Attack on gay nightclub in Orlando leaves 50 dead.

[Rapier]

Usually the people who abstain don't care enough one way or another to vote.

For President, people who don't like either candidate are perfectly entitled to stay home. If they hate both Candidate A and Candidate B, saying they're responsible for Candidate A coming into power is flawed, because, to prevent that, they'd have had to vote for Candidate B, who they equally despise. They could have voted for Candidate C, to make a statement, but they may have decided that they were going to lose anyway and decided that staying home and playing Fire Emblem was a better way to spend the evening.

Well, choosing the lesser evil is something recurring on politics, so the responsibility of choosing the lesser of two or more evils still falls on the political individual's lap (that means everyone's lap). Take the Hillary/Trump example. I've seen many people who dislike both, but they would rather choose one because they're the lesser of two evils. For me, that is quite sensible.

Ok, I've helped derrail this topic far too much. I apologize. This will be the last time.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Rapier

[Phantom037]

My heart goes out to the victims and their families, which I hope have all been informed about the status of their loved ones. It still saddens me to see an event like this once again go through the process of being politicized to argue about guns and, in this case, muslims, only to slowly fade away without any major progress being made until the next tragedy strikes.

[Rezzy]

Well, choosing the lesser evil is something recurring on politics, so the responsibility of choosing the lesser of two or more evils still falls on the political individual's lap (that means everyone's lap). Take the Hillary/Trump example. I've seen many people who dislike both, but they would rather choose one because they're the lesser of two evils. For me, that is quite sensible.

Ok, I've helped derrail this topic far too much. I apologize. This will be the last time.

If you think Candidate A is marginally better then B, but you still hate both, you may not be able to bring yourself to vote for them, in good faith. If you do vote for A, and they win, and they go on to have a presidency that you hate, you would then feel partly responsible for bringing it into power, forever thinking that you should have voted for Candidate B instead. By abstaining, you know that you were not personally responsible for bringing either into power.

On topic: Is the father in America? Can he even run for president of Afghanistan if he doesn't live there?

Edited June 13, 2016 by Rezzy

[InsaneNoire]

Disgusting human being. Turns out he was a wife beater too. People like that don't deserve to walk the streets. And to think there are people who don't think ISIS is a threat. Come on now!

Also I'm not surprised by Donald Trump by congratulating himself.

[Hardin]

Example

You can't always convince everyone to outright support you. Often, when trying to convince people, they'll move to a more neutral stance before coming over to support you, if they do at all. I'd rather have someone neutral to me than hating me.

While I understand what you're trying to say, that bill would still fail in reality. In this climate it would realistically need 60 votes to pass in the US senate, those who abstained and simply let that bill linger at 40 votes actively helped it fail.

[Augestein]

By sitting on the fence they are in fact obstructing those rights from being obtained and helping those who want to deny those rights. We're not talking about flavours of ice cream, we're talking about if you believe others should be treated with respect and dignity. There is no maybe in this discussion.

No. They aren't. Example. Abortion. A person that has no desire to have children may not have much interest in commenting or pushing for pro or anti abortion. Thus they abstain from putting their two cents in because they feel that their opinion would be ill advised or misplaced. Being enthusiastic but ignorant towards a movement is how you get things like actual bona-fide feminist not being treated with respect nowadays because you have a group of enthusiastic people that don't actually understand what the movement is about and instead rally together and make more of a mess than a person that's ANTI-feminist. You might respond with "well you should do your research before you rally behind a movement." And that's exactly why some people don't rally behind a movement. Because they may not have the time to even bother properly researching the subject and it doesn't have enough of a personal push to make them invest a copious amount of time to even form a proper opinion.

Like... You're not even making sense, because as of right now, I'm neutral to this entire ordeal, but if you were the leader of the movement, I would most definitely side against any movement you led because I'd find it far too aggressive to have anything good come from it.

As for the atrocity that happened, I don't care what the person's reasons were or their background. There's no excuse for this.

[Rezzy]

While I understand what you're trying to say, that bill would still fail in reality. In this climate it would realistically need 60 votes to pass in the US senate, those who abstained and simply let that bill linger at 40 votes actively helped it fail.

60 is just needed to beat a filibuster (and I meant it more as an analogy to a referendum put before than general populace, rather than senatorial procedure). As long as there's a quorum, you only need more yeas than nays. And with only 30 members opposed to the bill, they wouldn't have the 41 members needed to filibuster it.

[eclipse]

Like... You're not even making sense, because as of right now, I'm neutral to this entire ordeal, but if you were the leader of the movement, I would most definitely side against any movement you led because I'd find it far too aggressive to have anything good come from it.

As for the atrocity that happened, I don't care what the person's reasons were or their background. There's no excuse for this.

I have a similar mindset, but my stance is that if I can't be swayed by objective arguments, and the person who's trying to persuade me has to stoop to that level to get my support, their cause isn't worth supporting.

Anyway. . .zero sum has nothing to do with the topic, so if y'all want to argue this further, please make a new topic.

[Rezzy]

I hope this was a lone nut job and not part of anything bigger. The police caught somebody trying to set off a bomb in California, but I have no idea if it's related.

[FrostyFireMage]

And people say gun control should not exist

[peener weener]

i think above all it's really inappropriate, insensitive, and irrelevant to even bring up if you "support lgbt" or not. it's kind of a disgusting reaction, much like immediately jumping to "was he muslim? was he white? should we deport gay mexicans?"

maybe this was a little passionate but i haven't slept in 24 hours and i was very miffed by shit i read on the internet, posts like power master's on the first page of this thread are honestly unacceptable but it's still tame compared to reddit lmao

[blah the Prussian]

So if the shooter's dad once supported the Taliban (who didn't care for the US), why would he want to paint is as "not a terror attack"?Unless he's that afraid of being detained and interrogated by the FBI. Which reminds me, the FBI had best not fuck up this shooter's phone.

Hold on one second. What is wrong with the FBI "fucking up the shooters phone"? It seems like a natural response to me.

[eclipse]

Hold on one second. What is wrong with the FBI "fucking up the shooters phone"? It seems like a natural response to me.

As in, "we didn't bother asking Apple first, so we accidentally deleted things, and we want Apple to put a backdoor in because we fucked things up." Like a certain other mass shooting where the perpetrator ended up dead.

I hope the FBI learned its lesson, so on the off chance that Omar's got a work-issued Apple phone, they will be able to access it without a bunch of grandstanding. At least it'll shed some light on whether or not this guy really was part of a certain organization who will remain nameless.

[blah the Prussian]

As in, "we didn't bother asking Apple first, so we accidentally deleted things, and we want Apple to put a backdoor in because we fucked things up." Like a certain other mass shooting where the perpetrator ended up dead.

I hope the FBI learned its lesson, so on the off chance that Omar's got a work-issued Apple phone, they will be able to access it without a bunch of grandstanding. At least it'll shed some light on whether or not this guy really was part of a certain organization who will remain nameless.

Ah, okay, that they should bother asking Apple first, which I agree with. On the other hand if Apple refuses they're perfectly justified in going into his phone.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

Okay, y'all. I'm still pretty numb from this. I had flashbacks to the Boston Marathon bombings, which happened also in my backyard. I have been within an hour of both of these events, and this affects me a lot more than most of you could probably realize. Pulse was a nightclub I used to frequent especially when I first moved to Orlando; while not all of my memories are the fondest (alcohol, kids), I always felt like I was included. As a member of the gay community, especially the gay community of Orlando, it was important to feel that sense of belonging. A tweet I read about the situation hits the nail on the head:

"Anyone who doesn't understand a bar or club as a sanctuary never had to live in fear of holding someone's hand in public"

Pulse, for a lot of people, was that sanctuary--that safe place we went to. Pulse was different in that every night it was open was themed, so everyone had their niche. Tuesdays had amateur drag performances, Wednesday was college night, Saturday was Latin night, there was a lesbian night, etc. EVERYONE had their time, and EVERYONE was welcome.

Whether or not the shooter was acting as a part of ISIS or not (he declared allegiance to ISIS in his 911 call, and ISIS is taking credit for the attack, but as of now no other links have been made), he was acting out of pure, unadulterated homophobia. He openly expressed his disgust for homosexuality and had a history of violent tendencies. If he wanted to do damage and shoot up a crowded place, he could have gone to any other nightclub in Orlando. There are tons of them. But he targeted Pulse, specifically. He was seen inside the club all night. This was an attack on our community.

The homophobes of the world have the fucking nerve to say he was doing "God's work"--FUCK. THAT. Whether or not he was religiously motivated, he committed the largest mass shooting in American history AGAINST A SPECIFIC MINORITY POPULATION. This isn't just terrorism. This is a HATE CRIME. People are doing this and that about radical Islam, gun control, etc. At the end of it all this was a hate crime against the queer community. I've been openly gay now for 9 years and this is the first time since that I have felt threatened and afraid due to my sexual orientation. This is living proof that hate crimes exist and that homophobia is real and alive. My fiancé said it best: the more visibility that we get the more active those against us become.

It's not going to stop, though. The responses have been overwhelming. Thousands of people have donated blood so far and even more were told to come back another day because the blood bank was so full. Over $1 Million has been raised to support the victims. The community of Orlando has come together like never before in support. Events like these bring out humanity's worst and best.

We don't need "God in our hearts", we need tolerance. We need people to realize we are human beings and that we bleed just like our straight counterparts. We need people to understand that one person can kill 50 people because of hate. This is one of the worst hate crimes in history, and I fear what it can become. At the same time I have experienced so much love and light from people both in Orlando and the outside communities. People all over are dedicating themselves to helping our community rebuild and be stronger than before.

So far, I haven't known any of the deceased too well, but we've crossed paths. One of them worked at my local Target, and he cashed me out a few times. Another worked at Universal, and while we did not work in the same department, I have several friends who worked with him directly. As the names pour in my fears continue; while most of my friends who frequent Pulse were not there on Saturday, there are still names to be released as the families are contacted.

My request to all of you: don't take these lives for granted, don't use them for political ambitions. They deserve better.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Hamlet

[Rezzy]

It's just one thing after another. There was a bomb/possible bomb at Mercy Hospital, here in St. Louis today.

As stated before, people are calling this a hate crime, but pretty much every crime could be considered a hate crime. People commit crimes for one of three reasons, with possible overlap:

A. They are doing it to get something, like money, goods, or gratification.

B. They have a hatred for their victims.

C. They are crazy and do it for no reason.

Any person that commits a crime for reason B is committing a Hate Crime, if I or someone else is victimized, I want to be considered as a person first, not some stupid arbitrary category. I feel by being treated differently under the law, they're only reinforcing the idea that we're different.

[Tryhard]

It's just one thing after another. There was a bomb/possible bomb at Mercy Hospital, here in St. Louis today.

As stated before, people are calling this a hate crime, but pretty much every crime could be considered a hate crime. People commit crimes for one of three reasons, with possible overlap:

A. They are doing it to get something, like money, goods, or gratification.

B. They have a hatred for their victims.

C. They are crazy and do it for no reason.

Any person that commits a crime for reason B is committing a Hate Crime, if I or someone else is victimized, I want to be considered as a person first, not some stupid arbitrary category. I feel by being treated differently under the law, they're only reinforcing the idea that we're different.

Yes, but this is arguing semantics. Everyone means that they are specifically targeting someone's sexual orientation, race, etc. as a motive that goes beyond a regular malice a murderer has for a victim. If this should hold more or equal significance is up to your personal views on the matter. Edited June 13, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rezzy]

Yes, but this is arguing semantics. Everyone means that they are specifically targeting someone's sexual orientation, race, etc. as a motive that goes beyond a regular malice a murderer has for a victim. If this should hold more or equal significance is up to your personal views on the matter.

I know what they mean, I'm just of the view the hate crime laws are flawed. Whether someone kills me for holding hands with a woman in public or kills me for looking at them funny, it should carry the same weight and penalty under the law.

[Tryhard]

Just because people call it a hate crime doesn't mean they think it should carry more or less weight than another type of murder (premeditation or not distinctions aside). I don't, for example. It's just a way of explaining the motive, to me.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Tryhard

[Rezzy]

Just because people call it a hate crime doesn't mean they think it should carry more or less weight than another type of murder (premeditation or not distinctions aside). I don't, for example. It's just a way of explaining the motive, to me.

It's when being labeled a hate crime carries a heavier sentence than the main crime itself that bothers me.

[Caliban of Sycorax]

I know what they mean, I'm just of the view the hate crime laws are flawed. Whether someone kills me for holding hands with a woman in public or kills me for looking at them funny, it should carry the same weight and penalty under the law.

Just because people call it a hate crime doesn't mean they think it should carry more or less weight than another type of murder (premeditation or not distinctions aside). I don't, for example. It's just a way of explaining the motive, to me.

It's when being labeled a hate crime carries a heavier sentence than the main crime itself that bothers me.

But he specifically targeted a gay bar in Orlando on Latin Night to kill people. If he wanted to commit mass murder he could have gone anywhere else, there's even rumors (which I do not believe) that he was considering Walt Disney World as a target.

This was an attack against the GLBTQ community of Orlando. The shooter has a history of homophobia as revealed in an interview with his father. It's not a way to explain the motive: it's a hate crime against the GLBTQ minority.

This is the definition of a hate crime:

a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence.

The murder of 50+ GLBTQ people by someone who has said that seeing two men be affectionate in public "disgusts" him is a hate crime.

I do agree that in most circumstances hate crimes under the law should not carry more weight; if someone is murdered someone is murdered and the killer should suffer the same penalty, however, in the case of this, where it was a mass murder, it was obvious that the target was a minority population in the hopes of causing serious harm to multiple individuals.

However, it is pointless to discuss the severity of punishments, as the murderer is dead already and cannot be further punished.

[Tryhard]

If it should at most times not carry any more weight, then why is it not a way to explain the motive? Your definition even mentions "motivation". He had a history of homophobia (we suspect from what the father said that there is one particular instance), so this is congruent with why he would want to target LGBT members. Like yeah, I'll call it a hate crime because it was a person who specifically targeted an LGBT nightclub, and I did refer to it as that. Hate crime: this person hated LGBT people for whatever reason and decided to kill them in a pointless waste of life.

Should it be treated as worse than a person who mass murders any person who just happen to be there at the time? Possibly... or possibly not.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Tryhard

[Caliban of Sycorax]

I'm biased toward treating it with more weight because I'm an Orlando resident who is also a member of the LGBTQ community... so it affects me more than the average person.

[Rezzy]

But he specifically targeted a gay bar in Orlando on Latin Night to kill people. If he wanted to commit mass murder he could have gone anywhere else, there's even rumors (which I do not believe) that he was considering Walt Disney World as a target.

This was an attack against the GLBTQ community of Orlando. The shooter has a history of homophobia as revealed in an interview with his father. It's not a way to explain the motive: it's a hate crime against the GLBTQ minority.

This is the definition of a hate crime:

The murder of 50+ GLBTQ people by someone who has said that seeing two men be affectionate in public "disgusts" him is a hate crime.

I do agree that in most circumstances hate crimes under the law should not carry more weight; if someone is murdered someone is murdered and the killer should suffer the same penalty, however, in the case of this, where it was a mass murder, it was obvious that the target was a minority population in the hopes of causing serious harm to multiple individuals.

However, it is pointless to discuss the severity of punishments, as the murderer is dead already and cannot be further punished.

What he did was evil and it affects me a deeply personal level, but it would have been just as bad if he had targeted Disney world.

If he had targeted Disney World, it might actually even bother me more. Attacking the night club is targeting a trait I attribute to myself, while if he had targeted Disney World, I might see it more as a potential attack on my children. After reflecting, the latter bothers me more, but I think the fact that he senselessly killed 50 people is deplorable no matter what, and should be treated equally in the hypothetical court of law.

I think of it this way. In some countries, killing LGBT people is treated as something that's not even given the light of day in the legal system. It's a terrible wrong that we're treated a lesser humans there. I don't want to be treated differently here, preferential treatment or otherwise, I want to be treated equally.

[Moblin Major General]

Hate murder is aggravated murder, which carries a sentence of death. An assault that is a hate crime is aggravated assault, et cetera. If a crime is motivated primarily by prejudice or bias against a particular orientation, ethnicity, race, or gender, then it is a hate crime. On the other hand, the biblical definition of hate is to wish death upon, so murder is the fulfillment of hate.

@eclipse: tolerance and progress do not equate to safety. I would feel more safe 50 years ago because "the bad guys" were off in a frozen wasteland playing chicken with DC. Now they could be your neighbor on a bad day. I have no explanation, although it certainly isn't a coincidence that the world isn't black and white anymore.