Last Friday, a white dude tried to blow up a plane to "fight a war" in America and no one cared


Originally published at:

“White” versus "European-American"





Hey, stop picking on that poor misunderstood white nutjob.


Clearly this is a mental health issue…that I’m going to vote against funding a solution for in the next congressional session.


So you’re saying white men should have their US citizenship revoked? :wink:

EDIT 1: Oh, wow! I just started thinking about all the spokes-liars, congresslime, CEOs, filmmakers with the last name Weinstein, and presidents of these here United States that would mean getting rid of…

EDIT 2: Oh, wow! I seem to have slipped down the slope from utopian imperative erasure to fascism… I’ll just see myself out.


Could I have a green card? I still like it here. No bombs, I promise.


Utter and complete media silence. Arguably the best response to any foiled terrorist attempt.
Don’t give them a platform. Don’t shine a light on their cause.
Just ignore them.


Estes? Sounds Mexican. Call Fox!



To ignore incidents like this is to lend credibility to the bullshit “mentally unstable” ‘lone wolf’ trope that coincidentally gets applied to all White male domestic terrorists.

Ignoring problems has never resolved them.


"Estes claimed that he was getting ready to ‘fight a war on U.S. soil,’

Disappointing that they didn’t say which war he wanted to start. War against people who text and drive, or what?


I think his point was to ignore all terrorists, not just the white ones, and he has a point. Estes utterly failed as a terrorist, because he terrified nobody. It’s a strategy I’ve heard before, and a clever idea.

I don’t think it would work, because journalists can’t just ignore the missing buildings in lower Manhattan. But the opposite extreme, chanting “never forget,” only means Bin Laden’s victory is endless.

@RickMycroft, That doesn’t disappoint me at all. I don’t want to hear his manifesto.


If it wouldn’t work, then his point is moot.


I think we can all guess. Add it to the bill under “crazy white guys who want to start an ill-defined war against society and kill people”.


@Ghost is saying to ignore all terrorism. Which sounds great to me, since everybody always wants to freak the fuck out and hand over every right and freedom to any tough-talking douchebag with a military-industrial panopticon hard-on, because they can’t tell the difference between something they should be worried about, and totally negligible shit like shark attacks and lightning strikes.

Of course, this proposal totally ignores the fact that shit-dribbling media vultures and craven government sell-outs can’t resist any opportunity to milk every last drop of fear from the benighted populace.


Because that will work so well at actually solving the problem?

Cool story.

I get the point being made about not sensationalizing antisocial behavior, but that ship has already long since sailed and there is no ‘undo’ button.

Next idea, please.


the problem as I see it is that the dominant whitecismale narrative makes it hard to describe that moment when a whitecismale is one of ‘them’. It breaks the narrative.

‘we’ can’t be ‘them’. Does Not Compute. Danger Will Robinson.



It would. Terrorism is a strategy in asymmetric warfare to provoke a response - either fear or anger and disproportionate violence recruiting to your cause. The 20th century is defined by the disproportionate response to incidents such as the assassination of Archduke Franz whogivesafuck or 16 years of war across the world for one day in the US.

If you were to argue that selectively ignoring one kind of terrorism while shrilly whipping up racism against other people was bad I couldn’t disagree. But that’s what always happens.


Frankly, it’s not my concern what you agree or disagree with, “Little My”; I’m interested in viable solutions, of which we are in short supply.

Everyone has a surplus of opinions; but no one has any answers, and so on it goes.