Unchecked Inconsistencies

badcgijosh:

dustedsunshine:

Because of course, in America, white people can’t be terrorists! Don’t be crazy, that shit never happens!

Like how fucking quick would CNN or any news outlet be to at the very least wildly speculate about every known gunman’s gang affiliations if they weren’t straight up calling this a terrorist attack if they were anything other than white

God this is such horseshit

It is very interesting, in a quick survey of the current articles online:

• Fox does not mention the shooter being a white male, gives no speculation of motive
• CNN does not mention the shooter being a white male, does quote someone from the temple saying “Was this directed at us because of the way we look?”
• Slate identifies suspect (/potentially according to witnesses multiple suspects) as white male, no speculation of motive
• NBC identifies suspect as white male, describes him as being “dressed in tactical gear and armed with a single handgun,” quotes a temple member speculating on motive saying “We have no idea. It’s pretty much a hate crime. It’s not an insider,” and explains Sikhism a little more in-depth than other websites (which have the same stock paragraph), also noting that “Sikh rights groups have reported a rise in bias attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Washington-based Sikh Coalition has reported more than 700 incidents in the U.S. since 9/11, which advocates blame on anti-Islamic sentiment. Sikhs don’t practice the same religion as Muslims, but their long beards and turbans often cause them to be mistaken for Muslims, advocates say.”
• The BBC identifies suspect as white male, notes that “at a press conference, police said they were treating the attack as a ‘domestic terrorist-type incident’.”