5 ms·

One common phrase I hear among people who are concerned about an equitable and just world is "representation matters." Most often it seems to refer to represent

One common phrase I hear among people who are concerned about an equitable and just world is "representation matters." Most often it seems to refer to representation in civic office, or desirable employment positions, and the effect that visibility has on someone's conception of their potential to shoot for a position as a goal. I wonder if it also matters more in profiles like this. It's a beautiful portrait that highlights one dimension of the tragedy of the crime. If we had more profiles like it that came well before eulogies, I wonder how far it might go to beating back the tendency to flatten conceptions of Muslims (or any ethnic/racial identity) to the kind of demonized status that's required in order to plan a terrorist attack like Christchurch.

devoply 8y ago
Exactly around the same time an American strike in Afghanistan killed a number of children. That's justified violence which is political, this is unjustified violence which though is aimed at the political is individual. To me both are tragedies of similar magnitudes. One group lacking representation and considered the "other" while another group considered a part of "us". https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/asia/airstrikes-nangarhar-afghanistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/asia/airstrikes-nan...
- wwweston 8y ago
  The hazards of military action including the inevitable civilian casualties (intended or not) are an important topic for consideration. And there's a good case that US Citizens have grown way too complacent about them (and even if we haven't, you check anyway, otherwise that's how you get too complacent). But this isn't really a contest. Everyone's attention is finite, but my guess is the overlap is pretty big between people who are stung by the horror and senselessness of the Christchurch attack and people who are concerned about the moral problems and fallout of military action.
  - devoply 8y ago
    Depends on how you frame the military violence. On the ground level there may be no intention of causing harm to individual civilians. On the much larger executive level it's about shock and awe, to beat the population into capitulation. That's exactly the aim of this sort of violence. Shock and awe. To this individual, this was shock and awe in service of his political objectives. It's violence with political aims. Violence with political aims is ultimately a policing matter. You use better policing to snuff it out. Military interfering in the affairs of other nations for political objectives is inexcusable and should be deplored just as this is.
    - nradov 8y ago
      Shock and awe ended after the initial invasion. Current military leaders are perfectly well aware that it's impossible to beat the population into capitulation. Collateral damage is usually caused by incompetence, violations of the rules of engagement, or a brutal calculation that some non-combatant deaths are an acceptable price to take out a legitimate target.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        > acceptable price to take out a legitimate target. No targets are legitimate for you, when you're the invader. You're the only legitimate target.
        saiya-jin 8y ago
        It sounds rough, and its something US citizens will probably never swallow or accept, but in both Iraq and Afghanistan US is a pure force of evil as time showed. Simple fact - the country and its citizens would be statistically far better under horrible Taliban/Saddam rule rather than under very unstable and increasingly marginal US rule. Taliban would not kill the amounts caused by these invasions in 100 years, and children for example wouldn't be affected. As for Iraq, Saddam would be a blessing compared to hell this country went through in last 15 years since Bush jr. decided to please some powerful people behind Rumsfeld and Cheney. US lost both wars, beaten by poor guys with AKs, IEDs and suicide bombers. Iraq is more complicated because its semi-functional but Afghanistan is lost cause even according to US military.
rimliu 8y ago
Muslim is neither ethnicity nor race.
- tchaffee 8y ago
  You're technically correct. You don't think it's an ethnic identity from the perspective of white supremacists and the immigrants they are targeting?

devoply 8y ago

Exactly around the same time an American strike in Afghanistan killed a number of children. That's justified violence which is political, this is unjustified violence which though is aimed at the political is individual. To me both are tragedies of similar magnitudes. One group lacking representation and considered the "other" while another group considered a part of "us". https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/asia/airstrikes-nangarhar-afghanistan.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/asia/airstrikes-nan...

wwweston 8y ago
The hazards of military action including the inevitable civilian casualties (intended or not) are an important topic for consideration. And there's a good case that US Citizens have grown way too complacent about them (and even if we haven't, you check anyway, otherwise that's how you get too complacent). But this isn't really a contest. Everyone's attention is finite, but my guess is the overlap is pretty big between people who are stung by the horror and senselessness of the Christchurch attack and people who are concerned about the moral problems and fallout of military action.
- devoply 8y ago
  Depends on how you frame the military violence. On the ground level there may be no intention of causing harm to individual civilians. On the much larger executive level it's about shock and awe, to beat the population into capitulation. That's exactly the aim of this sort of violence. Shock and awe. To this individual, this was shock and awe in service of his political objectives. It's violence with political aims. Violence with political aims is ultimately a policing matter. You use better policing to snuff it out. Military interfering in the affairs of other nations for political objectives is inexcusable and should be deplored just as this is.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Shock and awe ended after the initial invasion. Current military leaders are perfectly well aware that it's impossible to beat the population into capitulation. Collateral damage is usually caused by incompetence, violations of the rules of engagement, or a brutal calculation that some non-combatant deaths are an acceptable price to take out a legitimate target.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      > acceptable price to take out a legitimate target. No targets are legitimate for you, when you're the invader. You're the only legitimate target.
      - saiya-jin 8y ago
        It sounds rough, and its something US citizens will probably never swallow or accept, but in both Iraq and Afghanistan US is a pure force of evil as time showed. Simple fact - the country and its citizens would be statistically far better under horrible Taliban/Saddam rule rather than under very unstable and increasingly marginal US rule. Taliban would not kill the amounts caused by these invasions in 100 years, and children for example wouldn't be affected. As for Iraq, Saddam would be a blessing compared to hell this country went through in last 15 years since Bush jr. decided to please some powerful people behind Rumsfeld and Cheney. US lost both wars, beaten by poor guys with AKs, IEDs and suicide bombers. Iraq is more complicated because its semi-functional but Afghanistan is lost cause even according to US military.

rimliu 8y ago

Muslim is neither ethnicity nor race.

tchaffee 8y ago
You're technically correct. You don't think it's an ethnic identity from the perspective of white supremacists and the immigrants they are targeting?