L.A. Shooter is a Lefty Liberal, But News Outlets Hide It

Originally Posted by badfast

You come across as quite hateful many times.

Just because I said something that is race-charged, or unpopular, does not make it hate speech. Sure, Im not PC in the slightest, but never hate.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Are suicide bombers insane? How about the 9/11 hijackers?

No.

People who willingly fly airplanes into buildings are the very definition of "sane".

Originally Posted by 00stephen

(I've read through the other thread in the main OT forum, which is covering the crimes and manhunt, but not the media/political aspect of the story.)

There's actually two stories here... One is that the nutcase former cop in L.A. is a lefty anti-gun liberal, which is quite ironic given his most recent personal endeavors.

But the other bigger story is that news media has chosen to hide his political and social views -- which in a different context many might find sensible and agreeable, despite his nonsensical and murderous dive off the deep end. The original manifesto was announced to be 22 pages. Authorities asked media outlets to redact the names of private citizens. But the media went a step further and removed 10 pages political and cultural commentary, all of it left-leaning.

So, question: if the commentary had been right-leaning or conservative in nature, do we believe the media would withhold it as well? Or would we see another attempt to claim 'Tea Partying gun nut goes on shooting spree'? To what degree can we trust the media who seem to be routinely lying, editing, or hiding events and accounts to fit a preferred narrative and shape collective beliefs?

http://www.soopermexican.com/2013/02...-gun-comments/



.

american lefty liberals dont generally choose military, and or police as their professions, let alone a combination of both._nr_

Originally Posted by 00stephen

And furthermore, to what extent is the media culpable for the hate it may foster? For example Dorner wrote this, somewhere between complimenting Michelle Obama on her new bangs and calling Margaret Cho beautiful:

Clearly Dorner bought into the initial media hype that Zimmerman is a violent, abusive person (as if Dorner himself is not?), and that T.M. was a victim (which Dorner narcissisticly believes he, himself, is). If it wasn't for the race angle that the national media outlets tried to play in the initial weeks of the event, the Zimmerman shooting would have remained a fourth page story at the local level.

So to what extent does the media -- by hyping division, scandal, contention... as well as certain political angles or supposed grievances -- affect (or encourage) social and even psychological discord among viewers?

The media feeds us what we've proven over and over again that we'll eat.

Originally Posted by evolved

I find it odd that people are saying that just because he is calculated and aware cancels out the fact that he is committing crazy acts. The main reason, or so it seems, that he is on this crusade stems from him being wrongfully terminated. His political ideologies seem to be an aside but not the reason he is acting as such. He's not just targeting those responsible, he's targeting innocent family members. Charles Manson was extremely calculated in his actions, so does that preclude him from being crazy? What about Anders Behring Breivik?

Crazy can be a lack of reasoning, like pushing the red button over and over again even though it shocks you.

Crazy can also be a failure of realistic perception, like thinking you're invisible as you're walking down the street.

But crazy can also be a lack of emotion/empathy/values that are generally shared by most other people in a society.

People that are this last kind of crazy are often very rational, calculating, and downright reasonable once you recognize the paradigm from which they're operating.