Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Shooter 'Nasim Aghdam' Reportedly Had Website With Manifesto That Targeted YouTube For Censorship, Demonetization (abc7news.com)
The woman who entered the YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, this morning and started shooting has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. According to ABC7 News, "the YouTube shooter was a user of the platform" and had "a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. According to her website, a possible motivation for the shooting could have been tied to her many YouTube accounts, which she says have seen a decline in viewership over the past few months."
Here is a timeline of events from our original post:
Police have responded to multiple 911 calls at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. From a report: Vadim Lavrusik, a product manager at the company, tweeted that there is an active shooter on campus. The San Bruno Police Department instructed people to stay away from 901 Cherry Avenue, where the company is located. Multiple 911 calls have been received from inside the building, according to a report from local news station KRON. In a Twitter thread, YouTube product manager Todd Sherman said that employees first thought there had been an earthquake. People began running out of their meetings, he said, but before reaching the exit, they got word that someone had a gun. Sherman said he saw blood on the floor and the stairs. He also said the shooter may have committed suicide. Vadim Lavrusik, who works at YouTube's products team, tweeted, "Active shooter at YouTube HQ. Heard shots and saw people running while at my desk. Now barricaded inside a room with coworkers."
Update 20:30GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number.
Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
Here is a timeline of events from our original post:
Police have responded to multiple 911 calls at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. From a report: Vadim Lavrusik, a product manager at the company, tweeted that there is an active shooter on campus. The San Bruno Police Department instructed people to stay away from 901 Cherry Avenue, where the company is located. Multiple 911 calls have been received from inside the building, according to a report from local news station KRON. In a Twitter thread, YouTube product manager Todd Sherman said that employees first thought there had been an earthquake. People began running out of their meetings, he said, but before reaching the exit, they got word that someone had a gun. Sherman said he saw blood on the floor and the stairs. He also said the shooter may have committed suicide. Vadim Lavrusik, who works at YouTube's products team, tweeted, "Active shooter at YouTube HQ. Heard shots and saw people running while at my desk. Now barricaded inside a room with coworkers."
Update 20:30GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number.
Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
Otherwise she wouldn't have been able to take out the shooter.
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
I'm not going to try to lump this person into any particular group or ideology, but after reading some of the quotes from her manifesto, she doesn't come off as a mentally stable individual.
I don't know if her channels have been deleted or if people have made copies of her videos, but one thing that may be fascinating about this particular case is that the suspect has likely created an extensive number of videos over the past several years that will probably give investigators a pretty accurate view into her thought process. Hopefully that will prove helpful in identifying other individuals who appear to be expressing at risk behavior and that we'll be able to figure out what can be done to treat whatever it is that's wrong with them.
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
She pretty much fit the definition of batshit insane. A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What other recourse do we have against the corporate/government AI/mass surveillance/media leviathan?
A cultural and social change? One that doesn't want a quick and violent fix to complex issues?
most of the voters are brain-deleted drones with zero self interest
No, I think you'll find that self-interest is on a massive uptick
The people in that office were not innocent
Let's say that for the moment I'll go along with your argument and assume you mean 'guilty of something' ...
They deserved it
... and then we reach this.
No.
No they did not.
I sincerely hope that I've just fed a troll, but silence is assent, and on the off chance that you actually believe what you posted - I sincerely hope that you get better because if this is what you believe, then I can only offer my sympathy and regret.
Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the skull, listening to the inner discourse of a Vegan Animal Rights Activist buying a gun? Talk about incoherence.
Look through her website. It's linked in the OP. It's worth a few minutes of your time if you're interested in this case, before it gets nuked. Many youtube videos linked through it already are.
She's some kind of a hardcore vegan activist of Iranian origin. Has separate youtube channels for Turkish, Iranian and English audiences. Claims persecution from everyone from youtube to "anti-vegan animal business supporting criminals trying to harm me/kill me" (with picture of what look to be a nail stuck in a car's tyre, with tyre remaining inflated).
Huge message in the middle of the page on yellow background states the following:
BE AWARE! Dictatorship exists in all countries but with different tactics! They only care for .There is no equal growth opportunity on YOUTUBE or any other video sharing site,
personal short term profits & do anything to reach their goals even by fooling simple-minded people,
hiding the truth, manipulating science & everything, putting public mental & physical health at risk,
abusing non-human animals, polluting environment, destroying family values, promoting materialism &
sexual degeneration in the name of freedom,..... & turning people into programmed robots!
"Make the lie big, Make it simple, Keep saying it, And eventually they will believe it" Adolf
Hitler... There is no free speech in real world & you will be suppressed for telling the truth that is not
supported by the system. Videos of targeted users are filtered & merely relegated, so that people can
hardly see their videos!
your channel will grow if they want to!!!!!
Not what I would call the most stable individual in the world. Shame, she's actually quite a good looking woman, with no religious head covering at all in the pictures that are still up. Linking her to islamism based on just the headscarf is likely not an accurate description. Hardcore vegans on the other hand are well known for violently attacking anyone who opposes their views. Just ask the folks working in laboratories that conduct animal testing.
The vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not Persian or women or vegan.
Did you, by any chance, came out after the Vegas shooting to say that the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not wealthy white males? Of course you didn't.
Spin it any way you want, you're a phony.
lucm, indeed.
Idiot. They all breathe oxygen too. Perhaps we should ban air? Our are you too stupid to realize that air doesn't create stupidity or invite violence. Neither do guns.
The fact that a Persian vegan woman is the perpetrator in this instance does not change the fact that the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not Persian or women or vegan.
Yeah! Just like the vast mojority of police shooting victims aren't black!
Wait ... what? NOW you want to talk about population statistics? And what about earlier?
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
True, but maybe you and she are in different live situations.
I mean.... you're not a small channel owner whose livelihood depends on money from Youtube, who suddenly experience an unexplained loss of views and revenue due to Youtube's arbitrary and capricious algorithms.
Perhaps she already had some sort of paranoid personality issues, and when she realized, she wasn't going to have a way of making ends meet, she was driven to insane and self-destructive behaviors, including the shooting.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff....
Sorry, no. Your karma was reduced by independent moderators who are offended by your apocryphal ravings and unsubstantiated paranoid blather.
The people in that office were not innocent. They were working for an evil entity. They deserved it, the families they built with that profit from evil deserve their loss.
Yeah, you tell them! Those Charlie Hebdo shooters had the right idea, amirite?
Why did you change it from "gun violence" to "mass shootings"?
To fit your narrative? Because the vast majority of gun violence is not committed by white men.
Looks like what I'd expect if the Timecube author took up veganism.
basic human right like free speech
You've introduced that all on your own. I was countering the GPs rhetorical statement that violence/shootings was the only response to corporatism. They were arguing for revolution, I was making a case for evolution. I am arguing that looking for quick fixes, especially violent 'fixes' are unlikely to work on problems that have taken a long time to reach the point they have.
But to your point;
culture of censorship (youtube, twitter, facebook, any social media)
All of these are private organisations, not governments. Usually, censorship and free-speech arguments revolve around governments limiting speech. If I am in a friend's home and start criticising their choice in interior decoration, there's nothing to stop the friend asking me to leave - nor would this be considered censorship. If you don't like the rules that these social media services ask you to abide by, don't use them. If you've built a business, identity or way of life on or around a service over which you have no control and provided by someone with whom you have no contract then claiming you have some kind of 'right' is stretching the use of that term to something that it doesn't usually mean.
when that freedom is restricted people will strike back
What freedom do you see being restricted by Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc.? How is that different from any company refusing to offer or to continue to offer a service if you refuse to abide by the terms of that service? Do you consider that these companies have some kind of obligation to provide you with a service on your terms? Do you equate being arrested for saying certain things with having your video rankings on Youtube lowered for saying those things and if so, why?
Laws follow culture
So do 'rights'. They are not universal. They are a kind of cultural axiom. 'We believe these truths to be self-evident ...' They cannot be argued because they are the foundation upon which arguments rest. But they can and do change.
Rights do not exist in a vacuum. Rights only exist when others agree to or with them. I see a lot of arguments about rights - demands for rights that have been infringed or abrogated, but very little about responsibilities. Demands for rights are very self-focussed. Responsibility tends to be about commitment to the community, society and culture in which you live. I see corporations as examples of rights over responsibilities - the right to profit without concern over the cost to community.
Until people stop demanding their rights and start working on their responsibilities, I'm not sure that the culture that has allowed these corporations to be successful is going to change. The US has some of the worst poverty; the greatest income inequality; the highest rate of incarceration with, at the same time, some of the worst racial imbalance in sentencing; worst healthcare outcomes of any other western country and in some statistics, are worse than traditionally totalitarian regimes and some third world countries. These have more to do with the violence you see and the talk of civil war than whether Youtube has stopped ranking your stream as highly as they did.
Civil war between whom? Seriously. That's just stupid. To have a civil war you need two clearly defined sides. The United States is not even close to that kind of situation.
So how about revolution then? Well it sounds nice - very heroic, like Lenin and Castro and Ho Chi Minh. But what ideology will be behind this revolution? Marxism-Leninism? Yeah, good luck with that, it's 60+ years out of date and was never popular here anyways. Strict Constitutionalism? That wouldn't be much of a revolution, now would it?
Do YOU have an ideology that is going to lead our country to freedom, prosperity, and happiness? Well put it forward!
But you're not going to. Because you're an employee of a Chinese- or Russian-bankrolled troll factory. You have no actual interest in American politics. The hard questions of political philosophy are WAY out of your league. But hey, you get paid $0.50 for every post whipping up civil unrest in the States.
She's not entitled to a livelihood from Youtube.
And the mass majority of gun violence IN THE WORLD in the last decade is mainly by white Americans
No. That award goes to MIddle Easterns, with almost 500,000 deaths in Syria alone in the last 7 years.
Close second: Latinos. Just in Mexico there was 30,000 violent deaths last year, which is twice the number of gun victims in the USA. Of course a bunch of Mexican deaths are beheadings or people burnt alive, but still. Throw in about 25,000 in Venezuela, 4,000 in Honduras, etc. and it adds up quickly to a whole lot of non-White people killing non-White people.
As for Iraq, the total death toll since 2003 is between 125,000 and 250,000 (depending who you ask). And the US military is only around 55% white, so even if only the white soldiers were guilty that's still a lot less than what has happened in many non-White countries over the same period.
I know it's easier to blame white males, but facts are not on your side.
lucm, indeed.
And the mass majority of gun violence IN THE WORLD in the last decade is mainly by white Americans
Not even close. Tally up the mass murders in African and the Middle East, where people local to those regions slaughter each other in enormous numbers, and you'll see that ... never mind, you know you were lying. Stop it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
There's no indication that she was a muslim, other than her Iranian origin. That's like assuming a East Asian gangster is a Buddhist kung-fu master without any other supporting fact.
Her website and youtube videos do paint her as a hardcore vegan, liberal, and an animal rights activist. Nothing about Allah or Koran or anything religious. She was probably an atheist.
And yes, unsurprisingly there's little to no mention of her and this Youtube shooting on Democratic Underground. They'd be screaming to high heaven if the shooter was named Billy Joe Bob.
What they all have in common is the easy availability of guns, which is fucking stupid. Guns should be banned.
This is easily proved false.
The US has always had lots of guns in civilian hands. It's one of the reasons Japan never invaded in WW2.
We've only started having these problems recently.
Something has changed, and it's not the availability of guns.
Even "the gun violence problem" has not grown worse, in fact dramatically the opposite.
Over the last 25 years gun-related homicides are down over 50%.
Over the same past 25 years, gun violence victimization is down over 75%.
What we do have that nobody on either side wants to discuss or even acknowledge is a public mental health crisis.
Most of the mass-shooters in the last ten years have been either under mental health treatment and medications or were until just prior to their crimes.
Homeless shelters are packed with the mentally ill that used to be institutionalized in order to keep both they and the public safe.
Laws already on the books that should have stopped at least some of the mass shootings were not enforced.
So what happens if you pass more laws and bans and they too are not enforced? Pass more laws?
You've decided that instead of restricting the freedom of mentally ill people you'd rather restrict the freedoms of everyone in order to avoid dealing with the mentally ill.
Plus, you know what happens if a gun ban is actually passed? Look what happened with drugs. The cartels will have a new cash commodity to sell Americans. Even better, these weapons won't have any restrictions. Think of street criminals with fully-automatic weapons, RPGs, grenades, landmines, 'Stinger'-type anti-aircraft rockets, and more.
Stop with the knee-jerk emotional bullshit. Use that lump of gristle 3 feet above your ass for something more than a hat rack.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The people in that office were not innocent. They were working for an evil entity. They deserved it, the families they built with that profit from evil deserve their loss.
I work at Google. I have friends who work at Youtube. On behalf of all of us and all of them: *Fuck you*.
I personally am proud to work for a company that is a major foundation of the open internet, a company that funnels its profits into things like scanning books and making them publicly available or developing self-driving cars without the profit-driven rush that leads to accidents from uber+tesla. I know not everyone is a fan of what we do, and even though I disagree, I get it and I'm sorry.
But you know what, whether Google is good or bad, the people who work here are just normal people doing the best we can with our lives. We do not deserve what happened, and you can take your judgmental bullshit and stuff it.
There is no such thing as a gun ban.
There is only gun redistribution.
"Banning guns" means you give all the guns to the government to enforce the "gun ban." See how that works out, circa 1940 Jews.
Yes, I do disagree being that California is in the top ten states with the strictest gun laws. Her father wasnâ(TM)t even aware she had one. Stating crimes involving guns are committed by people who have easy access to guns is incorrect. Chicago has the strictest gun laws of all states and the highest crime. Itâ(TM)s not the law abiding concealed carry permit holders killing children and citizens in the street, itâ(TM)s criminals whose access to guns have been cutoff by gun laws and guess what...THEY STILL GET THEM!
your "analysis" is very shallow and not worthy of Slashdot.
First, most "gun violence" in the USA is actually suicides; these are people who want to kill themselves and simply select a gun because it seems fast and certain to work.
Second, much of the remaining "gun violence" in the USA is associated with criminal gang activity. The evidence we have from other countries with strict gun control is that criminal gangs do not go away, they simply kill with illegal guns or with other weapons.
Third, FBI statistics for 2016 (Obama admin numbers, not Trumpian data) point out that more Americans were murdered with bare hands and fists and feet than with rifles. More Americans were also killed with blunt instruments in 2016 than with rifles, and more Americans were also killed with knives than with rifles. The report does NOT lump together hands, knives, and clubs to exceed deaths by rifles - EACH of those categories outnumbered rifle deaths on its own (so much for the need to ban "assault rifles").
We also kill huge numbers with cars, pills, ladders, robes, etc.
It's also true that most mass-shooters are politically left-leaning, most are young men who are either [a] fatherless, [b] on mind-altering drugs, or [c] associated with Islam. Some of our most-infamous shooters have been presidential assassins (or would-be assassins who got off a shot), ALL of which were to the political left of their targets with the exception one who was found clinically insane.
NONE of the nation's infamous mass shooters or assassins has been an NRA member, a politically-active Republican, or a member of a well-known Christian church or Jewish synagogue.
ALL proposals for "gun control" inconvenience or actively violate the Constitutional rights of the very people in the USA who are least likely to do one of these shootings. NONE of the nation's infamous shooters were deterred from doing their actions because there was a law against it. Most of the nation's mass shootings happen in states and/or cities with the toughest gun laws and usually within "gun free zones".
With all of the above, you say "Guns should be banned". [facepalm]
Let's just cut to the chase and ban murder....oh, wait a sec...
However, it is arguably committed by people to whom guns are easily available. Do you disagree?
Not necessarily. I'm surrounded by guns. Gun shops, gun ranges, neighbors with guns. Literally within earshot of a rifle range. I can walk outside with a small rifle, kill a rabbit in my garden and wave at a neighbor playing with his kids while I carry it to and fro. Guns, guns, guns. And no one is getting shot.
Twenty minutes south of me you're in a major metropolitan area where mostly blacks and Latinos shoot each other up routinely. Another body every other day or so.
I don't know how they get their guns but it's probably not much more difficult for them than it is for me. We'll call it a wash; same ease of acquiring guns. In truth we have a LOT more guns — and vastly better guns — than they do. But for the sake of argument we'll say it's the same.
So what is the difference between here and there? It certainly isn't the ease with which someone gets a gun, as you argue. It isn't wealth either. I'm not wealthy. I'm not trailer trash but I can find those people too because they're not far away; poor as dirt and also not shooting each other with anything like enough frequency to matter.
You don't want to deal with that question, do you? You want the cop out answer and the ban hammer, because unless your will is being forced onto others you're not satisfied. You have that in common with the angry inch that shot up YouTube HQ today.
Ok, so from 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled.
Yet the U.S. Homicide rate is currently about 20% lower than it was in 1968! You've proven increasing the number of guns in the U.S. doesn't result in more people being murdered. Congratulations.
P.S. Schools are much safer than in the 90s, shooting incidents involving students have been declining for decades.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
It's not about population statistics, it's about the fact that blacks are on average massively more criminal than whites. Per head of population.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Four hits, no kills, only herself. She's bad at this. Remember the Bernie supporter who opened fire on a baseball field full of Republicans? 50 shots fired, 5 hits, no kills.
Remember when some terrorists killed everyone at the Draw Muhammad contest in Garland, Texas? That's OK, the Texans don't remember that either. The terrorists were shot and killed outside the event. They were wearing body armor, too. They were killed by head shots.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Yet those nearby states don't have anywhere near the same violence. Nor is it actually easy to buy a gun in those neighboring states if you are from Illinois. Fact when you buy a firearm the request your ID to run the background check. If they see you are from another state, and you are trying to purchase a hand-gun (the weapon used in the vast majority of shootings in Chicago) the sale is stopped. It's illegal. A resident of Illinois can only buy a handgun in Ill. A long gun is different but they are rarely used in gun violence. (blunt objects kill more people every year than all long guns combined). Okay so you say Indiana residents are buying the guns and sending them to Chicago. A few maybe, but repeat strawman buys will get you caught. So to provide a significant supply of strawman purchased firearms would require a rather significant pool of buyers willing to risk felony charges.
More guns in Chicago are traced as stolen than legally purchased in neighboring states. Last year thieves stole over 100 handguns from a train car in the railyards. Guess where they are finding those guns. In Chicago gangs.
Persian woman wearing a headscarf in sunny CA? That's a pretty strong indicator. Most non-muslim women ditch the scarves as soon as they get out of middle eastern nations where they are mandated regardless of ones faith.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
I wish I had mod points. That's the best thing I've read in a long time around here. Your neighborhood is about like my neighborhood.
Guns everywhere and nobody getting shot. I wonder why . . .
Until the anti-gun crowd can answer that question honestly, I don't care to hear anything they're screaming.
The liberals will not say much at all about her but if it had been done by a white man, they would be raving. Her being a female and a muslim will not play well with the liberal narrative.
I was under the impression that the "liberal narrative" was that guns should be heavily regulated. To that end, I'm certain they are still going to be saying that regardless of who the shooter is. Seriously, what is this liberal narrative? Only white males misuse guns? I would love to get the answer to this question.
Glad she's not around to waste taxpayer money on a trial that would surely in California not earn her the stiffest possible penalty as it would here in Texas.
Well, we all thank you for your bravery in these trying times, Anonymous Coward. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Well, we belong to the kingdom Animalia, the phylum Chordata, the Mammalia class and Primates order, the Hominidae family, Genus homo and Species Homo Sapiens.
Except for the last one there are other animals we share this trait with. And except for the latter two, there are currently others who share the same level on the classification chart.
What makes a human human? What makes a human not an animal? What's special about us?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The main reason why there is no criminality among animals is that there are no laws among them either. No laws, no criminals. Without a law against shooting you and taking your stuff, I shoot you and take your stuff without becoming a criminal.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There's no such thing as "punching down". There's just satire, which is what they published, and actual violence, which is what their attackers did when they murdered them in cold blood.
Stop using newspeak to confuse two entirely different things. It's ideologically motivated manipulation to justify why some people do not deserve sympathy or empathy.
Signs are there that she is a Muslim. But I also see nothing there pointing to her having some sort of "jihadist" ideology. Her rant goes off against everyone who disagrees with her ideology, which appears to be a mix of left and right.
Things she rants about from the left:
* Veganism
* Corporations
* Pollution
Things she rants about from the right:
* Family values
* Sexual degeneracy
Things she rants about that could be from either:
* Materialism (although you probably see complaints more often from the left)
* Censorship (although you probably see complaints more often from the right)
Doesn't fit neatly into any box except "angry and feels the world is against her"
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Friendly reminder that ALL Arabs and Hispanics are counted as "White"
Please forward this information to diversity@google.com so they can expand their discriminatory practices to a larger segment of the population
lucm, indeed.
It's not just about stop and frisk, it's about violent crime, burglaries, etc. Why would the police be manipulating that data? We're not in a political climate for them to do so.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Her website screems "underf*cked & emotionally neglected avergage frustrated chump with a gun" only that this time the chump is a woman. Good to know that diversity is moving in on that territory aswell.
I hope no victim dies from the attack, AFAICT one victim still is critical.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Most likely, it's population density, and the higher total crime rates that go along with that, even if the per capita crime rates are actually lower. Our puny little human brains SUCK at those kind of statistics for the same reason we are scared of terrorists and mass shootings, despite them being the least likely forms of violent death.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Technically shooting Youtube employees isn't a violation of their Terms of Service.
Must've been something she had in the videos..
Most likely, it's population density, and the higher total crime rates that go along with that, even if the per capita crime rates are actually lower. Our puny little human brains SUCK at those kind of statistics for the same reason we are scared of terrorists and mass shootings, despite them being the least likely forms of violent death.
On a per capita basis urban crime rates are higher than suburban and suburban are higher than rural.
http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2015/2015ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Capitalism (...) is merely a material value system which is inherent in every society
You're confusing Capitalism with commerce and free markets. They aren't the same thing.
To understand the difference it's important to understand what the word "capital" means. People tend to think it means "money", but that's an oversimplification. "Capital" is synonymous actually synonymous with "means of production", which in turn means all those things (the means) a person can use to create (produce) rent and wealth, specifically enough rent and wealth so as to survive and thrive.
A person without access to means of production cannot do much when left to themselves other than to pick (or steal) food and, if needed, distribute punches, kicks and worse things. So the person either manages to somehow obtain means of production of their own to then begin having a life worth living, or go to someone who does own means of production, shows themselves capable of working with them, and then asks to be allowed to use those means to produce wealth in exchange for keeping a slice of the wealth they created, the owner of the means of production keeping the difference.
That's the definition, and as a definition it's neutral. Things get interesting when, in light of it, you begin to look at how things are and, maybe, at how they ought to be.
What characterizes Capitalism is the idea that it's perfectly okay for some people to own means of production and for the majority of people to now own means of production, thus having to place themselves as workers under the orders of owners of the means. The owner (capitalist) can then use the wealth the workers produced for him so as to by even more means of production, becoming even more needed by workers who don't own means of production. Which in turn give him even more wealth with which to buy even more means of production, and so on and so forth.
That's the Capitalist ideal, and it's supported not only by the owners themselves, but by non-owners who believe themselves capable of eventually becoming owners of means of production in the same fashion, and by non-owners who don't believe themselves capable of that but who nonetheless have a comfortable enough life under it.
Socialism has a different take on the issue. Socialists think it unfair for the means of production to end up accumulated more and more in the hands of a few people, so they believe in an alternative system in which the means of production are owned by a government that takes care to spread the wealth produced by those means among the people in a roughly equal manner, the supposition being that in this way everyone together owns (through the government) the means of production.
Between both beliefs there are intermediate mixes, such as Social-Democracy, which believes in a managed form of Capitalism in which people are allowed to accumulate means of production, but are overseen by the government so as to not do bad things with the means they own.
And there are beliefs outside the line that goes from Capitalism to Socialism. One such is Distributism, which believes everyone should own their means of production individually, so that it'd neither accumulate in the hands of a few as happens in Capitalism, nor in the hands of state bureaucrats as happens in Socialism (and much less the hands of a mix of both).
As for markets, and free markets, they exist in all of the above (except for pure Socialism). As such, a free market activist can actually be aligned with any of them. And then we have the distinctions between the different pro-free-market schools of thought. Libertarianism, for example, is one such, and one more closely aligned with Capitalism, although not completely (a typical difference: Capitalism is okay with owners of means of production using the wealth they accumulate to buy laws favoring themselves against competitors, something Libertarianism is strongly opposed to).
So, while markets are indeed common to all human experience, Capitalism itself isn't. The ability to accumulate the means of production is fairly recent in historical terms, it has but a few centuries. Markets, in contrast, predate that by thousands of years. As such, it's useful to distinguish both.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
When uneducated people talk about Fascism, they envision swastikas and marching stormtroopers. When educated people talk about Fascism, they talk about mandatory conformity to dogmatic ideas, threats of violence to enforce conformance, and lack of regard for individualism.
Your behavior fits my understanding of Fascism and I find it deeply ironic that you probably self-identify as anti-fascist.
I was guessing, that since a handgun was used, and it wasn't a 50yr old white guy with a problem, or a messed up kid, that it just didn't fit their current narrative that helps push the anti-gun movement currently in swing.
It's almost like the news is saying "Oh, well, wrong type of mass shooting".
That fact that it hit YouTube really shocks me, that it has dropped off the radar so soon, I figured the location alone would have made it a front page news item for at least a few days....?
Where's David Hogg now? Why aren't they running him out there now to speak out once again on gun violence?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Don't bother, they never listen. You point out countries with high rates of gun ownership and low incidence of gun violence (or any violence, really) and they cry "exception that proves the rule." You point out countries with low gun ownership but higher-than-the-US rates of gun violence (or, again, violence in general) and they scream "third-world shithole!"
Any reasonable and logical person can look at deaths-per-gun-owned and see that they're not the same in every country; they're not even close enough to be statistical error. A third-world shithole has fewer guns but more factors making people want to kill each other, so more people kill each other there, and it matters not that the idiot who can't see this wants to call the place third-world or a shithole -- reality still applies in those places just the same as it does everywhere else.
As you point out, people who want to kill each other do and people who don't don't. And if we're being honest, guns are much more precise and targeted than the alternative methods of mass killing: cars, trucks, and bombs. If I had to choose which kind of attack I was going to be a victim of, I'd choose a mass shooting every time. Stay out of sight after you hear the first shot and you probably don't get shot yourself. A bomb doesn't need to see you and take aim to kill you, and any of the other options are so sudden and make no noise prior to the event, so you don't even know you should take cover until you're already dead. Plus, mass shootings have the benefit of the shooter typically ending up dead and unable to carry out another crime, while drivers can drive off and bombers can plant devices and be out of range when they go off, living to perform another act of mass killing. Guns are definitely the least scary of the options when you consider reality.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I'm talking about the 24/7 news channels on TV, not blogs on the internet.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I suppose the US is also causing 30% of south african men in this survey to have participated in rape. https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Okay, so guns are made illegal in the US, then it's only the border states with gun problems. Only, the gun problems there are worse because criminals know their victims are unarmed and defenseless. Same amount of gun violence, just concentrated around the edges.
What you say is certainly true, but you need to follow it to its logical conclusion to see why it's not an argument for what you propose. Gun violence is more prevalent in Chicago than it is in the neighboring cities (where the guns are coming from) where people are allowed to be armed, because criminals know people in those cities might be armed and people in Chicago probably are not. Easier targets make for happier hunting.
My FIL is a customs agent, they find cars with trunks full of guns on a daily basis -- and they don't search everyone coming in, which means more are getting through than they're stopping. Getting rid of legal guns in the US won't stop that, because the illegal guns are coming from Mexico and (yes, really) Canada. Oh, and from overseas; they nab at least one shipping container a month full of them.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And not every NRA member is a gun nut. Some of us purchased lifetime memberships before they jumped the rails and are only members today for the fact that our memberships are lifetime.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Why did Mark David Chapman leave a full time job in Hawaii, fly all the way to New York and shoot John Lennon in the chest? You're trying to attribute rational thoughts to people who have become fundamentally irrational.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
All the shame in the world won't take away their money; and what shame do you think they feel from being judged by us meaningless peons, anyway? Mind you, I'm not advocating for a violent uprising either; simply pointing out that if things are truly as bad as some people seem to think they are, that's the only solution. That's also the reason for the 2nd Amendment; remember, it was written right after we fought off our former overbearing and oppressive government.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
We're casually doxxing people now? How are these two idiots comments not removed and their IP permanently banned yet? Wtf.... C'mon /.
I find it no surprise the left leaning media has difficulty dealing with this shooting. What is lost here is that violence can come from anyone at anytime, regardless of politics or beliefs. Lately, too much has been made of the left or the right to blame for people going nuts with guns. We as people should not be become so safe spaced in our ideals that we forget the realities of the world around us are still very much there, even if choosing to live and work in a part of the country that embraces those beliefs. If we choose liberty over safety, there is a daily responsibility to accept the weakness of the human condition, and be responsible for that freedom, or we get treated like a bunch of children and have no liberty. That is the polarizing forces at work in the USA as of right now. The gun debate is only a small part of a much larger and more challenging social polarization in place right now.
Not to mention most gun violence in the US is not committed by white men.
You need fine motor skills to really shoot well. Now, had she been a good meat eater, she'd have had the fine motor skills to hit the target.