Truck Driving Terrorist in Canada Kills 4, Injures 1

[Cannot think of a name]

That's not how that works. The conversation about the double standard started before you inserted yourself into it. You don't get to then decide the intent because it doesn't line up with your position. Not everything is about you.

Salus didn't insert himself into anything. He began the conversation about why Insaanistan chose to describe the perpetrator as a "Christian terrorist." This is such a bald-faced lie I have no idea how you ever expected to get away with it.

Gonna stop you right there, because you seem to have missed the context again. Tell you what, go back, do a read through, see if you can catch what you missed.

[Old Tyrannia]

Salus didn't insert himself into anything. He began the conversation about why Insaanistan chose to describe the perpetrator as a "Christian terrorist." This is such a bald-faced lie I have no idea how you ever expected to get away with it.

Gonna stop you right there, because you seem to have missed the context again. Tell you what, go back, do a read through, see if you can catch what you missed.

I've literally read the whole thread through twice looking for where Salus "inserted himself" into a pre-existing conversation. He did no such thing. The convo you were responding to began with this post:

What evidence is there to indicate that the man was a "Christian" terrorist and not a racial supremacist?

It seems to me that you're trying to conflate the argument arising from Salus' perfectly reasonable objection to Insaanistan's description of the perpetrator as a "Christian terrorist" with the entirely separate conversation in response to Austreylia's comments, which Salus has not involved himself in whatsoever. Doing so is flagrantly dishonest.

[Cannot think of a name]

Gonna stop you right there, because you seem to have missed the context again. Tell you what, go back, do a read through, see if you can catch what you missed.

I've literally read the whole thread through twice looking for where Salus "inserted himself" into a pre-existing conversation. He did no such thing. The convo you were responding to began with this post:

What evidence is there to indicate that the man was a "Christian" terrorist and not a racial supremacist?

Ah, I see. This is where you got yourself all confused.

The conversation started with the OP. Start from there and then work your way towards Salus' post. You will see the conversation is underway already along with a discussion about the double standard.

Now, if Salus comes in and says "Hey, it's not my position that any act like this performed by a Muslim means that it is inherently a terrorist attack" is him inserting himself and by insisting that it is now a strawman to continue that line of thought is putting the cart before the horse. No one was addressing Salus when this connection was made. As such, the fact that he claims to not believe that does not make the conversation a 'strawman.' It means he took something that didn't apply to him personally and insist the conversation be about him instead of a wider trend.

You'll get there eventually. It just takes a little reading. Give it another go, I'm sure you'll see it this time.

[Old Tyrannia]

I've literally read the whole thread through twice looking for where Salus "inserted himself" into a pre-existing conversation. He did no such thing. The convo you were responding to began with this post:

Ah, I see. This is where you got yourself all confused.

The conversation started with the OP. Start from there and then work your way towards Salus' post. You will see the conversation is underway already along with a discussion about the double standard.

Now, if Salus comes in and says "Hey, it's not my position that any act like this performed by a Muslim means that it is inherently a terrorist attack" is him inserting himself and by insisting that it is now a strawman to continue that line of thought is putting the cart before the horse. No one was addressing Salus when this connection was made. As such, the fact that he claims to not believe that does not make the conversation a 'strawman.' It means he took something that didn't apply to him personally and insist the conversation be about him instead of a wider trend.

You'll get there eventually. It just takes a little reading. Give it another go, I'm sure you'll see it this time.

Dear Lord, you really are shameless, aren't you? You are the one who inserted yourself into a conversation that had nothing to do with you, with the comment, "meanwhile, if someone doesn't call any crime committed by a Muslim an act of terrorism fast enough they're literally surrendering to the terrorists." It's blatantly obvious that you were directing that comment at Salus because you quoted him in the post, then followed up with a paragraph directly addressing him: "I feel like you know exactly what people are getting at here, that you get the context, but that it's uncomfortable so you're fighting it like a kid trying to insist they're not tired and don't need to go to bed. It's uncomfortable to watch." But no, I suppose that paragraph that was obviously directed at a specific person wasn't directed at the one person you quoted in the post.

It's in response to this post of yours that Salus made the entirely reasonable point that he doesn't have a double standard with regards to Muslim perpetrators of terrorist attacks. You baited him into making that comment, and then you have the gall to accuse him of inserting himself into a conversation. And now you're talking down to me like a child because I'm calling you out on your dishonesty and bad-faith argument. You have some chutzpah, I'll give you that, but it's not enough to blind any rational third party to what you're up to.

[Cannot think of a name]

Ah, I see. This is where you got yourself all confused.

The conversation started with the OP. Start from there and then work your way towards Salus' post. You will see the conversation is underway already along with a discussion about the double standard.

Now, if Salus comes in and says "Hey, it's not my position that any act like this performed by a Muslim means that it is inherently a terrorist attack" is him inserting himself and by insisting that it is now a strawman to continue that line of thought is putting the cart before the horse. No one was addressing Salus when this connection was made. As such, the fact that he claims to not believe that does not make the conversation a 'strawman.' It means he took something that didn't apply to him personally and insist the conversation be about him instead of a wider trend.

You'll get there eventually. It just takes a little reading. Give it another go, I'm sure you'll see it this time.

Dear Lord, you really are shameless, aren't you? You are the one who inserted yourself into a conversation that had nothing to do with you, with the comment, "meanwhile, if someone doesn't call any crime committed by a Muslim an act of terrorism fast enough they're literally surrendering to the terrorists."

Hmmm. I think perhaps the problem is that you are thinking that everything still starts with Salus. Here's what you do. Go to Salus' post. Then, scroll up. There you will see a whole conversation happening where all the assertions are made without there being a Salus or even a me.

That's where the inferences are made. This apparentlly confused Salus because that's not a position he held, but no one asked him. It was about a wider trend. Therefore pointing that out is not strawmaning salus, it's catching him up with the conversation. A task apparently more difficult than one would imagine. But I believe in you. Give it another go. Remember, scroll up.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

And I’m saying that drawing a line between white nationalist terrorism committed by Christians and Christian religious terrorism in the current political climate is trying to split hairs. They stem from the same social tendency and are aimed at the same objectives.

In a country without a significant reactionary movement tied to a different religion, radical social-conservatism is devout Christianity.

I strongly disagree. Racial nationalism isn't compatible with Christianity, and the Racial Nationalists are aware of that. None of the major white nationalist figures are Christian in religion, and converts to the alt-right tend to leave their churches and condemn Christianity as culturally subversive to the West.

For some reason, terrorist white supremacists like Brenton Tarrant have the names of those who murdered Turks and Muslims written on their guns. The efforts of Christian terrorists to brand white supremacist people as atheists sound pathetically ridiculous.We are in the 21st century, we started to throw away all your dreams of crusades. withdraw your bad thoughts from people and our world.

[Dakini]

And I’m saying that drawing a line between white nationalist terrorism committed by Christians and Christian religious terrorism in the current political climate is trying to split hairs. They stem from the same social tendency and are aimed at the same objectives.

In a country without a significant reactionary movement tied to a different religion, radical social-conservatism is devout Christianity.

I strongly disagree. Racial nationalism isn't compatible with Christianity, and the Racial Nationalists are aware of that. None of the major white nationalist figures are Christian in religion, and converts to the alt-right tend to leave their churches and condemn Christianity as culturally subversive to the West.

His colleagues describe him as Christian and having a "good relationship with God". I think his colleagues know him better than some random stranger on the internet like yourself.

Also, as I said upthread, I've lived in London Ontario. There are a lot of extremist Christians there for a city in Canada. The place actually has a "pregnancy crisis centre" and people turn up to line the streets with a bunch of anti-choice propaganda because they're a bunch of raging misogynists who want to control women's bodies once a year. People would set up shop outside the university campus to give away copies of the Origin of Species with a special forward about how it was all a scam regularly, I'd get harassed by someone preaching some nonsense around once a month. There was a fucking group of people claiming that heterosexuality was about to be outlawed who marched through the city centre once. That's not even counting the Mennonites who would come into town to try to convert you occasionally and the Mormons that were omnipresent. I didn't get that shit anywhere else I lived in southern Ontario, but London was teeming with Christian religious fanatics.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I think his colleagues know him better than some random stranger on the internet like yourself.

Truly, the Christian denialism is real.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

What? Christians whose friend got a Fail on the Decent Human Being test, didn't say "he was always a bad sort, maybe even demonic, not a real Christian at all" ?

Ah, my apologies. I can see how I’ve been unclear.

I’m merely pointing out that it is amusing to see Christians scramble to explain how a hate crime committed by a Christian against a non-Christian as part of a nationalist movement in a Christian-majority country is 100% racially motivated and has nothing at all to do with Christianity.

I’ll definitely pull that line the next time someone brings up Stalin’s suppression of ethnic minorities as an argument against socialism.

[Grave_n_idle]

100% any one motivation isn't how people work.

It really depends. Remember that guy who mowed down a bunch of people because he was an involuntary celibate? He planned it for years, and it was pretty much just that one motivation. In this case, the guy aimed for a crowd of people aged from 9 to 74, some in obviously religious clothing - the motivation pretty much has to be either religious or racial (or the assumption those are the same).

[Dakini]

Ah, my apologies. I can see how I’ve been unclear.

I’m merely pointing out that it is amusing to see Christians scramble to explain how a hate crime committed by a Christian against a non-Christian in a Christian-majority country is 100% racially motivated and has nothing at all to do with Christianity.

I’ll definitely pull that line the next time someone brings up Stalin’s suppression of ethnic minorities as an argument against socialism.

100% any one motivation isn't how people work. Someone deranged enough to kill people with his truck, surely isn't motivated by "they dress foreign" nor by "they dress like Muslims". It's probably something else as well. He killed a child. That's something most people avoid. He didn't drive by and tell himself "well next time, when they're all men coming out of mosque" but instead, this seemed like the best moment to him.

If he's a racist who wants to see all Muslims exterminated, then yeah, he probably wants to kill the kids too.

Jealousy of other adults who have children, can be pretty strong. It can even extend to hating children. Then consider that a younger state of mind in which children are essentially invisible and any noise they make is resented, could be 'fixated' by ideas of sex being so utterly sinful that children should not even be considered.

So you think that a 20 year old man is jealous of people with children, which is why he mowed down a family?

Seriously? A 20 year old has tons of time to have kids. The guy was also wearing a shirt with swastikas on it at the time of the attack and he was laughing when he surrendered. He does not seem to have shown remorse over killing a teenager and almost killing a child.

I shouldn't try to psychoanalyze anyone. I'm just putting forward that the driver's callous disregard for two children is remarkable, and sets him apart from most terrorists. Hatred of children (or disregard, which itself would be remarkable) can't be squared away as racialially or religiously intolerant.

Since when do terrorists give a fuck about children? Since when do racists give a shit about children? Since when do religious bigots give a shit about children?

[Dakini]

It really depends. Remember that guy who mowed down a bunch of people because he was an involuntary celibate?

No. And I really doubt your characterization of his motive. Guy stands up in court, says "it was because even fat Rosie who people say is a whore turned me down" does not make that 100% his motive.

He didn't stand up in court and say that. In court, he had his lawyers claim that he didn't know what he was doing because he was on the Autism spectrum.

He identified as an incel in social media posts prior to the attack and to the police after his arrest. He also made a point to time his attack to injure the most women. While the judge thought he was also after notoriety, misogyny definitely played a role.

[Dakini]

If he's a racist who wants to see all Muslims exterminated, then yeah, he probably wants to kill the kids too.


So you think that a 20 year old man is jealous of people with children, which is why he mowed down a family?

Seriously? A 20 year old has tons of time to have kids. The guy was also wearing a shirt with swastikas on it at the time of the attack and he was laughing when he surrendered. He does not seem to have shown remorse over killing a teenager and almost killing a child.


Since when do terrorists give a fuck about children? Since when do racists give a shit about children? Since when do religious bigots give a shit about children?

The reasoning here is that anyone so divorced from morality that they would make a lethal attack on a family, must be devoid of any merciful feelings at all. Even the very common sparing of children.

Once you've deemed someone a Monster that way, you've given up any attempt to fathom their motives. You'll just fix upon whichever of their suspected motives suits you best and declare that sufficient. "100%"

So what is it then? He was 100% a racist, or 100% religiously motivated?

It's unclear at present. I'm sure more information will come up eventually (at the very least when this all goes to trial). It's a bit fucked up that you'd try to turn this into a "childless people are monsters" thing though.

Pretending that this guy isn't a Christian is dishonest in general as well.

[Insaanistan]

That's not how that works. The conversation about the double standard started before you inserted yourself into it. You don't get to then decide the intent because it doesn't line up with your position. Not everything is about you.

Yes, it is. A Strawman is constructing a false or unfounded idea of your opponent to more easily argue against them. You have done that.

I'm not deciding intent. I'm asking why Insaan has decided to label a swastika-clad terrorist as a "Christian terrorist" rather than a "white nationalist terrorist".

Notice I put “Christian terrorist” in quotes. It was a distinction given to him a by a news source that I frankly don’t agree with.
If you like, I can add so-called before the words. While I understand to some people what I meant wasn’t obvious, in my mind it was quite clear I was trying to say the distinction doesn’t fit.

[Old Tyrannia]

Dear Lord, you really are shameless, aren't you? You are the one who inserted yourself into a conversation that had nothing to do with you, with the comment, "meanwhile, if someone doesn't call any crime committed by a Muslim an act of terrorism fast enough they're literally surrendering to the terrorists."

Hmmm. I think perhaps the problem is that you are thinking that everything still starts with Salus. Here's what you do. Go to Salus' post. Then, scroll up. There you will see a whole conversation happening where all the assertions are made without there being a Salus or even a me.

That's where the inferences are made. This apparentlly confused Salus because that's not a position he held, but no one asked him. It was about a wider trend. Therefore pointing that out is not strawmaning salus, it's catching him up with the conversation. A task apparently more difficult than one would imagine. But I believe in you. Give it another go. Remember, scroll up.

You are not some newbie who joined the forum two days ago; you know how threads work in NSG. You know that there are usually multiple conversations going on within the same thread around different points. It's obvious that you were addressing Salus when you quoted him and used second-person language throughout your post. Again, it's manifestly clear to any third party reading this thread that you are arguing in bad faith. You won't admit it, and I doubt those who are ideologically aligned to you will acknowledge it because it's not in their interest to do so, but everyone knows it.

[Austreylia]

Notice I put “Christian terrorist” in quotes. It was a distinction given to him a by a news source that I frankly don’t agree with.

I think you did it emphasise it.

[Dakini]

Notice I put “Christian terrorist” in quotes. It was a distinction given to him a by a news source that I frankly don’t agree with.

I think you did it emphasise it.

You think that scare quotes emphasize words?

[Austreylia]

You think that scare quotes emphasize words?

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that that's what I said.

[Dakini]

You think that scare quotes emphasize words?

Yeah, it's pretty obvious that that's what I said.

So you don't understand the function of scare quotes, is what you're saying?

It's not other people's fault if you don't bother to learn how English punctuation works, you know.

[Insaanistan]

Notice I put “Christian terrorist” in quotes. It was a distinction given to him a by a news source that I frankly don’t agree with.

I think you did it emphasise it.

Underlining it would be emphasizing it. So would bonding it or italicizing it.

[Vassenor]

Notice I put “Christian terrorist” in quotes. It was a distinction given to him a by a news source that I frankly don’t agree with.

I think you did it emphasise it.

In what way does using quotation marks to denote text quoted verbatim from a source emphasise that text?

[Austreylia]

So you don't understand the function of scare quotes, is what you're saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Underlining it would be emphasizing it. So would bonding it or italicizing it.

Or using quotation marks.

Easy plausible deniability due to the incorrect use, and all the other Christian-haters in the thread will defend you.

[Dakini]

So you don't understand the function of scare quotes, is what you're saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Yes, you are. The function of scare quotes is to express skepticism of the term or to deliberately indicate that these are not the author's words. The fact that you think this is emphasizing the words means that you don't understand the function of scare quotes.

Easy plausible deniability due to the incorrect use, and all the other Christian-haters in the thread will defend you.

Nobody here hates Christians. The terrorist who drove his truck into a family, killing most of them, is a Christian according to people who know him though. Denying that is dishonest.

[Old Tyrannia]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Yes, you are. The function of scare quotes is to express skepticism of the term or to deliberately indicate that these are not the author's words. The fact that you think this is emphasizing the words means that you don't understand the function of scare quotes.

Easy plausible deniability due to the incorrect use, and all the other Christian-haters in the thread will defend you.

Nobody here hates Christians. The terrorist who drove his truck into a family, killing most of them, is a Christian according to people who know him though. Denying that is dishonest.

I don't see anyone denying that Veltman was a Christian, we have multiple statements from people who knew him that he was. What some people are objecting to is the assumption made by several posters that Christianity was the motivating factor for his crime, which is by no means apparent from the evidence currently available. Posts like this:

Deeply religious people should be virtuous, what other reason is there to be religious? If a deeply religious person does not want their religion labelled with terrorism they commit, then they could hide their religion scrupulously all through their adult life. Or you know, not commit terrorist attacks at all. The idea they can be openly religious and pass for a good person because of what religion motivates them to do, then they just change and commit a terrible crime unrelated to their religion at all, does not bear comparison to any other ideology. It's a kind of exceptionalism for religion, as though no rules but its own apply to it. You can't just drop that and pretend to be a regular person. Not after the act.

I'd like to know from Christians whether Veltman will go to hell. Or is killing four of a family of five, the sort of thing God forgives?

Are clearly intended to rile up Christians here, just as similar posts by the usual culprits in the aftermath of Islamist terror attacks are clearly intended to rile up Muslim posters.

[Austreylia]

Yes, you are.

No.

Easy plausible deniability due to the incorrect use, and all the other Christian-haters in the thread will defend you.

Nobody here hates Christians. The terrorist who drove his truck into a family, killing most of them, is a Christian according to people who know him though. Denying that is dishonest.

Everyone here hates christians. NSG is as bad as reddit and twitter.

Every violent action committed by someone who is white or looks white is evidence of the ever-rising threat of white supremacism.

Every act committed by a muslim is not evidence of Islamism at all, and if islamism is the confirmed motive, then its a justified response to alleged maltreatment from their host countries.