Red_Army wrote:He was giving a really stupid explanation of the causes of this sort of violence. Another cause would be rampant and normalized islamophobia perpetuated by right wing demagogues. Anning's logic is that muslims in general are responsible for the terrorist attacks of any specific muslim. This is a hypocrisy you've already pointed out. If that is to be accepted then both of your logical trains of thought would lead to banning right wing hate speech - since this guy among others have cited it as the reason for their acts.
Anning getting egged was awesome though. Egg boy forever.
Right, and this is an interesting point...
If we accept that
extremist right wing speech produces more extremists and results in increased acts of violence, we would have to conclude
the same for Islamic (as well as other) forms of extreme speech. Of course, perhaps there could be exceptions, but who knows...
But let us say that it is so that
any extremist speech results in potentially extremist actions. (Let us also clarify a bit further that this is only relevant for those who are outside of the democratic means of acquiring power -- this is a further personal clarification that I have to make that isn't necessarily relevant now but may be relevant in another context....)
If this is to be recognized as a truth, the proper course of action would be
neither pleasing to conservatives or liberals.It would follow that:
- Lots of Islamic migration outside of the Muslim sphere is undesirable as it is represents a latent threat to peace and tranquility due to the prevalence of extremism in the Islamic worldview.
- There should be increased monitoring of domestic threats as well as potentially policies that exist to curb free speech and the internet presence of domestic threats.
There would even be those who would properly argue that decreasing Islamic and multicultural presences in Europe and other places would
positively correlate with fewer violent threats if only because less tribalism among whites would be piqued.It's a collection of arguments that would probably net benefit white nationalists while simultaneously portraying them as unstable and jeopardizing free speech.