I mean sure, as long as you’re a white christian man, why would you ever need to fear violent acts committed by white christian nationalists?
Now if you’re Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, or any other religion, or your skin is dark, or you’re a woman, or you’re gay or trans —- and therefore have legitimate safety concerns… well then that’s just more identity politics, isn’t it?
The groups listed above have many more enemies than your premise presumes. Even in their traditional homelands; additionally, many of the above are targeted within their own larger ethnic communities.
Further, I don’t recall passing by a church and not seeing a rainbow flag; I cannot say the same for other religious houses of worship except for synagogues which also tend to fly the flag.
It does not logically follow that gaining a second enemy would necessarily reduce the threat from the first.
I also don't see the connection between your personal anecdotal experience of churches (presumably you live in a major metropolitan area) and white christian nationalists. Are you trying to imply that white christian nationalists are LGBT-friendly? Are you familiar with their beliefs?
Because you're choosing to ignore the growing threat of white supremacist violence to minorities all over the country, I couldn't see any other reason you'd have to do that. There have been many mass shootings targeted at them already.
But I'm not talking on behalf of you, I'm talking on behalf of myself, because I am a member of one of these many groups which are targeted.
> Because you're choosing to ignore the growing threat of white supremacist violence to minorities all over the country,
This may be hard for you to understand, but what you fear is a marginal threat, at best.
> There have been many mass shootings targeted at them already.
How many is "many"? If you're going to argue that even 1 is 1 too many, then we may as well give up on this argument - you're never going to get down to a zero level of any demographic or group.
OTOH, the main causes of violence against minorities still appears to be purely crime-driven. If you were honest with yourself, you'd make up a top-10 list of the causes of deaths/injury of minorities and realise that "Killedx by a white supremecist" isn't even in the list.
> But I'm not talking on behalf of you, I'm talking on behalf of myself, because I am a member of one of these many groups which are targeted.
But you didn't talk about yourself, did you? No, you referred to entire groups on the assumption that they agree with your assessment of the risk to themselves.
Now you know that the groups you mentioned are not unanimously in agreement with you.
I said white supremacist violence, but you took that to mean terrorist killings, which is a small subset of that violence.
They much more frequently intimidate, threaten, harass, and abuse those minoritized groups than outright murder them. Maybe that doesn't bother you, either. But making factual statements doesn't require anyone to agree with me. Those violent acts are occurring, nonetheless.
The reason it is important to associate these minoritized groups is that they are all being underserved by state and federal law enforcement agencies who permit such terroristic groups to organize with impunity. It is a steadily rising problem, and the longer it's ignored the worse it will get.
> I said white supremacist violence, but you took that to mean terrorist killings, which is a small subset of that violence.
No, I specified "causes of deaths/injury of minorities"
> But making factual statements doesn't require anyone to agree with me.
Neither does making non-factual statements. What's your point?
(Here's a factual statement for you - the threat from white supremacists against minorities is so low it's barely a rounding error. You should post numbers displaying that this fact is wrong.)
> It is a steadily rising problem, and the longer it's ignored the worse it will get.
Look, maybe it is steadily rising, but you are unable to provide percentages here.
To us minorities, us experiencing deaths/injury from white supremacists are not even a rounding error.
Everyone has a line in the sand where something goes from "that's not a problem" to "we need to work on that".
You can't call people ignorant because their personal line in the sand is (for example) "needs to be more than 0.01% of threats against me".
Okay, you can (and have) called people ignorant for dismissing threats that are this low-level, but you can't then expect people to not dismiss you as a crackpot.
Yes, obviously by statistical cause of death, terrorism will always be a rounding error. However, the goal of terror is always psychological -- to create a culture of fear in which people are afraid to participate in society.
That, in combination with law enforcement insufficiently targeting white supremacist organizing, is primarily an issue of social and racial justice. Simply, it's unfair to expect demographic groups which collectively comprise half of the country to put up with this mess.
Maybe english is not your first language, but this quote of your literally means "ignorant of ..."
>>>>> Because you're choosing to ignore the growing threat of white supremacist violence to minorities all over the country,
That's where the word ignorant comes from.
> Yes, obviously by statistical cause of death, terrorism will always be a rounding error. However, the goal of terror is always psychological -- to create a culture of fear in which people are afraid to participate in society.
This is all way too subjective, and therefore not actionable. We cannot (and should not) exact punitive measures based on what other people feel.
We take legal action against perpetrators based on the crimes commit, not what crimes we think they may commit in the future.
All those harassment, abuse, whatever you said above, that's legally actionable and I urge anyone, no matter their skin color, on the receiving end of crimes to report the matter and legally pursue it.
> That, in combination with law enforcement insufficiently targeting white supremacist organizing, is primarily an issue of social and racial justice.
What do you want them arrested for? Being in a white supremacist group is not, last I checked, illegal in and of itself.
> Simply, it's unfair to expect demographic groups which collectively comprise half of the country to put up with this mess.
The "mess" is in your mind. You are in a minority amongst minorities.
Do you not also think that it is unfair to urge measures be taken against people who have committed no crime?
>We take legal action against perpetrators based on the crimes commit, not what crimes we think they may commit in the future.
The US legal code includes many crimes of conspiracy, especially for terrorism. That is in fact how most terrorists are caught. Most white supremacist organizing falls under this category.
We don't allow ISIS recruiters to use social media, but white supremacists have their own dedicated social network servers (e.g., Gab). We don't allow terror training camps, but white supremacist militias gather openly to practice their technique. The FBI regularly sends undercover agents into the mosques of middle class middle eastern neighborhoods to make sure people there aren't being taught radical Islam, but it's virtually expected for rural christian churches to preach reactionary hate. You can see these ideas on mainstream television, even. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Hk-TLXKlubk
And no, especially after Jan 6th, I am most certainly not in the "minority of minorities" here.
There's absolutely a double standard applied and their continued recruitment and armament is a threat to democracy and a peaceful society.
How arrogant do you have to be to tell somene what they should be worried about. Especially when they literally alrady siad they dont buy your boogeyman.
Now if you’re Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, or any other religion, or your skin is dark, or you’re a woman, or you’re gay or trans —- and therefore have legitimate safety concerns… well then that’s just more identity politics, isn’t it?