Mississippi Church Member Charged in 'Vote Trump' Arson
42 replies, posted
[QUOTE]A Mississippi man arrested in the burning of an African-American church that was spray-painted with the words "Vote Trump" is a member of the congregation, the church's bishop said.
Andrew McClinton, 45, of Leland, Mississippi, was charged Wednesday with first degree arson of a place of worship, said Warren Strain, spokesman for the Mississippi Department of Public Safety. McClinton is African-American.
An investigation continues, but a state official said politics did not appear to be the reason for the fire.
"We do not believe it was politically motivated. There may have been some efforts to make it appear politically motivated," Mississippi Insurance Commissioner Mike Chaney, who is also the state fire marshal, told AP.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arrest-vote-trump-burning-mississippi-black-church-44330731[/url]
Leland, straight center of the Mississippi Delta. I'm not overly surprised, but it's still sickening.
Must've had some serious mental problems to think burning a building for a candidate was okay in any way.
A guy burns down his own church, and spray paints "Vote Trump" and it isn't politically motivated? Is this a joke? This is literally a textbook false-flag.
I'm not really surprised. Few days before this happened, a jewish student was caught spraypainting swastikas around his campus, and was trying to use it as a case of fearmongering. You also had African-Americans dressed in KKK gitups going to Trump rallies with racist messages on boards.
I really do not understand why people do it, but for some reason they feel compelled to false-flag themselves as a victim.
Being a victim in 2016 gets you sympathy for your cause, whatever that is, I guess.
The SJW culture/extreme progressives validates victimization so sadly you are going to get more people like this.
Hence why I'm skeptical about all of these hate symbols and acts that pop up during this super polarized election cycle. Enough have been proven false to require a sensible inquiring instead of outright acceptance of faul play.
McClinton.
This has got to be a fucking joke.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51564602]I'm not really surprised. Few days before this happened, a jewish student was caught spraypainting swastikas around his campus, and was trying to use it as a case of fearmongering. You also had African-Americans dressed in KKK gitups going to Trump rallies with racist messages on boards.
I really do not understand why people do it, but for some reason they feel compelled to false-flag themselves as a victim.[/QUOTE]
you got a source on that?
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51564691]McClinton.
This has got to be a fucking joke.[/QUOTE]
LMFAO, I didn't catch that!
It's hard to tell from the article but it sounds like the spray painted message and the burning are two separate incidents, and McClinton is being charged with the arson right now.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51564631]
Hence why I'm skeptical about all of these hate symbols and acts that pop up during this super polarized election cycle. Enough have been proven false to require a sensible inquiring instead of outright acceptance of faul play.[/QUOTE]
Bury your head in the sand. Your folly will be your downfall when they turn their swords on you too.
[editline]22nd December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51564602]I'm not really surprised. Few days before this happened, a jewish student was caught spraypainting swastikas around his campus, and was trying to use it as a case of fearmongering. You also had African-Americans dressed in KKK gitups going to Trump rallies with racist messages on boards.
I really do not understand why people do it, but for some reason they feel compelled to false-flag themselves as a victim.[/QUOTE]
Even if I die in an era of hatred and injustice, I'll sleep soundly knowing that people like you will choke on your words when you too are suffering under the boot of oppression.
[editline]22nd December 2016[/editline]
The fist of hate chokes all throats, my friends. None will be spared when they have their way. You think they're just going to target people you don't like, when it's so much more profitable and enjoyable to dig the heel into everyone? You think that despots and demagogues of the past only ever picked on The Degenerate? You think the terror-wracked communities in Bogota and Sao Paolo are only ever ransacked for the deserving and the forsaken? Think again. Suffering will come for you too.
The fist of hate chokes all throats.
[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51565045]Bury your head in the sand. Your folly will be your downfall when they turn their swords on you too.
[editline]22nd December 2016[/editline]
Even if I die in an era of hatred and injustice, I'll sleep soundly knowing that people like you will choke on your words when you too are suffering under the boot of oppression.
[editline]22nd December 2016[/editline]
The fist of hate chokes all throats, my friends. None will be spared when they have their way. You think they're just going to target people you don't like, when it's so much more profitable and enjoyable to dig the heel into everyone? You think that despots and demagogues of the past only ever picked on The Degenerate? You think the terror-wracked communities in Bogota and Sao Paolo are only ever ransacked for the deserving and the forsaken? Think again. Suffering will come for you too.
The fist of hate chokes all throats.[/QUOTE]
:what:
I'd vote Fist Of Hate 2020
um excuse me, how do you not interprit "vote trump!" spray painted on a burning church as politically motivated
[QUOTE=Turnips5;51564967]you got a source on that?[/QUOTE]
[url=http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/02/25/black-protesters-dressed-as-kkk-stump-for-trump-but-some-folks-missed-the-satire/]Atlanta Blackstar[/url], I also have a Snopes article which discusses that it was a satire of Trump's policies, but a lot of people assumed it was actually the real deal.
[url=https://dailynorthwestern.com/2016/11/21/campus/former-northwestern-students-plead-guilty-in-alice-millar-vandalism-avoid-felony-charges/]Daily Northwestern on the Jews spraypainting swastikas and vote trump on a church[/url]. I swear I remember a story of swastikas being painted in a bathroom of a university campus or something along those lines, but I cannot remember the exact details.
[QUOTE=DOCTOR LIGHT;51565045]Bury your head in the sand. Your folly will be your downfall when they turn their swords on you too.
Even if I die in an era of hatred and injustice, I'll sleep soundly knowing that people like you will choke on your words when you too are suffering under the boot of oppression.
The fist of hate chokes all throats, my friends. None will be spared when they have their way. You think they're just going to target people you don't like, when it's so much more profitable and enjoyable to dig the heel into everyone? You think that despots and demagogues of the past only ever picked on The Degenerate? You think the terror-wracked communities in Bogota and Sao Paolo are only ever ransacked for the deserving and the forsaken? Think again. Suffering will come for you too.
The fist of hate chokes all throats.[/QUOTE]
Uh.... Chill out, please. You are getting very preachy, and its kinda weird.
[QUOTE=Sableye;51565094]um excuse me, how do you not interprit "vote trump!" spray painted on a burning church as politically motivated[/QUOTE]
It appears that he is guilty only of arson. What I infer from this is that there is no evidence of him tagging the building in the first place.
Whether it was or was not politically motivated, however, doesn't change the fact that people have already interpreted it as such anyway.
Typical White supremacist
[img]https://localtvwreg.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/church-mcclinton.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=770[/img]
[url]http://wreg.com/2016/12/21/mississippi-authorities-make-arrest-in-burning-of-african-american-church-spray-painted-with-vote-trump/[/url]
Does anyone else remember the other thread about this where users were attacked for assuming this was a false flag? I remember it--maybe incorrectly, but I remember it.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51564602]I really do not understand why people do it, but for some reason they feel compelled to false-flag themselves as a victim.[/QUOTE]
Resisting hate or surviving violence generates attention and sympathy. The problem here is that the demand for sympathy massively outstrips the supply of hate.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51565421]Does anyone else remember the other thread about this where users were attacked for assuming this was a false flag? I remember it--maybe incorrectly, but I remember it.[/QUOTE]
No one was attacked lol. People were called out for saying stupid shit. People said "OMG FALSE FLAG" without a shred of evidence that it was a false flag operation. It was all speculation.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51565421]Does anyone else remember the other thread about this where users were attacked for assuming this was a false flag? I remember it--maybe incorrectly, but I remember it.[/QUOTE]
I remember there was definitely a long discussion about that, but I don't remember how heated it got. [URL=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1540199]Here's the thread.[/URL]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;51565163][url=http://atlantablackstar.com/2016/02/25/black-protesters-dressed-as-kkk-stump-for-trump-but-some-folks-missed-the-satire/]Atlanta Blackstar[/url], I also have a Snopes article which discusses that it was a satire of Trump's policies, but a lot of people assumed it was actually the real deal.
[url=https://dailynorthwestern.com/2016/11/21/campus/former-northwestern-students-plead-guilty-in-alice-millar-vandalism-avoid-felony-charges/]Daily Northwestern on the Jews spraypainting swastikas and vote trump on a church[/url]. I swear I remember a story of swastikas being painted in a bathroom of a university campus or something along those lines, but I cannot remember the exact details.
Uh.... Chill out, please. You are getting very preachy, and its kinda weird.[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the sources, but where does the second article say they were jewish themselves?
[editline]22nd December 2016[/editline]
morales is a generally spanish surname, don't know about kafker
[QUOTE=Numpers;51564478]A guy burns down his own church, and spray paints "Vote Trump" and it isn't politically motivated? Is this a joke? This is literally a textbook false-flag.[/QUOTE]
r/politics had this original story plastered allover and now their mods are deleting this new information for not being political.
people suck.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51565449]No one was attacked lol. People were called out for saying stupid shit. People said "OMG FALSE FLAG" without a shred of evidence that it was a false flag operation. It was all speculation.[/QUOTE]
No, people suggested the possibility without automatically assuming it was, and then a bunch of people jumped down their throats for daring to not be convinced one way or the other. That includes you, mr. "I'm calling you out because your assumption is harmful." You wouldn't stop pestering posters for suggesting the possibility that it was a false flag, because even the suggestion was harmful in your eyes. And now you're pretending it was something it wasn't. Get over yourself, you were wrong then and you're still wrong now.
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1540199&page=2"]Here is the thread by the way.[/URL]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572279]No, people suggested the possibility without automatically assuming it was, and then a bunch of people jumped down their throats for daring to not be convinced one way or the other. That includes you, mr. "I'm calling you out because your assumption is harmful." You wouldn't stop pestering posters for suggesting the possibility that it was a false flag, because even the suggestion was harmful in your eyes. And now you're pretending it was something it wasn't. Get over yourself, you were wrong then and you're still wrong now.
[URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=154019"]Here is the thread by the way.[/URL][/QUOTE]
This isn't about being wrong. It's about being honest.
If I made the conspiracy theory that Person A is a psychotic pedophile, and claimed that he was based on baseless speculation and not evidence, that makes me a terrible person. If it turns out that Person A was indeed a psychotic pedophile, then that still makes me a terrible person because my claim was based on baseless speculation.
As for this
[quote]No, people suggested the possibility without automatically assuming it was, and then a bunch of people jumped down their throats for daring to not be convinced one way or the other. That includes you, mr. "I'm calling you out because your assumption is harmful."[/quote]
If you read any of my posts at all, you wouldn't say this. Btw, your link doesn't work.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572341]This isn't about being wrong. It's about being honest.
If I made the conspiracy theory that Person A is a psychotic pedophile, and claimed that he was based on baseless speculation and not evidence, that makes me a terrible person. If it turns out that Person A was indeed a psychotic pedophile, then that still makes me a terrible person because my claim was based on baseless speculation.
As for this
If you read any of my posts at all, you wouldn't say this. Btw, your link doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
You're still having the same problem you were last thread. You keep responding to people who were speculating, and telling them that they were asserting the situation one way.
I'll just quote myself because this isn't going anywhere until you realize what the difference is between people discussing a possibility of a false flag and assuming it was a false flag. Even discussing the possibility was "harmful", and now you have egg in your face.
[QUOTE]You seem to be incapable of separating assumptions from speculation. The problem here is that you think someone suggesting the possibility of something is equal to people asserting that something is the case. Your taking out your disagreement with the later on the former because they dare to not completely agree with everything you have to say.
You're being an extremist right now, either someone completely agrees with you or you blast them for vague wonderings, but the arguments you use are for people making assumptions and asserting information rather than speculating. No room for disagreement, everyone not on your side has a "harmful opinion". Thats social justice shit. [/QUOTE]
[sp](link fixed)[/sp]
This is the post you argued for a page and a half was harmful and evil.
[QUOTE=SenhorCreeper;51298541]This smells fishy and really un-natural, I doubt anyone sane would burn a church down and write "vote for trump pls" on the wall, who would even do something like that, it's not normal human behavior at all.
"I'm sure if anything that'll just make people less likely to vote for Trump?"
Maybe that was the perpetrator's idea, to make people less likely to vote for Trump. But that's just assuming stuff.[/QUOTE]
Explain to me how this post that directly points out making an assumption would be a bad idea, and only discussses the possibility is "harmful". I believe you responded with some trite about how you knew the poster's true secret intentions were to start a conspiracy theory.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572397]I'll just quote myself because this isn't going anywhere until you realize what the difference is between people discussing a possibility of a false flag and assuming it was a false flag.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572397]Explain to me how this post that directly points out making an assumption would be a bad idea, and only discussses the possibility is "harmful". I believe you responded with some trite about how you knew the poster's true secret intentions were to start a conspiracy theory.[/QUOTE]
He wasn't discussing anything lmao.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/iEoZ2AU.png[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/DFtsATZ.png[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/2xyxRA9.png[/t]
guy makes a shit assumption, admits that "oh maybe this is a shit assumption", gets called out for a shit assumption. It was only a discussion because I pointed out how terrible his post was.
Okay. Let's pretend for a moment that it wasn't an assumption. Let's pretend for a moment that his post was simply "What if it was a false flag attack?"
What the hell is there to discuss? Where is the discussion? What are you supposed to say to that? "Okay I mean, if it's a false flag attack then it would be worse. No argument there. Now what?"
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572476]He wasn't discussing anything lmao.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/iEoZ2AU.png[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/DFtsATZ.png[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/2xyxRA9.png[/t]
guy makes a shit assumption, admits that "oh maybe this is a shit assumption", gets called out for a shit assumption. It was only a discussion because I pointed out how terrible his post was.
Okay. Let's pretend for a moment that it wasn't an assumption. Let's pretend for a moment that his post was simply "What if it was a false flag attack?"
What the hell is there to discuss? Where is the discussion? What are you supposed to say to that? "Okay I mean, if it's a false flag attack then it would be worse. No argument there. Now what?"[/QUOTE]
That was the line i just mentioned, the big image you just inflated. Read it. It's him pointing out that to just assume as fact that it was that way would be away, indicated by the word "just". This is how language works, people who are uncertain demonstrate that by adding things like "i think" "if" "but that would require an assumption to establish as true at this juncture"
Right now you're making the argument that nobody should ever discuss any article posted in SH at all where the outcome isn't certain. According to you people aren't allowed to speculate past the initial question, and people aren't allowed to just ask "what if it was X" because you think that isn't a good enough reply. If your suggestion were valid no thread in this forum would have any replies at all. I think your entire stance on this is absurd.
I thought it was suspicious that someone would commit a crime and leave an obvious name there to assign blame to. According to you, posting about this is harmful. Which raises another question, why didn't you respond to the article itself which had people including a mayor assuming it was a white supremacist.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572537]That was the line i just mentioned, the big image you just inflated. Read it. It's him pointing out that to just assume as fact that it was that way would be away, indicated by the word "just". This is how language works, people who are uncertain demonstrate that by adding things like "i think" "if" "but that would require an assumption to establish as true at this juncture"[/quote]
I personally think he was using ambiguity as insurance just in case he got called out for it. He did it quite a bit in his later posts, especially when he tried to paint himself as the "rational" on-the-fence thinker.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572537]Right now you're making the argument that nobody should ever discuss any article posted in SH at all where the outcome isn't certain. According to you people aren't allowed to speculate past the initial question, and people aren't allowed to just ask "what if it was X" because you think that isn't a good enough reply. If your suggestion were valid no thread in this forum would have any replies at all. I think your entire stance on this is absurd.[/quote]
If you were to continue to strawman and not read my posts at all in that thread, you could probably say that. Also, again with your use of the word "discuss". That wasn't a discussion at all.
Speculation is fine if it's actually based on something credible. His speculation was based on the fact that no sane person would write "Vote Trump" on the wall, complete lying ignore the fact that no sane person would even intentionally burn down a church.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572537]I thought it was suspicious that someone would commit a crime and leave an obvious name there to assign blame to. According to you, posting about this is harmful.[/quote]
If you were to continue to strawman and not read my posts at all in that thread, you could probably say that.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;51572537]Which raises another question, why didn't you respond to the article itself which had people including a mayor assuming it was a white supremacist.[/QUOTE]
So since I didn't comment on something, it means I'm fine with it. Do you think that this is a good argument?
(Spoiler Alert: No it isn't.)
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572476]
guy makes a shit assumption, admits that "oh maybe this is a shit assumption", gets called out for a shit assumption. It was only a discussion because I pointed out how terrible his post was.
Okay. Let's pretend for a moment that it wasn't an assumption. Let's pretend for a moment that his post was simply "What if it was a false flag attack?"
What the hell is there to discuss? Where is the discussion? What are you supposed to say to that? "Okay I mean, if it's a false flag attack then it would be worse. No argument there. Now what?"[/QUOTE]
He speculated about what the perpetrator was thinking. Based on what we knew at the time, his speculation had just as much value as anyone else's. I don't see why what he said has to be devalued as a "shit assumption".
I mean jeeze, if you're so upset with him "not contributing to the discussion" then why aren't you going after everyone who said something like
"Oh man it sure does suck that that church got burnt down!"?
By your standards you should have responded to those by saying
[Quote]"Okay I mean, it does suck that that church was burned down. No argument there. Now what?"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BelatedGamer;51572589]I mean jeeze, if you're so upset with him "not contributing to the discussion" then why aren't you going after everyone who said something like
"Oh man it sure does suck that that church got burnt down!"?
By your standards you should have responded to those by saying[/QUOTE]
God, I'm actually going to have to lookup the name of this fallacy. Might be "[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence"]Argument from silence[/URL]" but I don't know.
Just because I haven't commented on something, doesn't mean that I don't have a problem with it.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572585]I personally think he was using ambiguity as insurance just in case he got called out for it. He did it quite a bit in his later posts, especially when he tried to paint himself as the "rational" on-the-fence thinker.
If you were to continue to strawman and not read my posts at all in that thread, you could probably say that. Also, again with your use of the word "discuss". That wasn't a discussion at all.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, so based on your unfounded suspicion that the poster you responded to had an ulterior motive to sow the seeds of conspiracy you have deduced that he backpedalled and intentionally decided to write a reasonable post before he even posted in the thread! Masterful, im glad you were around to right this wrong on the facepunch forums.
You're free to speculate on such absurdities, i'd much rather we have a speculative discussion than one where posters attempt to say the act of speculation itself is harmful and bad. And my speculation on your speculation is that you could be projecting a deceptive trait onto someone else.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572585]Speculation is fine if it's actually based on something credible. His speculation was based on the fact that no sane person would write "Vote Trump" on the wall, complete lying ignore the fact that no sane person would even intentionally burn down a church.[/quote]
Speculation is fine based on whatever the poster in question thinks is significant. The poster thought the circumstances felt fishy and unnatural, he turned out to be right. The optimist that i am says that often people have such feelings based on real oddities yet aren't great at articulating them in extreme detail, and so they remain valid. Your opinion of sanity is once someone does one insane thing, all of their other actions become insane as well. Personally i disagree and think most insane people show more sanity than they do insanity, the insanity are the knots in an otherwise healthy mind. For example, the person who was insane enough to burn down their own church but sane enough to write "vote trump" on the wall to trick the media into reporting on it in an anti-trump context.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572585]If you were to continue to strawman and not read my posts at all in that thread, you could probably say that.[/QUOTE]
Im glad you don't think that example is a "harmful opinion", it makes it more likely you simply misunderstood the person you originally quoted than anything else. If that's the case, then we don't need to continue.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51572585]So since I didn't comment on something, it means I'm fine with it. Do you think that this is a good argument?
(Spoiler Alert: No it isn't.)[/QUOTE]
You're correct that it doesn't mean your fine with it; that wasn't my implication. I do think it's relevant to establish existing biases though, instead of going after the mayor for making an assumption your preference was to go after a speculating poster and accuse them of secretly inciting conspiracy theories in collaboration with "people like [him]". Which, to my great amusement, makes you by literal definition a conspiracy theorist.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.