could it be some doing this simply to make Republicans looks bad, which I'm sure many will claim. Something feels not quite right, though. A guy walks into a coffee shop with a machete (with what intention?), asks about political affiliation, and cuts but does not serious injure two students before being subdued. It sounds like he didn't intent to seriously injure anyone, thank goodness, but rather to make a statement, except for the quick action of campus security.

With the way I see right leaning members talk about liberals around here, it isn't surprising that some dope would take that rhetoric to heart. I see he was 19. So still young and dumb.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
So much for crazy liberals; here we might have a someone on the right side of the isle taking ideas right out of ISIS' playbook. Or could it be some doing this simply to make Republicans looks bad, which I'm sure many will claim. Something feels not quite right, though. A guy walks into a coffee shop with a machete (with what intention?), asks about political affiliation, and cuts but does not serious injure two students before being subdued. It sounds like he didn't intent to seriously injure anyone, thank goodness, but rather to make a statement, except for the quick action of campus security.

With the way I see right leaning members talk about liberals around here, it isn't surprising that some dope would take that rhetoric to heart. I see he was 19. So still young and dumb.

Yup. There was a comment in this thread where one member said he would be happy to shoot liberals; whether that was serious or a trolling attempt, I don't know. Other comments suggest it's time go to war against the liberals. I don't understand this sick mentality.

This kid, though, it sounds like he had some serious social issues (looking back through his FB posts the last 7 years), and recently became very, very right-leaning. It's seems as if he placed the blame for his social issues solely on liberals (which he likely got from the right-wing media he followed and read), and had to lash out against his perceived oppressors.

And I guess, it makes sense, in a way: conservatives control all three branches of government, but still can't seem to get jack done, so they default to blaming the liberals, and only the liberals, for all of their perceived ills.

This kid, though, looking at his mug shot (and reading his FB posts from several years ago), I actually kinda feel sorry for his lonely, dumb, delusional ass, that he was that screwed up that he thought this would accomplish anything—or at least get him some type of recognition and put him in the spotlight where he never was before.

It's a shame.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

It is often forgotten that nuance and emotion translated poorly across the internet; though we all know it on some level. This means that mean spirited joke you told someone, while you may not have been serious, someone else reading may think it is serious. Mental illness is a poorly understood topic and messing it with by flirting with obnoxious behavior isn't helping things.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It is often forgotten that nuance and emotion translated poorly across the internet

It is equally oft forgotten that people say a lot of things they mean when they know they can hide behind the comforts of the 'net.

This means that mean spirited joke you told someone, while you may not have been serious, someone else reading may think it is serious.

Agreed.