BREAKING: Machete Attack by Republican on Democrats

[Torrocca]

I really can't make my point clearer to you, but I'll say it again: what you intended with your post is not what other people are reasonably going to assume is what you meant when they read your post. You can think out the words in your head as sarcastically-sounding as you want, but other people cannot be reasonably expected to just do the same. People didn't get upset in this thread because your post was sarcastic, but because your post doesn't convey sarcasm.

That is your opinion. Apparently it is an incorrect opinion.

Or, alternatively, you could try to understand my point of view on this matter and figure out why I'd have that point of view instead of just dismissing it because it's an "incorrect opinion."

[Pope Joan]

This reminds me of a couple different incidents in which a guy with no previous connections to radical Islam decided to go on a rampage, and announced on social media that he was doing so in the name of Allah "and ISIS".

Somehow this (made up on the spot) association with a supposed cause must fuel their desire for martyrdom?

[United Democratic Christian States]

*reads like 1/2 the first page*

Hold on!

You guys seriously think this is what all republicans have come too?

This is nothing more than a hyper-Ultra conservative loon who has no life.

(I'm a "concervative" so too speak)

[Anagonia]

That is your opinion. Apparently it is an incorrect opinion.

Or, alternatively, you could try to understand my point of view on this matter and figure out why I'd have that point of view instead of just dismissing it because it's an "incorrect opinion."

I would, if the reigning authority didn't justify my opinion on the matter. The fact is, from my perspective, you're attempting to...and this is the way I see it....make me make that prior claim obsolete. Force the Mod to retract the ruling. Make me use mods as a weapon. Something of the sort. You want me to retract what I stated my comment was because you want to believe I offended you. That's what I see.

From my perspective? You're full of it. I don't respect you enough to entertain your opinion for what you're trying to do.

[Galloism]

*reads like 1/2 the first page*

Hold on!

You guys seriously think this is what all republicans have come too?

This is nothing more than a hyper-Ultra conservative loon who has no life.

(I'm a "concervative" so too speak)

I think you failed to read between the lines.

[Torrocca]

Or, alternatively, you could try to understand my point of view on this matter and figure out why I'd have that point of view instead of just dismissing it because it's an "incorrect opinion."

I would, if the reigning authority didn't justify my opinion on the matter. The fact is, from my perspective, you're attempting to...and this is the way I see it....make me make that prior claim obsolete. Force the Mod to retract the ruling. Make me use mods as a weapon. Something of the sort. You want me to retact what I stated my comment was because you want to believe I offended you. That's what I see.

From my perspective? You're full of it. I don't respect you enough to entertain your opinion for what you're trying to do.

And this brings me back to my point: just like you are now interpreting my intentions differently from what I intended, other people interpreted your intentions with the post differently from how you intended them. And that's okay. That's a reasonable thing to do. It is, however, not reasonable to see a post like your first one, which didn't convey sarcasm in it, and immediately assume it is sarcasm. I'm not making your prior claims of it actually being sarcasm obsolete by saying this. All I'm saying is that your post, without the later context, is very easily susceptible to being interpreted the way it was.

[Gyrenaica]

Now we'd just ban machetes and Republicans, right? Cause banning things works?

[Anagonia]

I would, if the reigning authority didn't justify my opinion on the matter. The fact is, from my perspective, you're attempting to...and this is the way I see it....make me make that prior claim obsolete. Force the Mod to retract the ruling. Make me use mods as a weapon. Something of the sort. You want me to retact what I stated my comment was because you want to believe I offended you. That's what I see.

From my perspective? You're full of it. I don't respect you enough to entertain your opinion for what you're trying to do.

And this brings me back to my point: just like you are now interpreting my intentions differently from what I intended, other people interpreted your intentions with the post differently from how you intended them. And that's okay. That's a reasonable thing to do. It is, however, not reasonable to see a post like your first one, which didn't convey sarcasm in it, and immediately assume it is sarcasm. I'm not making your prior claims of it actually being sarcasm obsolete by saying this. All I'm saying is that your post, without the later context, is very easily susceptible to being interpreted the way it was.

Okay....I'll entertain this logic...

...if we are to assume the way I conveyed my words was interpreted as harmful by you and other people like you, then is it not correct to assume that after all this time it is clear I do not think the way you do? What is the purpose of you attempting to, say, educate me on this subject? Are you attempting to ensure future conversations will benefit me....or benefit those like you?

[Torrocca]

And this brings me back to my point: just like you are now interpreting my intentions differently from what I intended, other people interpreted your intentions with the post differently from how you intended them. And that's okay. That's a reasonable thing to do. It is, however, not reasonable to see a post like your first one, which didn't convey sarcasm in it, and immediately assume it is sarcasm. I'm not making your prior claims of it actually being sarcasm obsolete by saying this. All I'm saying is that your post, without the later context, is very easily susceptible to being interpreted the way it was.

Okay....I'll entertain this logic...

...if we are to assume the way I conveyed my words was interpreted as harmful by you and other people like you, then is it not correct to assume that after all this time it is clear I do not think the way you do? What is the purpose of you attempting to, say, educate me on this subject? Are you attempting to ensure future conversations will benefit me....or benefit those like you?

My point with this is that you should try and understand why someone would interpret your sarcasm as... not sarcasm, rather than retreat to defensive lines in the sand and say, "no, no, my intentions, as I am only telling you of them now, were perfectly clear the whole time, regardless of whether or not I actually made them clear before now." People can't be expected to just think like you're thinking, nor could they until you made it explicitly clear your intention. It'd be as ludicrous as me saying, "well, the Nazis killed plenty of Jews, so why don't we kill Muslims today?" as a sarcastic remark and being offended when people don't see the sarcasm. There's perfectly sound reasons for why someone wouldn't take some remark like that as sarcasm, as was the case with your post.

[The Portland Territory]

Are there any statistics to this belief, or is it only a personal observation?

Read the article. The guy technically is a terrorist but, to say it simply, the courts were lazy and wanted to get the case off of their chest ASAP.

Of course.

However, according to Google Trends, when I entered these three terms, while the term "mentally ill" was higher than both Islamic terrorism and white terrorism, there appears to be two peaks: one was on the week of June 12-18, 2016, with the Orlando shooting, and then the second peak was on the week of January 29th to February 4th, with the Quebec shooting.

For the first spike, there were:

• 46 results for "Islamic terrorism"
• 43 results for "mentally ill"
• 5 results for "white terrorism"

While in that instance, it was not a white person who did it, if we were to examine the second spike around the time of the Quebec shooting, we would find:

• 100 results for "mentally ill"
• 19 results for "Islamic terrorism"
• 11 results for "white terrorism"

If we extend the results out, we can find a larger spike for "mentally ill" for the week of December 16th to 22nd in 2012, after the Sandy Hook school shooting:

• 81 results for "mentally ill"
• 2 results for "Islamic terrorism"
• 1 result for "white terrorism"

While in the case of Sandy Hook, it became clear that Adam Lanza may have had mental issues, the truth is that he committed an act of terror against the residents of his own hometown.

But if we go to 2015, and plant the results for the week of June 14th-20th (when the Charleston shooting occurred), we get this result. It is not a huge spike as say, Sandy Hook, or the terrorist attack in Quebec, but it reads...

• 41 results for "mentally ill"
• 4 results for "white terrorism"
• 3 results for "Islamic terrorism"

I'm sure that these statistics may be just a coincidence, and I recognize that the term "mentally ill" in this data may make the data more skewed, considering that "mentally ill" tends to pop up far more often than either Islamic terrorism or white terrorism, since there are likely other things people are searching for with that descriptor.

But considering these two massive spikes with the shooting at Sandy Hook by Adam Lanza, and the shooting in Quebec by Alexandre Bissonnette for mentally ill as opposed to white terrorism, I feel that these statistics from Google backs up my personal observation on such things.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

Mmmm, good investigative work imo, but Google Trends have always been a bad source for backing claims up. For anything, really. Though you are correct about the spikes, given that they're around the time of those attacks, it does make note that many people wondered if the guy was mentally ill.

[Anagonia]

Okay....I'll entertain this logic...

...if we are to assume the way I conveyed my words was interpreted as harmful by you and other people like you, then is it not correct to assume that after all this time it is clear I do not think the way you do? What is the purpose of you attempting to, say, educate me on this subject? Are you attempting to ensure future conversations will benefit me....or benefit those like you?

My point with this is that you should try and understand why someone would interpret your sarcasm as... not sarcasm, rather than retreat to defensive lines in the sand and say, "no, no, my intentions, as I am only telling you of them now, were perfectly clear the whole time, regardless of whether or not I actually made them clear before now." People can't be expected to just think like you're thinking, nor could they until you made it explicitly clear your intention.

You didn't answer my question, but that's okay, I didn't expect you to.

It is unfortunate that my words had to be taken to authority to be clarified. It is further unfortunate that I cannot graps the concept you are attempting to convey here. It does not make sense to me why my comment was seen as offensive. I participated in the chain of sarcasm, I wanted to be a part of this wonderful chain, and thus I did. From my perspective, I was instantly accosted in my attempt, and thereafter reported for what was clearly a remark in a chain of sarcastic remarks, thus making it sarcasm. Even after I explained it, it remains contested.

I agree, no one should have to think the way I think. THat would be very painful for them, perhaps even force them to go through some very horrifying experinces. This is the last thing I wish on anyone. In that same respects, I shouldn't expect the same from someone else without clear intent. Actions speak louder than words, and typically on the internet, one is to firstly assume innocence before guilty because of the lack of clarification of action. I wasn't given that. I was deemed guilty right out the door.

Your prior matters you have mentioned before do not concern me. I am a different person. For you to place me with those horrible people who used such words with intent is beyond insulting. I understand you didn't mean it that way now, and I accept that. I also understand you firmly believe that you are right in this matter. There is no changing your mind. I now see the futility of my attempts to counter your claims. I accept this.

Humor should not require explanation before the humor is stated, the same with satire. I should not have been put through this by you or anyone else, but I was. You believe I meant you harm, but I did not.

Shall we agree to disagree, or shall I resume my intolerance of your opinions?

[The Lone Alliance]

For a moment I had a sickening thought that Trump had started "The Purge"... thankfully that's no.

Now we'd just ban machetes and Republicans, right? Cause banning things works?

Of course not, don't you know that doing anything but appeasing a group just drives them to self radicalize even more!

We should encourage people to visit Conservative Churches and understand their culture just like with Muslims. :nod:

That will fix everything!

[Torrocca]

My point with this is that you should try and understand why someone would interpret your sarcasm as... not sarcasm, rather than retreat to defensive lines in the sand and say, "no, no, my intentions, as I am only telling you of them now, were perfectly clear the whole time, regardless of whether or not I actually made them clear before now." People can't be expected to just think like you're thinking, nor could they until you made it explicitly clear your intention.

You didn't answer my question, but that's okay, I didn't expect you to.

It is unfortunate that my words had to be taken to authority to be clarified. It is further unfortunate that I cannot graps the concept you are attempting to convey here. It does not make sense to me why my comment was seen as offensive. I participated in the chain of sarcasm, I wanted to be a part of this wonderful chain, and thus I did. From my perspective, I was instantly accosted in my attempt, and thereafter reported for what was clearly a remark in a chain of sarcastic remarks, thus making it sarcasm. Even after I explained it, it remains contested.

I agree, no one should have to think the way I think. THat would be very painful for them, perhaps even force them to go through some very horrifying experinces. This is the last thing I wish on anyone. In that same respects, I shouldn't expect the same from someone else without clear intent. Actions speak louder than words, and typically on the internet, one is to firstly assume innocence before guilty because of the lack of clarification of action. I wasn't given that. I was deemed guilty right out the door.

Your prior matters you have mentioned before do not concern me. I am a different person. For you to place me with those horrible people who used such words with intent is beyond insulting. I understand you didn't mean it that way now, and I accept that. I also understand you firmly believe that you are right in this matter. There is no changing your mind. I now see the futility of my attempts to counter your claims. I accept this.

Humor should not require explanation before the humor is stated, the same with satire. I should not have been put through this by you or anyone else, but I was. You believe I meant you harm, but I did not.

Shall we agree to disagree, or shall I resume my intolerance of your opinions?

You asked me what my purpose was with continuing this debate, and I answered your question. I am not, by any means, arguing what came after the fact or the decision by moderation, but I am arguing everything before that. The point of the matter is simple: your post did not clearly convey sarcasm or humor, but the other posts did. It is not reasonable to expect someone to see the way you chose to word your sarcasm, which I have clearly stated that you have now clarified as sarcastic. BEFORE that, however, from the way the post is worded, it can't be reasonably seen as sarcasm.

[Anagonia]

You didn't answer my question, but that's okay, I didn't expect you to.

It is unfortunate that my words had to be taken to authority to be clarified. It is further unfortunate that I cannot graps the concept you are attempting to convey here. It does not make sense to me why my comment was seen as offensive. I participated in the chain of sarcasm, I wanted to be a part of this wonderful chain, and thus I did. From my perspective, I was instantly accosted in my attempt, and thereafter reported for what was clearly a remark in a chain of sarcastic remarks, thus making it sarcasm. Even after I explained it, it remains contested.

I agree, no one should have to think the way I think. THat would be very painful for them, perhaps even force them to go through some very horrifying experinces. This is the last thing I wish on anyone. In that same respects, I shouldn't expect the same from someone else without clear intent. Actions speak louder than words, and typically on the internet, one is to firstly assume innocence before guilty because of the lack of clarification of action. I wasn't given that. I was deemed guilty right out the door.

Your prior matters you have mentioned before do not concern me. I am a different person. For you to place me with those horrible people who used such words with intent is beyond insulting. I understand you didn't mean it that way now, and I accept that. I also understand you firmly believe that you are right in this matter. There is no changing your mind. I now see the futility of my attempts to counter your claims. I accept this.

Humor should not require explanation before the humor is stated, the same with satire. I should not have been put through this by you or anyone else, but I was. You believe I meant you harm, but I did not.

Shall we agree to disagree, or shall I resume my intolerance of your opinions?

You asked me what my purpose was with continuing this debate, and I answered your question. I am not, by any means, arguing what came after the fact or the decision by moderation, but I am arguing everything before that. The point of the matter is simple: your post did not clearly convey sarcasm or humor, but the other posts did. It is not reasonable to expect someone to see the way you chose to word your sarcasm, which I have clearly stated that you have now clarified as sarcastic. BEFORE that, however, from the way the post is worded, it can't be reasonably seen as sarcasm.

My post before the events was written and intended to be sarcastic. Intolerance it shall be.

[Torrocca]

You asked me what my purpose was with continuing this debate, and I answered your question. I am not, by any means, arguing what came after the fact or the decision by moderation, but I am arguing everything before that. The point of the matter is simple: your post did not clearly convey sarcasm or humor, but the other posts did. It is not reasonable to expect someone to see the way you chose to word your sarcasm, which I have clearly stated that you have now clarified as sarcastic. BEFORE that, however, from the way the post is worded, it can't be reasonably seen as sarcasm.

My post before the events was written and intended to be sarcastic. Intolerance it shall be.

And my point this entire time has been simple: your intention, without it being clearly stated (as the post was BEFORE you clarified it later on) does NOT dictate other peoples' interpretations of your intention.

[Luziyca]

Of course.

However, according to Google Trends, when I entered these three terms, while the term "mentally ill" was higher than both Islamic terrorism and white terrorism, there appears to be two peaks: one was on the week of June 12-18, 2016, with the Orlando shooting, and then the second peak was on the week of January 29th to February 4th, with the Quebec shooting.

For the first spike, there were:

• 46 results for "Islamic terrorism"
• 43 results for "mentally ill"
• 5 results for "white terrorism"

While in that instance, it was not a white person who did it, if we were to examine the second spike around the time of the Quebec shooting, we would find:

• 100 results for "mentally ill"
• 19 results for "Islamic terrorism"
• 11 results for "white terrorism"

If we extend the results out, we can find a larger spike for "mentally ill" for the week of December 16th to 22nd in 2012, after the Sandy Hook school shooting:

• 81 results for "mentally ill"
• 2 results for "Islamic terrorism"
• 1 result for "white terrorism"

While in the case of Sandy Hook, it became clear that Adam Lanza may have had mental issues, the truth is that he committed an act of terror against the residents of his own hometown.

But if we go to 2015, and plant the results for the week of June 14th-20th (when the Charleston shooting occurred), we get this result. It is not a huge spike as say, Sandy Hook, or the terrorist attack in Quebec, but it reads...

• 41 results for "mentally ill"
• 4 results for "white terrorism"
• 3 results for "Islamic terrorism"

I'm sure that these statistics may be just a coincidence, and I recognize that the term "mentally ill" in this data may make the data more skewed, considering that "mentally ill" tends to pop up far more often than either Islamic terrorism or white terrorism, since there are likely other things people are searching for with that descriptor.

But considering these two massive spikes with the shooting at Sandy Hook by Adam Lanza, and the shooting in Quebec by Alexandre Bissonnette for mentally ill as opposed to white terrorism, I feel that these statistics from Google backs up my personal observation on such things.

Sorry for the lengthy post.

Mmmm, good investigative work imo, but Google Trends have always been a bad source for backing claims up. For anything, really. Though you are correct about the spikes, given that they're around the time of those attacks, it does make note that many people wondered if the guy was mentally ill.

That's a fair assessment, to be honest. After all, correlation =/= causation, or vice-versa, and Google Trends is not exactly reliable. But in a pinch, I feel it's a good way to get some basic information about contrasting the terms between "Islamic terrorism," "white terrorism," and "mentally ill," even though it is not entirely reliable.

But we'll see if this attack is considered a terrorist attack by the authorities or not at all.

[Anagonia]

My post before the events was written and intended to be sarcastic. Intolerance it shall be.

And my point this entire time has been simple: your intention, without it being clearly stated (as the post was BEFORE you clarified it later on) does NOT dictate other peoples' interpretations of your intention.

You're suggesting I put a disclaimer before every post I make? Please.

[Geilinor]

This is disappointing. Political violence shouldn't be tolerated.

[Torrocca]

And my point this entire time has been simple: your intention, without it being clearly stated (as the post was BEFORE you clarified it later on) does NOT dictate other peoples' interpretations of your intention.

You're suggesting I put a disclaimer before every post I make? Please.

No, what I'm suggesting is that you shouldn't get offended if or when someone misinterprets your post when you haven't made it clear what it was actually trying to convey.

Consider it this hypothetical way: an artist paints a canvas blue, intending to represent the sky. However, the people he's shows it to interpret it as the ocean. He gets mad and goes off on a tangent about how they're wrong. They didn't have any prior indication that he intended to represent the sky with his art. Do you think that's right of him to do, to call their assumptions wrong because they had no clear idea of his intentions?

[Anagonia]

You're suggesting I put a disclaimer before every post I make? Please.

No, what I'm suggesting is that you shouldn't get offended if or when someone misinterprets your post when you haven't made it clear what it was actually trying to convey.

Consider it this hypothetical way: an artist paints a canvas blue, intending to represent the sky. However, the people he's shows it to interpret it as the ocean. He gets mad and goes off on a tangent about how they're wrong. They didn't have any prior indication that he intended to represent the sky with his art. Do you think that's right of him to do, to call their assumptions wrong because they had no clear idea of his intentions?

I'm not offended, I'm insulted. Those are two different emotions.

You're suggesting that every person on these forums places a disclaimer before their post, to make sure that someone - like you, I assume - who has crippling emotional stability (I assume) will not take offense to something by reading said disclaimer. This is not only silly, but downright borderline the same thing I accused you of doing earlier; baiting. You're silly. You really are.

I am not required to consider someone elses feelings off of my professional job. I am not getting paid to pander to your feelings so you'll offer me more money, or buy more of my product. I have no viable interest in ensuring your mental stability. To what end does any good come out of what you're suggesting?

[Torrocca]

No, what I'm suggesting is that you shouldn't get offended if or when someone misinterprets your post when you haven't made it clear what it was actually trying to convey.

Consider it this hypothetical way: an artist paints a canvas blue, intending to represent the sky. However, the people he's shows it to interpret it as the ocean. He gets mad and goes off on a tangent about how they're wrong. They didn't have any prior indication that he intended to represent the sky with his art. Do you think that's right of him to do, to call their assumptions wrong because they had no clear idea of his intentions?

I'm not offended, I'm insulted. Those are two different emotions.

You're suggesting that every person on these forums places a disclaimer before their post, to make sure that someone - like you, I assume - who has crippling emotional stability (I assume) will not take offense to something by reading said disclaimer. This is not only silly, but downright borderline the same thing I accused you of doing earlier; baiting. You're silly. You really are.

I am not required to consider someone elses feelings off of my professional job. I am not getting paid to pander to your feelings so you'll offer me more money, or buy more of my product. I have no viable interest in ensuring your mental stability. To what end does any good come out of what you're suggesting?

You'll make your sarcasm more clear so that other people don't take pause and ask, "what the fuck?"?

[Imperializt Russia]

Y'know, I actually thought this was a parody OP.
But.

Uhh...

[Chuching]

While this is certainly completely and outrightly condemnable, it is not exclusive to Republicans. Intolerance is nonpartisan.

[Shofercia]

Am I the only one who thought "was this in Berkeley" when I opened the thread?

[Grinning Dragon]

No, what I'm suggesting is that you shouldn't get offended if or when someone misinterprets your post when you haven't made it clear what it was actually trying to convey.

Consider it this hypothetical way: an artist paints a canvas blue, intending to represent the sky. However, the people he's shows it to interpret it as the ocean. He gets mad and goes off on a tangent about how they're wrong. They didn't have any prior indication that he intended to represent the sky with his art. Do you think that's right of him to do, to call their assumptions wrong because they had no clear idea of his intentions?

I'm not offended, I'm insulted. Those are two different emotions.

You're suggesting that every person on these forums places a disclaimer before their post, to make sure that someone - like you, I assume - who has crippling emotional stability (I assume) will not take offense to something by reading said disclaimer. This is not only silly, but downright borderline the same thing I accused you of doing earlier; baiting. You're silly. You really are.

I am not required to consider someone elses feelings off of my professional job. I am not getting paid to pander to your feelings so you'll offer me more money, or buy more of my product. I have no viable interest in ensuring your mental stability. To what end does any good come out of what you're suggesting?

If it's any consolation to you, I took it as a facetious/sarcastic statement.