Toronto Van Attack

[M1ke]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-leaders-respond-van-incident-1.4631909

9 dead, 16 injured.

Suspect was apprehended, appeared to try to incite police to shoot him, which they did not do. The suspect's identity has not been released at this point. No motive has been released yet.

This was literally within a 2 minute walk of my friends apartment (they're OK, I've talked to them, they were not home when it happened).

Lots of questions to be answered still.

[thevoid99]

I heard the news a few hours ago. What the fuck?

[allegro]

This maybe has something to do with G7? Wtf this is horrible.

[Louie_Cypher]

i find the police restraint commendable imagine if it was America and he was black. stephon Clark was shot 20 times so bad his family had to have a closed casket. he had a cell phone and was in his grandma's back-yard. land of the free? free to die in a hail of police bullets
-Louie

[M1ke]

This maybe has something to do with G7? Wtf this is horrible.

It's possible, but no motive has been released yet.

I've seen a name thrown around on some news sites, but I don't want to repeat it because it's unconfirmed at this point and could very well be wrong.

The only thing we know for sure is that he yelled "kill me" at the officer after he got out of the van, and appears to be miming a gun pointed at the arresting officer, although he may have had something else in his hand.

[botley]

This maybe has something to do with G7? Wtf this is horrible.
Mmmm, this happened about 8 miles north of the University campus where those meetings were being held. Toronto is huge.

[marodi]

Even if he gives away a motive, it will seems ridiculous and pointless to us reasonably sane people. Nothing in the world justifies this. It's horrible and heartbreaking.

[Boots]

It's been a terrible month for Canadians. We're still reeling from what happened in Humboldt. Also, a shop owner at our local mall was beaten to death last week.

[M1ke]

A name has been released, Alek Minassian.

Appears to have worshiped Elliot Roger. Basically a misogynist who was rejected by women, so he decided to run over 25 people. 10 are now dead, 15 more injured.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-van-attack-driver-profile-alek-minassian-1.4632435

It's still early, but that's what the initial reports are saying.

[botley]

"Not connected to known organized terror groups"... hmm, or maybe a dude with Armenian family name (ie. Christian, Caucasian) is simply by definition "not a terrorist" and "not a national security threat".

I'm really angry and sad about all of this.

[tremolo]

"Not connected to known organized terror groups"... hmm, or maybe a dude with Armenian family name (ie. Christian, Caucasian) is simply by definition "not a terrorist" and "not a national security threat".

I'm really angry and sad about all of this.

I guess we’ll have to wait until we have a clearer idea of his motivations before jumping to conclusions about terrorism, discrimination, privilege, misogyny, etc.

Although the act in itself is an act of terror.

[botley]

I guess we’ll have to wait until we have a clearer idea of his motivations before jumping to conclusions about terrorism, discrimination, privilege, misogyny, etc.

Although the act in itself is an act of terror.
Does this ring any bells (https://twitter.com/JaneLytv/status/988790539150540800)?

[M1ke]

I've seen that post. News outlets I'm reading are being hesitant to confirm that he posted, saying it may be set up by someone else to distract, but it fits with everything else I've read about him.

Charges were filed today. Only thing he said in court was hid name.

[M1ke]

Does this ring any bells (https://twitter.com/JaneLytv/status/988790539150540800)?

And it's been confirmed now, he posted this right before he started his rampage.

Makes it pretty clear what was going through his mind at the time.

[botley]

So this would be the second case of a domestic-born terrorist with ties to alt-right groups committing senseless mass murder, after last year's horrific Quebec City shooting. Truly a disturbing pattern, and I hope this wakes people up from "we're not as bad as USA" complacency. Our isolated, frustrated young men are lashing out to make themselves heard and snuffing out or ruining lives in the process. It's horrendous.

[allegro]

"Not connected to known organized terror groups"... hmm, or maybe a dude with Armenian family name (ie. Christian, Caucasian) is simply by definition "not a terrorist" and "not a national security threat".

I'm really angry and sad about all of this.

Come on, Botley, is it really fair to mention any kind of "terrorism" in this or assume that people are automatically ruling it out due to his non-Muslim name? The guy publicly stated that he admired Elliot Rodger (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6129942/toronto-van-attack-alex-minassian-facebook-posts-elliot-rodger/), who was a guy who was pissed off that he couldn't get a date. Read Rodger's manifesto (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1173808-elliot-rodger-manifesto.html), he came from a very well-off family, his Grandfather was the British photojournalist George Rodger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rodger), who is famous for photographing the Bergen-Belsen death camp in 1945; Elliot Rodger was "mixed race," had very low self-esteem, was totally narcissistic (like, NPD levels) (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-mysteries-love/201406/elliot-rodger-s-narcissism), and was quite possibly more fucked up due to social media and the "men's rights movement" but also about his white privilege and his position in the upper class and why he wasn't being treated like an Elite Citizen.

I agree that no country is "immune" to this type of horror, particularly the influence of social media and it's twisted "heroes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/24/the-disturbing-internet-footprint-of-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/#2f7b8e677c31)." These days, it appears that growing up "ordinary" and anonymous is a fate worse than death to some.

[Jinsai]

Does this ring any bells (https://twitter.com/JaneLytv/status/988790539150540800)?

Holy fuck... I feel like my brain is stuttering...

I can't even process this sort of insanity, and the problem that's screaming out in my mind is "this kind of psychological malfunction is aided by the technology powering modern discourse, and otherwise would never be tolerated, let alone be allowed to flourish in a functioning society."

It's sort of like when that whole "cuck" thing showed up... but as fucked up as that was, and the way that it seemed to (chicken/egg?) infest pornography, it felt more like a continuation of something... an alpha-male dominance fantasy to bolster bad self esteem.

This is like the weird inverse of that... a culture of psychos finding power in their shared repulsiveness, and solidarity in that there are other people out there who are just as crazy.

[botley]

Come on, Botley, is it really fair to mention any kind of "terrorism" in this or assume that people are automatically ruling it out due to his non-Muslim name?
Yes. It is. Incel groups have endorsed terrorism, and are cheering this act today (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/04/24/incels-hail-toronto-van-driver-who-killed-10-as-a-new-elliot-rodger-talk-of-future-acid-attacks-and-mass-rapes/), and calling for more. They cheered when the first name released of those confirmed dead was a woman's. I assure you my city is grieving and terrorized by this politically-motivated act.

Also, people saying the Toronto Police Service is some kind of amazing example for others to follow are wrong. They didn't get this right (https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/04/alek-minassian-toronto/). They horribly botched (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mcarthur-interviewed-police-1.4565477) a long investigation (https://www.thestar.com/news/bruce-mcarthur.html) into the serial killer who was targeting our LGBT village. For every perp they apprehend without killing, there are others not so lucky because they're Black (https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2017/12/13/andrew-loku-shooting-prompts-toronto-police-board-to-create-anti-racism-committee.html) or Indigenous (http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/paying-price-human-cost-racial-profiling/impact-racial-profiling-aboriginal-community).

[tremolo]

So this would be the second case of a domestic-born terrorist with ties to alt-right groups committing senseless mass murder, after last year's horrific Quebec City shooting. Truly a disturbing pattern, and I hope this wakes people up from "we're not as bad as USA" complacency. Our isolated, frustrated young men are lashing out to make themselves heard and snuffing out or ruining lives in the process. It's horrendous.

There’s a big difference in proportion to the violence going on in the US. Of course that doesn’t make these events in Canada any less terrible.

My concerns are the motivations and the perspective we choose to aproach these devastating events. Do mental health issues have any room here? I think it is too early to judge.

[allegro]

Holy fuck... I feel like my brain is stuttering...

I can't even process this sort of insanity, and the problem that's screaming out in my mind is "this kind of psychological malfunction is aided by the technology powering modern discourse, and otherwise would never be tolerated, let alone be allowed to flourish in a functioning society."

It's sort of like when that whole "cuck" thing showed up... but as fucked up as that was, and the way that it seemed to (chicken/egg?) infest pornography, it felt more like a continuation of something... an alpha-male dominance fantasy to bolster bad self esteem.

This is like the weird inverse of that... a culture of psychos finding power in their shared repulsiveness, and solidarity in that there are other people out there who are just as crazy.

Most people who are mentally ill are victims of crimes, not committing crimes. We have to stop blaming mental illness for things when we can't wrap our minds around hate.

Look at this guy at the Waffle House in Tennessee, who goes in there naked except for a shirt and an AR-15 and kills 4 people, all of color, and you'd THINK it was race motivated, but when you go into the guy's history, he has stuff in there like he thought he was being stalked and harassed by Taylor Swift and she had hacked into his Netflix account and he met her at the Dairy Queen (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/22/us/travis-reinking-waffle-house-shooting/index.html), and he'd been at the White House declaring his right to "inspect the grounds." And his dad had taken the guy's guns away, but then gave them back! And now dad is in trouble (rightfully so!)

But, the site screenshots from the link that botley linked above (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/04/24/incels-hail-toronto-van-driver-who-killed-10-as-a-new-elliot-rodger-talk-of-future-acid-attacks-and-mass-rapes/) are, in effect, potential hate crimes. Plain and simple. They're full of hate.

http://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/rf7tu8gyiuoj-e1524562596788.png?resize=600%2C537
http://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/yc6rfvgtuybiuo-e1524562964855.png?resize=600%2C444

[allegro]

They didn't get this right (https://www.blogto.com/city/2018/04/alek-minassian-toronto/).
Well, that one was a pretty understandable mistake, actually. (compare to Philando Castile being pulled over - and killed - because he matched the description of a robber, although his car didn't - he was black and had a "wide-set nose" (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/philando-castile-police-scanner-audio_us_5783a3a2e4b0c590f7ea0d4d))

Toronto sure enough ain't perfect, but I think a few remarks in here are only from the perspective of police brutality and the crazy stupid fuckups we see here, of which you aren't always privy, they aren't intended to mean that your police are perfect or beyond reproach, or that Canada is immune to brutal acts of violence, etc.

[Pillfred]

So this would be the second case of a domestic-born terrorist with ties to alt-right groups committing senseless mass murder, after last year's horrific Quebec City shooting. Truly a disturbing pattern, and I hope this wakes people up from "we're not as bad as USA" complacency. Our isolated, frustrated young men are lashing out to make themselves heard and snuffing out or ruining lives in the process. It's horrendous.

I think this is a huge part of the issue that doesn't seem to get talked about nearly enough. I would say you could also swap out "USA" from above and replace it with "THEM," as to me it seems like a strong motivator for many of these sorts of situations from shooters to bombers, etc. There is a huge sense of disillusionment that is growing coulped with what i see as a need for inclusion in something that is driving much of this behavior.

[tremolo]

Most people who are mentally ill are victims of crimes, not committing crimes. We have to stop blaming mental illness for things when we can't wrap our minds around hate.

Look at this guy at the Waffle House in Tennessee, who goes in there naked except for a shirt and an AR-15 and kills 4 people, all of color, and you'd THINK it was race motivated, but when you go into the guy's history, he has stuff in there like he thought he was being stalked and harassed by Taylor Swift and she had hacked into his Netflix account and he met her at the Dairy Queen (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/22/us/travis-reinking-waffle-house-shooting/index.html), and he'd been at the White House declaring his right to "inspect the grounds." And his dad had taken the guy's guns away, but then gave them back! And now dad is in trouble (rightfully so!)

But, the site screenshots from the link that botley linked above (http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2018/04/24/incels-hail-toronto-van-driver-who-killed-10-as-a-new-elliot-rodger-talk-of-future-acid-attacks-and-mass-rapes/) are, in effect, potential hate crimes. Plain and simple. They're full of hate.

http://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/rf7tu8gyiuoj-e1524562596788.png?resize=600%2C537
http://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/yc6rfvgtuybiuo-e1524562964855.png?resize=600%2C444

I think that if you take the time to research enough psychos, serial killers, mass murderers, and even just plain abusers or violent people, there is a pattern of fucked up childhoods.

Does that mean that everyone with a fucked up childhood is likely to willingly hurt others? Of course not, and it doesn’t work the other way around either.

I’m not sure what qualifies as a mental illness and what doesn’t, but it’s clear that their messed up behaviour is rooted either in a chemical imbalance in their brain, or unhealthy behaviour patterns that they were exposed to or taught during formative years.

I can’t imagine what it must be like to be so disconnected from human emotions (even if temporarily) that killing others seems like the right thing to do.

So far this doesn’t seem to be connected to an organized terrorist group, but more like a damaged person who didn’t have the tools to find a healthy way out of whatever made him make that decision.

I feel for the relatives and friends of those who were killed or injured, it must be devastating and painful.

[allegro]

a need for inclusion in something
I totally agree with this, it seems like even the NRA is filled with a bunch of people searching for some kind of "identity."

[M1ke]

I'm all out of patience for hateful bigots.

I don't care anymore if they're seeking acceptance, or identity, or what lead them down this vile path.

I talk to my girlfriend, who keeps telling me that telling bigots to fuck off online doesn't accomplish anything, but I don't care anymore. She advocates for trying to find common ground and trying to include these asshats in collaborate problem solving, but quite honestly fuck it, I don't care anymore.

Look at this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTears/comments/8em4po/incel_in_cbc_twitter_replies_wastes_no_time/

And tell me that this is trying to find an identity? And tell me why I should have anything but scorn for someone like that?

Look at this shit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTears/comments/8emyrz/i_dont_know_if_this_has_been_posted_here_yet_but/

This is what the terrorists in the accused's community are advocating.


Fuck this shit. I love pirating movies and all, but fucking hell it's time to turn the goddamn internet off. Censor the fuck out of this thing, lets go back to the stone age. I don't give a shit anymore.

[M1ke]

Free speech can go fuck itself.

These idiots would never find support without the goddamn internet. They would have become social outcasts, probably hit rock bottom, figured out that they were fucking up, and turned themselves around.

Now, they don't have to face the fact that they're acting like assholes, and instead can find a whole online community full of assholes who want to support them in their quest to remain assholes and advocate for shit like this.

Fuck it, I'm done with it all. Let's shut the fucking internet down so that these pieces of shit can't find each other anymore.

[mfte]

Just so I'm getting this right. The solution is to shut down the internet and watch the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" method apply it self?

[allegro]

eskimo, for the record, by saying these (hateful psychopathic) people are joining these groups seeking an “identity,” I didn’t intend to be sympathetic; I was simply pointing out a cultural phenomenon, like the rise (and fall) of the popularity of things like vampires, space aliens, Satanism, the Confederate flag, or whatever the fuck new cultural phenomenon floats past their screen. Pre-Internet, this wasn’t as likely to happen, it took a hell of a lot more work. Now, with a few mouse clicks, sociopaths can be exposed to their new savior.

I was just talking with my husband about this the other day: back in around 1986, censorship was a big no-no “online” but “online” was pretty much entirely made up of intelligent people who self-governed, self-policed; sure, we did see the occasional troll come into the Gay Conference and say shit like “I think all gay people are fucked up” but we knew that behavior amounted to "Troll" and 99% of us called for the Troll to get banned and then we called for certain areas of the board to have elected Moderators who could delete posts and ban people, and the users WANTED this and this was DESIRED CENSORSHIP in 1986.

We all learned, in those pioneer days: Uncensored free for all = dangerous. There is no benefit to totally free speech.

This doesn’t mean “shutting down” the “Internet.”

It does mean expecting social media providers and forums etc. to properly monitor discussions. And that the governments probably need to monitor sites for this hate stuff.

[M1ke]

allegro, I was a bit upset, my post wasn't directed at you, and I apologize if it came out sounding like it was.

I'm just tired of not knowing what to do with this. Reddit had already shut down some of the subreddits that these people gather on. If twitter started to police their site properly, and facebook's policies got better, those would be positive steps, but 4chan will never censor. They thrive on crap like this. And even if they did, something else would just pop up in it's place.

I recognize my suggestion is extreme, and unlikely to ever happen, but what else is there to do? As long as the internet exists, these people are going to find communities that encourage these attacks. Horrid ideas are finding communities that support them, and echo chambers that are escalating the hatred. In the past, if someone came home angry because they got rejected, what happened? If they turned to a member of their community, that person would have likely had enough sense to not tell them to commit mass homicide.

[tremolo]

I have to push the button to stop those who want to push the button. If I don’t do it someone else will!

[mfte]

Is moderation of the internet really the answer here? That suggestion only treats the symptoms and not the root cause of alienation, lack of moral centre, unrestrained rage, etc. Is in not of benefit to be aware of who these people are in order to move forward with some sort of viable long term solution? I am not sure what that solution would look like but I know for example Jordan Peterson was out and about trying to herd these kids from 4chan to convince them that responsibility and personal accountability would improve their quality of life. I don't want to take this too far off course but when you are moderating "hate speech" who decides what hate speech is... ie. Twitter will ban Milo for making fun of an actress but doesn't lift a finger about actual terrorist organizations overseas.

[theimage13]

Sorry if I just missed this here, but can we talk about the people here who are criticizing the police officer for not shooting the suspect?

Yeah, when I first read that, I was like "are you shitting me?". But then they made a point...if the guy had just been witnessed mowing people down and was now holding what appeared to be a firearm while surrounded by other people, do the police have a responsibility to incapacitate him as quickly as possible before he kills anyone else? Or now that he's ditched one weapon (van) for another (gun), do you wait to see if he actually uses the latter before asserting lethal force?

I'm normally 100% "try to intervene without shooting", and on the whole, I'm still really glad (and impressed) that this officer was able to pull things off the way he did. But this argument actually made me stop and think.

[M1ke]

Is moderation of the internet really the answer here? That suggestion only treats the symptoms and not the root cause of alienation, lack of moral centre, unrestrained rage, etc. Is in not of benefit to be aware of who these people are in order to move forward with some sort of viable long term solution? I am not sure what that solution would look like but I know for example Jordan Peterson was out and about trying to herd these kids from 4chan to convince them that responsibility and personal accountability would improve their quality of life. I don't want to take this too far off course but when you are moderating "hate speech" who decides what hate speech is... ie. Twitter will ban Milo for making fun of an actress but doesn't lift a finger about actual terrorist organizations overseas.

People have been dealing with alienation, lack of moral center and unrestrained rage for as long as humans exists. Societal structures used to keep these things in check.

The internet is taking away power from physical communities, and creating virtual communities. The virtual communities are the ones these people are living in, so you can have someone who's misogynistic sitting next to a feminist on the bus, and both will think that the community is on their side, because their own communities are. They may be neighbors, but they're not in the same community anymore.

[LosingFocus]

People have been dealing with alienation, lack of moral center and unrestrained rage for as long as humans exists. Societal structures used to keep these things in check.

The internet is taking away power from physical communities, and creating virtual communities. The virtual communities are the ones these people are living in, so you can have someone who's misogynistic sitting next to a feminist on the bus, and both will think that the community is on their side, because their own communities are. They may be neighbors, but they're not in the same community anymore.

That is a superb summing up.

[allegro]

People have been dealing with alienation, lack of moral center and unrestrained rage for as long as humans exists. Societal structures used to keep these things in check.

The internet is taking away power from physical communities, and creating virtual communities. The virtual communities are the ones these people are living in, so you can have someone who's misogynistic sitting next to a feminist on the bus, and both will think that the community is on their side, because their own communities are. They may be neighbors, but they're not in the same community anymore.

This is true.

But, remember, the "Internet" serves a purpose far beyond "Virtual Communities."

The Internet is now a digital library, it's a digital archive, it's a digital courthouse (pretty much all courts throughout the United States are transferring court filings to digital instead of paper; the U.S. Federal court has *required* online filing for several years); legal documents are all shifting to digital formats; the Secretary of States in all states in the United States are shifting to digital formats; most of the Federal government offices are operated online; I just renewed my Firearms Owners Identification Card in Illinois via the Illinois State Police online, including uploading a selfie (no more having to get a photo at Walmart); most law firms and lawyers now store legal documents "in the cloud" as backup; nearly all county recorders offices across the country have digital documents available for look-up online; entire law libraries have replaced books with online search services like West Law and LexixNexis; HOME AND BUSINESS SECURITY is now monitored via the Internet; banking is now conducted pretty much entirely through the Internet.

I'm in real estate law. Here are examples of the "Internet" in my world: Click Here (http://cookrecorder.com/search-our-records/). CLICK HERE (http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/business_services/corp.html). CLICK HERE (http://cookcountyassessor.com/Search/Property-Owner-Search.aspx).

These days, you can close an entire transaction via the Internet (real estate, the stock exchange, everything). Hell, in real estate law, we don't even use the fucking PHONE, anymore. When my phone rings, I get startled, like "WHO THE FUCK IS CALLING ME!?" Lol.

We can't just "shut down" the "Internet."

As for 4Chan, there needs to be an investigation as to what can possibly be done to contain it; if it's a cesspool that proliferates hate speech, then it's really no different than, say, a terrorist training group.

[allegro]

Sorry if I just missed this here, but can we talk about the people here who are criticizing the police officer for not shooting the suspect?

Yeah, when I first read that, I was like "are you shitting me?". But then they made a point...if the guy had just been witnessed mowing people down and was now holding what appeared to be a firearm while surrounded by other people, do the police have a responsibility to incapacitate him as quickly as possible before he kills anyone else? Or now that he's ditched one weapon (van) for another (gun), do you wait to see if he actually uses the latter before asserting lethal force?

I'm normally 100% "try to intervene without shooting", and on the whole, I'm still really glad (and impressed) that this officer was able to pull things off the way he did. But this argument actually made me stop and think.

I don't want to get into the legal weeds too much, here, but I believe there are different laws and legal precedents in Canada than here in the United States.

In the United States, the police tend to shoot first and ask questions later because they can; this is based on several Supreme Court of the United States rulings that ruled that if an officer was afraid for his/her life, he/she could use deadly force (known as "shoot first, think later") which protects officers. The argument AGAINST this has been that it removes the other person's right to due process; but, so far, the conservative justices have made several rulings in favor of police, so police know they can shoot and kill without fear of getting into trouble; there is also the strong backing of police unions in this country that use the SCOTUS rulings as backup. See the most recent ruling on April 2 (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/us/politics/supreme-court-rules-for-police-officer-in-excessive-force-case.html), which makes the it even worse.

Technically, all perpetrators SHOULD survive so they can be brought to trial, not just for due process but to determine if they worked alone, if they had accomplices, if they had a motive, if that motive included foreign agents, etc.

[botley]

Sorry if I just missed this here, but can we talk about the people here who are criticizing the police officer for not shooting the suspect?

Yeah, when I first read that, I was like "are you shitting me?". But then they made a point...if the guy had just been witnessed mowing people down and was now holding what appeared to be a firearm while surrounded by other people, do the police have a responsibility to incapacitate him as quickly as possible before he kills anyone else? Or now that he's ditched one weapon (van) for another (gun), do you wait to see if he actually uses the latter before asserting lethal force?

I'm normally 100% "try to intervene without shooting", and on the whole, I'm still really glad (and impressed) that this officer was able to pull things off the way he did. But this argument actually made me stop and think.
Layers upon layers of fuckery... there's no doubt in my mind that he survived that encounter because of his racial privilege. There have been countless cases before of Toronto cops 'shooting first' and only once has there been any legal conviction in response (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Sammy_Yatim). Even after this guy went on a horrendous killing spree fueled by radicalized misogynist fury, he gets spared; and in response, we're seeing lots of deeply toxic masculinity on display from people freely saying he should be sexually assaulted in prison for surviving. Um, great work everyone.

And fucking LOL mfte and the concept of J. Peterson being some pied piper for these awful MRA shit-stains... he's just spouting more vacuous bullshit to earn a buck off of them. JP is an intellectual-for-hire, just like Levant and all those other sorry fuckheads getting in bed with him over at Rebel Media, endlessly crowdfunding their daily derangement, while lone-wolf terrorists like Alexandre Bissonnette and probably also this guy have been buying their trolling, and buying the Trumpist alt-right fury line, and getting inspired to kill.

You're goddamned right we should ban hate speech from the web, OF COURSE INCLUDING terrorist groups, and the social media sites could start doing it TOMORROW if we and our governments demanded it. But it won't happen; we'll get empty platitudes and more spending on security measures instead. In case it's not clear, I'm still reeling with disgust and anger and sadness over this. The stories of the victims' families and friends so far have just been heart-rending, and we're only starting to hear more. I'm going to have to log off for a few days and put my head into work just to feel remotely normal.

[mfte]

botley I'm not saying he's some pied piper. I was just giving an example of what a solution / engagement might look like. I have to make an assumption that a lot of these kids lack proper male roll models. I find Peterson to be a bit of an alarmist and at times short sighted but I never found him to be malicious, disingenuous or act in a way that would make me put him in the same bucket as Levant and Gavin McInnes.

What are these countless instances of Toronto Police shooting people dead? The guy who took a hostage at Union station? Sammy Yatim? Andrew Loku the guy who came at a police officer with a hammer? Countless? There have been about 11 instances in the last 10 years. And what about racial privilege? Sammy Yatim looked just as "white" as Minassian.

[tremolo]

Can anyone define what qualifies as hate speech and what doesn’t?

If you talk about banning hate speech, where do you draw the line?

[allegro]

Can anyone define what qualifies as hate speech and what doesn’t?

If you talk about banning hate speech, where do you draw the line?

That's a really interesting question.

Not sure about Canada, but the United States Supreme Court has weighed in on this several times, in favor of free speech; most recently, Metal v Tam (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf) (June 19, 2007).


Those few categories of speech that the government can regulate or punish—for instance, fraud, defamation, or incitement—are well established within our constitutional tradition. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. 460, 468 (2010). Aside from these and a few other narrow exceptions, it is a fundamental principle of the First Amendment that the government may not punish or suppress speech based on disapproval of the ideas or perspectives the speech conveys. See Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828–829 (1995).

The Government may not insulate a law from charges of viewpoint discrimination by tying censorship to the reaction of the speaker’s audience. The Court has suggested that viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government intends to suppress a speaker’s beliefs, Reed, supra, at ___–___ (slip op., at 11–12), but viewpoint discrimination need not take that form in every instance. The danger of viewpoint discrimination is that the government is attempting to remove certain ideas or perspectives from a broader debate. That danger is all the greater if the ideas or perspectives are ones a particular audience might think offensive, at least at first hearing. An initial reaction may prompt further reflection, leading to a more reasoned, more tolerant position. Indeed, a speech burden based on audience reactions is simply government hostility and intervention in a different guise. The speech is targeted, after all, based on the government’s disapproval of the speaker’s choice of message. And it is the government itself that is attempting in this case to decide whether the relevant audience would find the speech offensive. For reasons like these, the Court’s cases have long prohibited the government from justifying a First Amendment burden by pointing to the offensiveness of the speech to be suppressed.

See also Brandenburg Test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio).

To me, though, this 4Chan stuff that was posted crosses the line from "hate speech" to online radicalization leading to acts of domestic terrorism. The U.S. Patriot Act would define this as an act of domestic terrorism.

In Canada, it also appears that what happened the other day is legally an act of domestic terrorism.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.html


In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems.

When we think of victims of terrorism, we need to consider the issues that relate to the different levels of victimization experienced by victims (Hill 2004). According to Hill (2004, 83), victimization through terrorism may be experienced at direct, secondary, and community levels, all of which may vary in terms of the extent and kind of victimization. Staiger et al. (2008) present a similar classification of victims of terrorism. The authors note that although the term "victim" may be used to refer to all individuals that experience some form of direct injury, emotional harm and or suffering as a result of an act of terrorism, vicarious or indirect victims are individuals that were not direct targets of terrorists, but nonetheless experienced fear, anxiety and other related stressors following a terrorist attack (i.e. the general public). This notion of direct and indirect victimization is significant because it highlights the importance of considering the needs of the general public alongside the needs of victims and their families.

[tremolo]

That's a really interesting question.

Not sure about Canada, but the United States Supreme Court has weighed in on this several times, in favor of free speech; most recently, Metal v Tam (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf) (June 19, 2007).



HOWEVER, when said speech crosses over into the "Let's figure out a way to hook up containers of acid to sprinklers at concert venues," that appears to be a form of terrorism?

That’s why I think words and speech in themselves are harmless. There is a difference between just having an opinion or using certain words, and enticing others to do harm.

I don’t mind people having a space on the internet to talk shit, even if it might be offensive to others. There is a big difference between having an online media so some people can say “i hate fags”, and having a media so they can plan setting a Cher concert into a bloodbath. As you say, the latter is a concious attempt to hurt a big group of people in a way that can be considered terrorism.

[botley]

There were somewhere in the range of 40 to 60 deaths caused by Toronto Police officers between 2000 and last year. Mostly by shooting or taser-related injuries. This list of persons killed by police officers in Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_Ca nada) is not complete — because we only keep count when the officer is criminally charged. We do know that Toronto Police officers are disproportionately more likely to kill Black or Indigenous people (www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4599215).

Here are the names of the ten people killed in the attack (https://www.therecord.com/news-story/8574077-ten-victims-of-toronto-van-attack-identified/).

[allegro]

Police shot and killed 987 people in 2017 in the United States. That's 2 dozen more than in 2016. And, like in Canada, we aren't so good at keeping track, so that's for sure not ALL of the people shot and killed by police in the United States.

As a comparison as far as municipalities, Chicago police have killed 92 people in the last 6 years.

Anyway, yeah, NO police-related fatalities would be optimal, but the U.S. has a long way to go to get to that, that's why we Americans were, like, wow, your police didn't even KILL that guy!

[botley]

Those statistics are nothing to be proud of either. I guess my point was that we are too quick to applaud a broken system when it does the bare minimum of what it promises.

While there have been some shitty talking heads and social media trolls (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/toronto-van-attack-the-rush-to-blame-immigrants-and-muslims-after-a-mass-killing/) trying to take advantage of this situation, overall I'm very proud of how we have responded so far, on a Civic level.

This is what my city is about. (https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/2018/04/28/26-tales-of-courage-and-compassion-amid-the-chaos-of-the-toronto-van-rampage.html)

[tremolo]

Those statistics are nothing to be proud of either. I guess my point was that we are too quick to applaud a broken system when it does the bare minimum of what it promises.

While there have been some shitty talking heads and social media trolls (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/toronto-van-attack-the-rush-to-blame-immigrants-and-muslims-after-a-mass-killing/) trying to take advantage of this situation, overall I'm very proud of how we have responded so far, on a Civic level.

This is what my city is about. (https://www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/2018/04/28/26-tales-of-courage-and-compassion-amid-the-chaos-of-the-toronto-van-rampage.html)

I dare to say that in any part of the world there are positive reactions to tragedies. Toronto and Canada are not above any other place in that regard, it’s just that part of human nature that sort of wakes up when terrible things like this happen.

I’m pretty disgusted by the media coverage of this sad event. It is so opportunistic and unnecessary, it just feeds the morbid mentality that steps all over those who will continue suffering for the death of their loved ones. But that is to be expected from the media and the mass mentality that will click on anything that feeds their sick need to be a part of a trend. It’s sickening, just like what the church did, a bunch of opportunistic vultures.