Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The media has portrayed a killer of 17 innocent people as a victim! watch

    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by erratic_deus)
    You must be bitter.

    The only reason AA exists is because every single elite university has been guilty in the past of admitting white students or holding a social stigma against BAME students. (It's also spelt affirmative).
    Furthermore, white people whether or not they admit it have benefited from their ancestors being racist.
    The founding families in America used to kill black people and native Americans on sight! This is how they acquired large masses of land!
    The descendants of those racists still live in those beautiful houses built by black slaves and benefit from the privileges founding families across America get!
    This happens in the UK too, the peerage system and the order of the British empire enables what used to be racist to become "accepted" or even "adored". White people in the UK feel honored to be part of the racist British empire which went around Africa, India and all over trying to "civilize" the primitive ethnic minorities.
    They also committed massacres along the way if they didn't get the gold they wanted.
    Today, Queen Elizabeth still wears the rubies and gold that her ancestors unlawfully stole from India and South Africa.

    To me, if you're white and you want to get somewhere. Nothing is stopping you. I'm black, I live in a council-funded estate and even though I've done really "well" in education, this doesn't mean other black people could follow suit.
    I recognize that I also have some white privilege in society. My hair is socially acceptable (e.g I have loose curls), my nose is slimmer and longer "more beautiful in society since it is a feature whites have", I also have almond shaped eyes (R1B phenotype) and essentially as a racially ambiguous person I wholeheartedly choose to be black because even though most black people wouldn't necessarily consider (and they don't) east Africans as black. I go through life as a black girl and I'm faced with such consequences from being a black girl.

    There also aren't any black supremacist groups operating today.
    Enjoying your nasty racist little rant if you hate white people why don't go and live in Zimbabwe.

    White privilege what a joke say that to a white working class boy who stuck in worst school in country he the least likely to pass his GCSEs and only 1/20 of going to university only 1/200 of going to a top university.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018...-focus-ethnic/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...esearch-shows/
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by erratic_deus)
    You must be bitter.

    The only reason AA exists is because every single elite university has been guilty in the past of admitting white students or holding a social stigma against BAME students. (It's also spelt affirmative).
    Furthermore, white people whether or not they admit it have benefited from their ancestors being racist.
    The founding families in America used to kill black people and native Americans on sight! This is how they acquired large masses of land!
    The descendants of those racists still live in those beautiful houses built by black slaves and benefit from the privileges founding families across America get!
    This happens in the UK too, the peerage system and the order of the British empire enables what used to be racist to become "accepted" or even "adored". White people in the UK feel honored to be part of the racist British empire which went around Africa, India and all over trying to "civilize" the primitive ethnic minorities.
    They also committed massacres along the way if they didn't get the gold they wanted.
    Today, Queen Elizabeth still wears the rubies and gold that her ancestors unlawfully stole from India and South Africa.

    To me, if you're white and you want to get somewhere. Nothing is stopping you. I'm black, I live in a council-funded estate and even though I've done really "well" in education, this doesn't mean other black people could follow suit.
    I recognize that I also have some white privilege in society. My hair is socially acceptable (e.g I have loose curls), my nose is slimmer and longer "more beautiful in society since it is a feature whites have", I also have almond shaped eyes (R1B phenotype) and essentially as a racially ambiguous person I wholeheartedly choose to be black because even though most black people wouldn't necessarily consider (and they don't) east Africans as black. I go through life as a black girl and I'm faced with such consequences from being a black girl.

    There also aren't any black supremacist groups operating today.
    Ooh boy someone seems salty, it is wrong to assume that every white person has benefited from imperialism, because quite frankly they didn’t. Tell that to those in Ireland for centuries without franchise because of being catholic. To suggest white privilege has always existed and still exists is wrong, and imperialism achieved quite a lot of positives. It brought together a chance to connect the world and introduce technology and culture from Europe. Yes, it established other worse things, but without that great period of exploration we would be in a vastly different world.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by looloo2134)
    Enjoying your nasty racist little rant if you hate white people why don't go and live in Zimbabwe.

    White privilege what a joke say that to a white working class boy who stuck in worst school in country he the least likely to pass his GCSEs and only 1/20 of going to university only 1/200 of going to a top university.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018...-focus-ethnic/

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...esearch-shows/
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Ooh boy someone seems salty, it is wrong to assume that every white person has benefited from imperialism, because quite frankly they didn’t. Tell that to those in Ireland for centuries without franchise because of being catholic. To suggest white privilege has always existed and still exists is wrong, and imperialism achieved quite a lot of positives. It brought together a chance to connect the world and introduce technology and culture from Europe. Yes, it established other worse things, but without that great period of exploration we would be in a vastly different world.
    White privilege exists yet isn't as bad as it was pre2010 because society is acknowledging it and removing it!
    Also, I'm not racist. I haven't discriminated and I don't believe i'm superior to any other race. I'm a black girl.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by erratic_deus)
    White privilege exists yet isn't as bad as it was pre2010 because society is acknowledging it and removing it!
    Also, I'm not racist. I haven't discriminated and I don't believe i'm superior to any other race. I'm a black girl.
    Evidence please again...you do like to assume that everyone who’s white automatically has privilege. The fact you say you’re a black girl implies that you’re making the argument that you can’t be racist because you’re black...
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Damn, everyone be crazy in this chat. Ya'll need to calm right down
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CountBrandenburg)
    Evidence please again...you do like to assume that everyone who’s white automatically has privilege. The fact you say you’re a black girl implies that you’re making the argument that you can’t be racist because you’re black...
    She has actually outright stated this numerous times.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    Why is it whenever a person of colour does something like this, he is deemed a terrorist.

    Whenever a white person does so, he is considered "mentally ill".

    No sorry, you're not mentally ill, you're also a terrorist.
    I'm sorry but you are greatly misinformed, minorities commit a lot of mass shootings and they are not called terrorists unless there is a political or religious motive for the attack as such with the Manchester bombings or the Paris attacks.
    A lot of terrorists have been deemed mentally ill and the attacker of the Florida shooting was mentally ill.

    I do agree with you to the point that there is white bias in the media but your points are invalid and shallow and don't express reality..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah it really annoys me. If he was a Muslim, first words to appear would be extremist, terrorist, radicalised, Isis. A MUSLIM EXTREMIST. However because it's some white dude, oh well we'll just stick with depressed loner, mental illness.

    Double standards.

    At the end of the day, innocent children and innocent teachers have died. They left their house to educate, learn and now they're in a morgue. Nothing will justify innocent killing.

    But I think it's sad to see trumps tweet disregarding gun control at all despite past shootings also taking lives.

    I'd hate to think what would've happened if the guy was Muslim. Let's see how quick trump would've reacted with border tightening etc.

    One thing for sure needs addressing is gun control. It's easy for anyone including me to associate myself with another religion and murder people. But I don't think the religion Islam or muslims should be gunned down.

    What can justify the murders of these innocent people, theyre not at home now, they're waiting to be buried. Why? What did they do? Nothing. Same with those in Syria Palestine burma. What did they ever apart from inhaling oxygen, look after their family? Nothing:

    Only God can give justice.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Im so freaking tired of this "If he's white, the media will say he's a mentally I'll victim of his upbringing, and if he's any other colour, they won't" nonsense. There is absolutely no proof of this. No data backing it up. It's the result of your subjective and biased interpretation of what you happen to remember seeing on the news. I, for example, have seen white and minority killers portrayed in both ways and everything in between. It literally depends on the killer and their background, whether they actually have mental illnesses, etc.

    And guess what? Maybe white mass murderers are more likely to actually be mentally I'll, troubled people. You don't know.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReadySalted28)
    Yeah it really annoys me. If he was a Muslim, first words to appear would be extremist, terrorist, radicalised, Isis. A MUSLIM EXTREMIST. However because it's some white dude, oh well we'll just stick with depressed loner, mental illness.
    People are called Muslim extremists when they are Muslim extremists. People are called mentally I'll when they are mentally ill. It literally depends on the killer, their background, and why they were killing people.

    There is no proof, no data at all suggesting there is any kind of double standard between races and ethnic groups. Perhaps you should be prepared to accept the fact most of those Muslim terrorists weren't mentally ill, antisocial loners, but radicalised and evil individuals with political motivations.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by erratic_deus)
    Because it is the reality?
    Black people - inferior
    White people - superior
    My point was more why are you harping on about it on a thread about a school shooting.

    White people are the superior race and they make sure this is known.
    Ah that isnt racist at all :rolleyes:

    I can't join one of the over 20 white nationalist/supremacist groups that operate in the UK but any white person can.
    Alas I dont care...
    This doesn't mean that all white people are supremacists its just the fact that most white people will be detached from the problems BAME face because of the fact they're superior.
    For example, if I told you that a black girl didn't apply to Cambridge because she was constantly told during her education that you have to elitist and posh to even be there you wouldn't understand.
    I understand because I've been told once that it isn't my place to try to get into Oxbridge and I should make more realistic goals such as Liverpool (exactly) because of my name.
    Seems you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.
    No its more I wouldnt care - if she didnt apply to Cambridge thats her fault for not applying.
    Er arent you a GCSE student? Not to mention you've said elsewhere you're 'going to dartmouth on a scholarship'
    Anyway, the US and its affirmative action scheme is doing really well. Even Sutton Trust is amazing but it could be better.
    Look at this girl who went into my school and got a 1/5 million scholarship --> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...place-MIT.html
    According to that article she got a place because of her intellect, not simply because shes an asian?
    Ahh affirmative action one of the most ridiculous policies in history.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I actually had no problem with this thread until 'white privilege' was brought into it. I'm not racist and I know that POC are resentful for the slavery of their ancestors. I get that. They also suffer unnecessary racism now which isn't just...but no. Sorry but white privilege doesn't exist. Just because racism is more prominent in POC and their ancestors badly suffered, this does not automatically make white people privileged.

    What are white people supposed to do about their past? Not as if we can go back and change it. I'm not denying that POC are more prone to racial discrimination but pulling the race card unnecessarily and claiming we're privileged is just salty. No, I'm not playing victim. If anything, it's POC who believe we're all privileged who are playing the victim. We're all people. There are no privileged/superior races.

    Yes, I am white. So what? Idc that people are gonna disagree and try and challenge my views...I'm not changing them. At least I'm not afraid to state my opinion.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    People are called Muslim extremists when they are Muslim extremists. People are called mentally I'll when they are mentally ill. It literally depends on the killer, their background, and why they were killing people.

    There is no proof, no data at all suggesting there is any kind of double standard between races and ethnic groups. Perhaps you should be prepared to accept the fact most of those Muslim terrorists weren't mentally ill, antisocial loners, but radicalised and evil individuals with political motivations.
    If you hold that view, then please define mentally ill. Every single person who thinks this is right and justified is mentally ill- I don't wake up in the morning plotting to run over innocent people on the pavement, no Muslim wakes up wishing he was recruited in Isis. Islam strongly condone any type of killing. A person carrying out a attack, attempting to end multiple people's lives has a mental illness, because I can guarantee if Muslim terrorist kills people he definelty is not sain and is mentally unstable. So surely Muslims should also be called mentally ill.

    I can easily associate my name with Islam and carry out suicide killing. Instantly I'm recognised as a Muslim and thus a extremist, but what about my history?

    This 19 year old boy loved guns, ammunition. His Instagram page is full of his admire towards it. He was sane because he went to that school, but because he showed threatening behaviour he was rightly excluded. He made a YouTube comment last year saying he'd probably make a professional school shooter. This is a cold, meditated murder which he was fully aware of. He had no family, bad education I mean what's there to lose right then revenge a innocent school. Sounds pretty sane to me.

    Not only that, but he was part of a white supremacy group. Is that extremist? Yes. Are they racist? Killing people= spreading terror, is he a terrorist? Yes. Finally. So can we categorise him and say -- He is a 'Extreme white supremacist' or 'White Supremacist Terrorist targets innocent school'? Erm no we can't because this category is only fit for Muslims. Oh right ok, so we'll just stick with depressed loner. Even though he was part of a white supremacist group!

    Anyone, anyone can associate their name with a religion, anyone! But it does not mean Muslim/ Islam name should be held in shame, should not mean Muslims from the other side of the world receive bad treatment because of this. Everyone is happy with the title depressed mentally ill shooter- because this is what they are. They are mentally unstable but also it associates not ties with anything else, so there is no repercussions as a result but to associate Muslim terrorist to Islam is spreading hatred, every

    Maybe people should not solely rely on the media providing a biased, manipulated story just so it suits their agenda. Muslim terrorist, Jewish terrorist, Christian terrorist are mentally ill and are simply mentally ill individuals who think this is ok and use an excuse of a religion to justify their actions. Their own free will to do so. Medias approach to this is dirty and humiliating, sadly it influences many people to think a certain religion/group or organisation is condoning this, as a result affecting people in that category globally.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by erratic_deus)
    How do I add it to the ignore list?

    The only reason a white male would kill 17 people on a very fine and seemingly marvelous day is if they were evil. He deserves the death penalty.

    There is no such thing as good and evil people.Each of us has both good and evil inside of us.We all have the capability for murder it just depends upon the situation we are placed in.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ReadySalted28)
    If you hold that view, then please define mentally ill. Every single person who thinks this is right and justified is mentally ill- I don't wake up in the morning plotting to run over innocent people on the pavement, no Muslim wakes up wishing he was recruited in Isis. Islam strongly condone any type of killing. A person carrying out a attack, attempting to end multiple people's lives has a mental illness, because I can guarantee if Muslim terrorist kills people he definelty is not sain and is mentally unstable. So surely Muslims should also be called mentally ill.

    I can easily associate my name with Islam and carry out suicide killing. Instantly I'm recognised as a Muslim and thus a extremist, but what about my history?

    This 19 year old boy loved guns, ammunition. His Instagram page is full of his admire towards it. He was sane because he went to that school, but because he showed threatening behaviour he was rightly excluded. He made a YouTube comment last year saying he'd probably make a professional school shooter. This is a cold, meditated murder which he was fully aware of. He had no family, bad education I mean what's there to lose right then revenge a innocent school. Sounds pretty sane to me.

    Not only that, but he was part of a white supremacy group. Is that extremist? Yes. Are they racist? Killing people= spreading terror, is he a terrorist? Yes. Finally. So can we categorise him and say -- He is a 'Extreme white supremacist' or 'White Supremacist Terrorist targets innocent school'? Erm no we can't because this category is only fit for Muslims. Oh right ok, so we'll just stick with depressed loner. Even though he was part of a white supremacist group!

    Anyone, anyone can associate their name with a religion, anyone! But it does not mean Muslim/ Islam name should be held in shame, should not mean Muslims from the other side of the world receive bad treatment because of this. Everyone is happy with the title depressed mentally ill shooter- because this is what they are. They are mentally unstable but also it associates not ties with anything else, so there is no repercussions as a result but to associate Muslim terrorist to Islam is spreading hatred, every

    Maybe people should not solely rely on the media providing a biased, manipulated story just so it suits their agenda. Muslim terrorist, Jewish terrorist, Christian terrorist are mentally ill and are simply mentally ill individuals who think this is ok and use an excuse of a religion to justify their actions. Their own free will to do so. Medias approach to this is dirty and humiliating, sadly it influences many people to think a certain religion/group or organisation is condoning this, as a result affecting people in that category globally.
    By most definitions people who talk to entities nobody else can see,are insane.By this logic any religious person could be classified as mentally ill.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Just another thing to add to the discussion...

    Why aren't white supremacist groups called terrorist groups?

    They have extreme views and beliefs and intend to cause terror due to them beliefs that white people are supreme. They carry out acts of violence, due to their views.

    Yet Britain First is described as a "political party". How the heck does that work? They're a terrorist group!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    Just another thing to add to the discussion...

    Why aren't white supremacist groups called terrorist groups?

    They have extreme views and beliefs and intend to cause terror due to them beliefs that white people are supreme. They carry out acts of violence, due to their views.

    Yet Britain First is described as a "political party". How the heck does that work? They're a terrorist group!
    This is a just a thought, but maybe this is the case because Britain First, though a radical group, it doesn't inherently command its followers to commit violent attacks to promote their views, the group just adheres to a set of radical beliefs that don't contain the mandatory rule to cause terror, but to promote through protests and word-of mouth. Therefore, the actual group isn't a terrorist organization, as terrorism means committing violent attacks for a political or to be more general, an idealogical motive, but some of its members that do commit acts of violence to promote Britain First's beliefs are regarded as Britain First terrorists, and rightfully so.

    IS, on the other hand, which is regarded as a terrorist organization, is labeled that because their established basic motive is to 'conquer the world' and getting everyone to obey their rules and adapt 'their interpretation of Islam' by violence and force, calling for execution if the people they encounter are defiant in joining them. Their group is inherently based on violence to 'take over' countries due to their own set idealogical beliefs (which is terrorism) by IS that mention them to directly do so, so they are a terrorist organization. If IS didn't have mandatory rules to commit violence and take over land forcefully to spread their views and did it peacefully, I predict they would just be called a 'religious/political organization' as spreading any sort of view, if the content excludes committing damage or other immoral means, isn't terrorism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k.n.h.)
    This is a just a thought, but maybe this is the case because Britain First, though a radical group, it doesn't inherently command its followers to commit violent attacks to promote their views, the group just adheres to a set of radical beliefs that don't contain the mandatory rule to cause terror, but to promote through protests and word-of mouth. Therefore, the actual group isn't a terrorist organization, as terrorism means committing violent attacks for a political or to be more general, an idealogical motive, but some of its members that do commit acts of violence to promote Britain First's beliefs are regarded as Britain First terrorists, and rightfully so.

    IS, on the other hand, which is regarded as a terrorist organization, is labeled that because their established basic motive is to 'conquer the world' and getting everyone to obey their rules and adapt 'their interpretation of Islam' by violence and force, calling for execution if the people they encounter are defiant in joining them. Their group is inherently based on violence to 'take over' countries due to their own set idealogical beliefs (which is terrorism) by IS that mention them to directly do so, so they are a terrorist organization. If IS didn't have mandatory rules to commit violence and take over land forcefully to spread their views and did it peacefully, I predict they would just be called a 'religious/political organization' as spreading any sort of view, if the content excludes committing damage or other immoral means, isn't terrorism.
    Terrorism :"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

    Are there words not violent to ones mind? Isn't it damaging to someone's mind knowing there are people out there who consider less human over their DNA. Don't you think that can tear a person apart?

    To other people their marches could be intimidating. Knowing that so many people can get together, just to spread hatred.

    Why do Britain First do so? To pursue their political viewpoints, that white British people are superior to everyone else.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cod3tte)
    Terrorism :"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

    Are there words not violent to ones mind? Isn't it damaging to someone's mind knowing there are people out there who consider less human over their DNA. Don't you think that can tear a person apart?

    To other people their marches could be intimidating. Knowing that so many people can get together, just to spread hatred.

    Why do Britain First do so? To pursue their political viewpoints, that white British people are superior to everyone else.
    You're trying to redefine terrorism so you can add it to the list of labels you apply to those you don't agree with. That tends to suggest your arguments are weak to non-existent.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurlyBen)
    You're trying to redefine terrorism so you can add it to the list of labels you apply to those you don't agree with. That tends to suggest your arguments are weak to non-existent.
    I'm not trying to redefine terrorism.

    I'm simply looking at it from a different angle.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.