Talk:2016 Munich shooting

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This Crime related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Hey, Agendapushers[edit]

The authorities were careful to avoid assumptions, and urged to not jump to conclusions. Instead of reporting the little that is known, you dive ahead, indulge in speculation in line with your regressive agenda by desperately making it seem like right wing terror attack (or anything but islamic), while hypocritically lambasting the media coverage that does the same, just in the opposite direction (though they have reason on their side).
fnord More embarassing, you cannot even get the most basic facts halfway straight, and it's clear that your massive bias in the way. This is coupled with arrogance. The central idea, that he is conservative or right wing hinges on the xenophobic slur you quote, but it was shouted at the shooter, not by him, when panic broke out. It appears to be case — and I stress little is known — that he got into a heated exchange with somebody on a balcony that was then partially filmed.
fnordThe shooter, foreign looking, shows his weapon at which the balcony person and others start to freak out, and hurl xenophobic slur at him, to which the shooter replies he was German. Since other media seem to have noticed that (and you didn't) they had no reason to let right-wing motive speculations run rampant. Though they did entertain the possibility, too (mainly due to Breivik's massacre anniversary). And while it was ongoing, and police assumed two more attackers (witnesses saw a suspicious car with two speeding away), all experts as well as any rationally functioning person was thinking Islamic terrorism, because the pattern, location and similar cases from ISIS are known, whereas there was no plausible reason why nazis would target a mall in Munich (and not, say, a asylum/refugee centre/homes, which they do attack with some terrible routine). ~ Aneris 14:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Only the first stub version of the article could be considered pushing an agenda. When I started expanding it I changed the article to a more skeptical tone, which still listed the xenophobic statements, as it was the most concrete data we had of the incident instead of assuming a political affiliation on some set of data which seems to align with previous IS attacks. The third version was the first which also listed an Islamist background as motivation because at that time new evidence (another witness account) came up. Now in the fourth major overhaul, the attack is represented mostly fairly from all the evidence we have, which after less than a day after the attack is pretty good, don't cha think? NameThatNobodyTakes () 15:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
There was a parallel discussion on the WIGO page, which also influenced my impression, as well as overall impression I got from this project over the years. It has actually nothing to do with you, personally. But it is getting silly at this point. I am all for "wait and see" and not hastily jumping to conclusions, and I also hate that right wing media go ahead and use this for their propaganda. But we are in an age were partisanship has gotten so out of hand, that it's all propaganda all the way down. I know the RW isn't skeptical, and purposefully biased and you can write whatever you want, but alas, that's the point.
fnordA critical source would recognize that right wingers desperately want it to be a Muslim, and that regressive left wingers desperately want it to be right wing terrorism, or why not "toxic masculinity". The right freak out when the criticism hones in to gun policy, and the pomo left has a massive allergic reaction when mental illness seems to present itself as a plausible reason. It's all agenda. Actual critical thinkers can see that reasons are often complicated and a melange of dozens of factors, e.g. perspectiveless loner who finds purpose in a religion; mental ill person seeks to "matter" for once, even in utmost negative ways; easy access to guns turn a momentary personal crisis into a massacra (since Germany has strict gun laws, this is not the case here, but in the USA this is often a factor), and so on. In this case, the shooter was interested in spree shootings, as books on the subject were found, and apparently harboured violent fantasies of his own. Authorities at this point see no connection to anything ideological or religious.
fnordThe section "Poor media coverage" is completely wrong, since the gunman hinted at nothing whatsoever. He merely said he was German in reply to others calling him xenophobic slurs when they panicked (because he pulled his gun). They shouted this, presumably, because he was foreign/arabian looking. ~ Aneris 17:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I knew of the discussion because I also partook in it, I used it as a starting point to write the analysis of the real evidence section. It's not that I didn't initially believed myself that it was an Islamist-inspired atrocity, it's not like it isn't happening all the time right now.
I agree with you that the "Poor media coverage" is lacking currently and the shooter who was mixed apparently identified as German (thus his response), which isn't unusual actually here in Germany even if these very same people espouse conservative Islamic talking points. As long as it's not expanded with more content I'm not opposed to removing the section in question. NameThatNobodyTakes () 17:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thousands of baby chickens killed everyday in Germany, why not the media outcry?[edit] "They're known as one-day chicks - baby chickens that never grow older than a day. Thousands of them are killed every day across Germany. The reason: They are male, they won't lay eggs, and so feeding them simply isn't economically viable."Schizophrenic (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Connection? NameThatNobodyTakes () 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Well this is the guy who thinks that people accused of committing criminal activity shouldn't be given a trial by a jury of his/her peers and instead be killed in the streets by police. Given that he now appears to valuing human lives to those of chickens, this would seem to just further confirm the idea that this guy isn't entirely right in the head. Nergali (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Schizophrenic, I don't give a shit about chickens. Fuck em. They should all be slowly tortured by having each limb sawed off slowly, then electrocuted with a steadily increasing pulse, and after all that, beheaded with scissors. How does that make you feel? PB (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The point i'm making is thousands of animals are killed everyday, yet the cows slaughtered for a McDonald's burger don't make the news? Why is there only media outcry when humans are killed? What makes killings humans different than a cow, or baby chicken?Schizophrenic (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Humans have a much more advanced conscious self. For many animals it's even unclear whether they have a concept of death, future or any of the things that would make this a meaningful question. But actually I just should have replied "don't feed the troll" and be done with it. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You sound like Ken Ham. You're anthropocentrism is a Christian world-view.Schizophrenic (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
It's your, not you're. You're indicating a possessive here. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Troll--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 01:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC) 01:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)