America - The Official Thread

[mustafur]

So do we stop at White males or do we dig deeper such as what type of white males are the problem.

I don't have the statistic on me But you would still be blaming more then the Entire population of Australia on this right now.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Still at it I see.



Oh boy, back through the "what's an assault rifle" problem again.



Fairly useless sentiment. Yes criminals should not have guns, or freedom. What do you propose to do about that?

No, we blame them on inanimate objects.

Since Trump's taken office, hate crimes have been on the rise, after declining under Obama. Many groups which advocate political violence or bigotry (Proud Boys being most notable example) either formed or grew more popular since Trump was elected. I think it's fair to say that for some time, many people who possess white-supremacist, neo-confederate, and anti-immigrant views were quiet, but when Trump says things characterizing Mexican Americans as drug dealers and rapists, advocating for a Muslim Ban, and saying that some white supremacists were "very fine people" those types of people feel empowered and that they are given a platform.

 

[Dotini]

So do we stop at White males or do we dig deeper such as what type of white males are the problem.

I don't have the statistic on me But you would still be blaming more then the Entire population of Australia on this right now.

Please check to ensure that I identified only US males as the nexus of the problem.

 

[GranTurNismo]

It is clear you don't pay attention at all when people are countering your nonsense with actual fact filled posts.

Shooter is a racist, blame Trump. Shooter is a lefty, political views are irrelevant.

Quality logic.

No, I blamed trump because the shooter was a white supremacist and xenophobe (Trump is both), and that he's done nothing to reform gun control. If he was simply a republican who didn't have extreme, bigoted views, I wouldn't be so quick to call out Trump.

 

[mustafur]

Please check to ensure that I identified only US males as the nexus of the problem.

I was just highlighting the Absurd number of people being blamed by using another country.

 

[Dotini]

I was just highlighting the Absurd number of people being blamed by using another country.

The number of US males afflicted by this crisis of identity and loss of purpose is potentially vast. Many are not getting what they need, are getting restive, and are poised take destructive actions of random kinds, including iffy voting choices. If this inchoate crisis becomes organized and focused, watch out!

 

[TexRex]

Aaaaand now everything that I suspected has been going on in that other thread (which is precisely the reason I've been avoiding it) is present and accounted for in this one. It was just a matter of time until a certain someone chimed in with a nauseatingly grandiose [but ultimately empty] statement. Surprised by the lack of an apparent George R. R. Martin quote, though.

 

[Dotini]

Aaaaand now everything that I suspected has been going on in that other thread (which is precisely the reason I've been avoiding it) is present and accounted for in this one. It was just a matter of time until a certain someone chimed in with a nauseatingly grandiose [but ultimately empty] statement. Surprised by the lack of an apparent George R. R. Martin quote, though.

I'm not seeing a GIF of someone vomiting. You're off your stroke, podner!

 

[Famine]

Still, this man should've never acquired a gun

That's great hindsight there, but what were the flags beforehand that were missed?

By white male entitlement, I mean that in too many cases, those who are the most privileged in society (usually white men) feel that they are entitled to display their anger/extreme emotions by committing violence.

Are white males always privileged in society? Are white male murderers always privileged?

White women and people of color, who make up roughly 60% of America's total population, make up for a very low percentage of mass murders.

Do murders only count when done in large numbers? Do they only count when done with guns? Does no violence other than murder count?

Though of course there are other ways to kill people fast without guns (knife attacks in UK, for example), using a gun is the easiest and quickest method, and I theorize that if assault rifles were completely banned and if crazed individuals didn't have guns, there would be less gun deaths in America.

If cars were completely banned there would be fewer automotive deaths in America. And that's just as much a completely meaningless statement which doesn't address the causes. More people die in a fortnight's gang violence than a year of spree shootings. More people die from knife crime in nine weeks than a year of spree shootings. More people are shot dead by cops in five months than a year of spree shootings. You are about half as likely to die from being attacked by your dog as a spree shooter.

Incidentally "mental health issues" does not equal "crazed". The number one victim in the overwhelming majority of cases where someone with mental health issues discharges a firearm is themselves. There's 57 times as many suicides by firearm as spree-shooting murders. If you started counting firearms deaths at 00.00 on January 1, suicides would overtake spree-shooting's year-end total on January 6. All suicides would pass the number on January 3.


Spree shootings are big, flashy, newsworthy events that are great for waving your "guns are bad" flags at, but by perpetually doing that and only that, you are missing the fact that they are still rare (even at the rate of one a day) and not that deadly (even at the rate of one a day), and skipping clean over the much, much deeper causes for one human deciding another human's life is theirs to take.

Ignoring the violence and reasons for violence, and acting like it's only the tool that matters and only in this specific type of rare crime is... unsophisticated thinking.

 

[TJ13]

Spree shootings are big, flashy, newsworthy events that are great for waving your "guns are bad" flags at, but by perpetually doing that and only that, you are missing the fact that they are still rare (even at the rate of one a day) and not that deadly (even at the rate of one a day), and skipping clean over the much, much deeper causes for one human deciding another human's life is theirs to take.

I think that's the problem.
It gets on the news/social media/etc and then other people still think that oh that person can do it, I can too.

Even if they are rare, it's mostly the ones outside of "Chicago". (As 7 were killed also over the weekend, where the news on that. Oh wait. It's chicago.)

You can stay stricter laws, tougher background checks.
Maybe have everyone that wants a gun go through a licensed therapist too?

My thoughts is that even though it's big newsworthy stories, it shouldn't air all over national TV.

 

[Downhill Dino]

Even if they are rare, it's mostly the ones outside of "Chicago". (As 7 were killed also over the weekend, where the news on that. Oh wait. It's chicago.)

It's all local news. I live next to Baltimore and it takes a good chunk of the broadcast reporting on all the homicides and violent crime. Quite a shame really.

 

[Wolfe]

But to be fair, virtually zero republicans have actually acknowledged that white supremacy, white male entitlement, and an extremely easy access to weapons of war were the main causes of the El Paso domestic terrorist attack.

The El Paso shooting was absolutely a terrorist attack -- with the deliberate intention of drawing blame upon white supremacy, white male entitlement, and access to weapons, in order to sow disorder and division. That's terrorism. The impulse to blame the attack on those things is more responsible for the attack than any of those aspects themselves.

Please reconsider the shooter's motive, because he knew exactly what he was doing, and so does anyone familiar with internet subculture the shooter hung out in. It was not just a racially-motivated killing.

Since Trump's taken office, hate crimes have been on the rise, after declining under Obama. Many groups which advocate political violence or bigotry (Proud Boys being most notable example) either formed or grew more popular since Trump was elected.

Wouldn't you agree there are more factors at play? I first observed the warning signs of the situation we now find ourselves in about five years ago, during Obama's presidency. Trump's election was a symptom of a division that predates his presidency.

...when Trump says things characterizing Mexican Americans as drug dealers and rapists...

He characterized illegal immigrants as drug dealers and rapists, not Mexican Americans. With a charitable reading, in context his comment was limited to illegal immigrants with criminal intentions.

...advocating for a Muslim Ban...

Once elected, the ban he enacted was a temporary travel ban from five Muslim-majority countries, but not all Muslim-majority countries, such as Indonesia or India. Also included in the ban: North Korea and Venezuela.

He did advocate for a temporary "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" while campaigning, out of concern for Islamic terrorism. He used the words "total and complete shutdown" because he can't help himself from exaggerating and using superlatives liberally when he speaks, as a personality tic. Haven't you noticed?

...and saying that some white supremacists were "very fine people"...

Besides literal white supremacists, people were also at Charlottesville to advocate for free speech, to protest tearing down historical statues, and to help maintain peace from agitators on either side. The crowds were not made up only of white supremacists and people protesting white supremacy. People who haven't commited a crime and were not advocating hateful racist views could be very fine people.

Before you ask, this is stuff I got from paying attention to original quotes and original footage from independent eyes & ears on the ground, instead of what news organizations tell you about what was said, what was done, or who was there. For the record, I am not a Trump supporter, so I'm not defending him for that reason.

I understand you are upset, but things won't get better without sticking to the facts. Trump does not seem like a very nice guy to me. I don't think you need to repeat falsehoods to make the point that he's not a superb role model. Following my reply to you in the other thread, I humbly suggest you use the internet you have at your fingertips to dig beneath the surface-level commentary whenever you hear about something outrageous. It's a good habit.

 

[TexRex]

The El Paso shooting was absolutely a terrorist attack -- with the deliberate intention of drawing blame upon white supremacy, white male entitlement, and access to weapons, in order to sow disorder and division.

Yeeeeaaahh...I'd appreciate it if you'd show your work here.

He characterized illegal immigrants as drug dealers and rapists, not Mexican Americans. With a charitable reading, in context his comment was limited to illegal immigrants with criminal intentions.

Once elected, the ban he enacted was a temporary travel ban from five Muslim-majority countries, but not all Muslim-majority countries, such as Indonesia or India. Also included in the ban: North Korea and Venezuela.

He did advocate for a temporary "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" while campaigning, out of concern for Islamic terrorism.

He used the words "total and complete shutdown" because he can't help himself from exaggerating and using superlatives liberally when he speaks, as a personality tic. Haven't you noticed?

He says what he says because it doesn't occur to him to not say what he says or he likes watching what happens after he says what he says.

 

[Wolfe]

Yeeeeaaahh...I'd appreciate it if you'd show your work here.

How about close to ten years spent amongst the wider subculture that includes that subculture? I mean, you can take a look at the website yourself if you want hard proof. It's not hidden, nor is it safe for work, or the faint of heart.

Believe me, there is no way in hell it was a straightforward race-motivated killing without the intent to stoke divisions. What reason do you have to think someone who went to the length of posting his manifesto to one of the premier hives of ****posting troll subculture did not intend to troll the public? Whether or not he was truly a white supremacist -- that subculture is too steeped in irony to know for sure -- is functionally irrelevant to the intention of the attack.

Worse, he did it not only to troll the public, but to entertain his buddies in that subculture with the results -- national news, gun control debates, racial divisions, public statements of condemnation, blaming videogames, and so on. That's the feedback loop. I know that's what they're doing.

That's not swearing for emotive emphasis up there, by the way. I hope you're familiar with ****posting. 'Cause it's politics now.

He says what he says because it doesn't occur to him to not say what he says or he likes watching what happens after he says what he says.

So you agree he is an imprecise speaker whose words should be interpreted with care? For him or against him, taking everything he says literally or according to what the media tells you he said is folly.

Most of what I hear is hot air. So I generally take it with a grain of salt.

 

[TexRex]

How about close to ten years spent amongst the wider subculture that includes that subculture?

What subculture? What wider subculture?

I mean, you can take a look at the website yourself if you want hard proof. It's not hidden, nor is it safe for work, or the faint of heart.

What website? What proof? What's not hidden, safe for work or for the fainthearted?

When you were given tests to take in school, did you just hand in the book with a note on the cover, "the answers are in here"? No, wait, you haven't even done that. You've basically just said there exists a book with the answers.

Believe me, there is no way in hell it was a straightforward race-motivated killing without the intent to stoke divisions. What reason do you have to think someone who went to the length of posting his manifesto to one of the premier hives of ****posting troll subculture did not intend to troll the public? Whether or not he was truly a white supremacist -- that subculture is too steeped in irony to know for sure -- is functionally irrelevant to the intention of the attack.

Worse, he did it not only to troll the public, but to entertain his buddies in that subculture with the results -- national news, gun control debates, racial divisions, public statements of condemnation, blaming videogames, and so on. That's the feedback loop. I know that's what they're doing.

One does not simply walk into Mordor Walmart...and slaughter people without the desire to slaughter people.

That he didn't do so without some idea of what would happen after is not lost on me, but it wasn't social commentary or for the lulz.

That's not swearing for emotive emphasis up there, by the way. I hope you're familiar with ****posting. 'Cause it's politics now.

'Kay.

So you agree he is an imprecise speaker whose words should be interpreted with care?

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck it probably isn't a giraffe.

For him or against him, taking everything he says literally or according to what the media tells you he said is folly.

"According to what the media tells you he said"?

"Big, bad MSM is under the bed, Timmy. Sleep tight."

Most of what I hear is hot air. So I generally take it with a grain of salt.

'Kay.

 

[Wolfe]

What subculture? What wider subculture?


What website? What proof? What's not hidden, safe for work or for the fainthearted?

When you were given tests to take in school, did you just hand in the book with a note on the cover, "the answers are in here"? No, wait, you haven't even done that. You've basically just said there exists a book with the answers.

I apologize for operating under the presumption that you were up to speed on the details of the El Paso shooting. Specifically, that the shooter spent time on 8chan and posted a manifesto there. I also assumed you might know that 8chan is one of multiple similar websites, including 4chan, because that is also not news.

Sorry, I was not attempting to be enigmatic.

One does not...slaughter people without the desire to slaughter people.

...it wasn't social commentary or for the lulz.

You and I wish it wasn't for the lulz. Please, I am not jerking your chain. Nothing personal, but I get the impression you have no idea. I've poked my head in there. Whatever you'd expect, it's worse.

And of course there's desire to slaughter people. I figured that was taken for granted.

'Kay.

I'll take that as a, "no, but I'm not interested either."

If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck it probably isn't a giraffe.

You can have your "'Kay." back for that one.

"According to what the media tells you he said"?

View attachment 841185

"Big, bad MSM is under the bed, Timmy. Sleep tight."

Is that a Jump to Conclusions mat you've got? Fun game, but I intended to keep things a little more serious.

If you think I followed the lead of a particular POTUS or political party in adopting a low opinion of the "big, bad MSM", my perspective actually comes in part from my higher education majoring in journalism and former interest in becoming a journalist. I guess all I can tell you is my opinion is my own.

At any rate, my angle was to make a friendly suggestion to look closer at things you read about, not a political angle. I chose the Trump things because I remembered them, and because @GranTurNismo's pessimistic outlook is influenced by the details.

 

[TexRex]

I apologize for operating under the presumption that you were up to speed on the details of the El Paso shooting. Specifically, that the shooter spent time on 8chan and posted a manifesto there. I also assumed you might know that 8chan is one of multiple similar websites, including 4chan, because that is also not news.

Sorry, I was not attempting to be enigmatic.

Okay, so we've narrowed it down to an actual book, and perhaps even a chapter within that book, but you have yet to show your work. I don't want to go looking for what I'm supposed to assume you've chosen as a foundation for your statement, "...with the deliberate intention of...".

Is that a Jump to Conclusions mat you've got? Fun game, but I intended to keep things a little more serious.

Intended to but got lost along the way? I guess that's way said mat was scuffed already.

It's all too easy to get what he says directly from the horse's mouth without relying on hearsay from "the media" as you concluded rather...erm...jumpily.

 

[Wolfe]

Okay, so we've narrowed it down to an actual book, and perhaps even a chapter within that book, but you have yet to show your work. I don't want to go looking for what I'm supposed to assume you've chosen as a foundation for your statement, "...with the deliberate intention of...".

In light of your attitude, I'll provide a sample if someone else is interested in one. Honest. 👎

I assure you, I don't have to resort to the O&CE trope of teasing a citation and just vanishing when a staff member demands it. If you're just looking for a win and this is it, then take it because I'm not interested in playing that game.

It's all too easy to get what he says directly from the horse's mouth without relying on hearsay from "the media" as you concluded rather...erm...jumpily.

Yes. That is an option between taking him at face value, interpreting what he means with care, or going by what the media tells you he said. In a sense it's two of the three options.

No one said you rely on media hearsay, but I am pretty sure you've made some mistaken assumptions about me. If not, and what you're doing now is your vibe for every interaction in this subforum, then okay I guess. Seems pretty intense to me.

 

[baldgye]

edit: wrong thread

 

[McLaren]

No, I blamed trump because the shooter was a white supremacist and xenophobe (Trump is both), and that he's done nothing to reform gun control. If he was simply a republican who didn't have extreme, bigoted views, I wouldn't be so quick to call out Trump.

So Trump didn't impose a ban on bump stocks by basically re-defining them as becoming automatic rifles rather than just a modified semi-automatic weapon & therefore, falling under already banned weapons.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/politics/bump-stock-ban-takes-effect-tuesday/index.html

Soon after the Las Vegas shooting, President Donald Trump vowed to outlaw bump stocks.

But some lawmakers and gun lobbyists resisted, making new legislation unlikely. That made a regulatory change the only realistic path to accomplishing Trump's goal.

At his direction, the Justice Department in March 2018 proposed a rule clarifying that bump stocks were not merely parts but instead were "machine guns" -- what the federal government calls fully automatic weapons -- as defined by existing law.

Why? Because "such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger," similar to automatic rifles, the department said.

Defining bump stocks as machine guns effectively bans them. Civilian possession of fully automatic weapons was outlawed in 1986 except for those already lawfully in people's ownership.

 

[MatskiMonk]

... blaming video games (Japan makes the most revenue off of violent video games out of any nation, yet only 10 were killed in Japan this year from guns)

Japans long history of gun laws would probably account for this moreso than whether computer games make people violent or not.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In light of your attitude, I'll provide a sample if someone else is interested in one. Honest. 👎

Go on then. You might struggle with 8Chan, CloudFlare have withdrawn their support and it's been down for a day or so.

EDIT: It remains available on peer-to-peer access, but you have to go through a few hoops to get there. I shan't post the URL or method, I don't feel like helping them out.

 

[Wolfe]

Go on then. You might struggle with 8Chan, CloudFlare have withdrawn their support and it's been down for a day or so.

Thanks. And yup, I found that out when I went to take a screenshot last night. I also read they've already got another hosting service in mind.

I looked on Twitter for any screenshots other people might have saved, and found this in a fairly short time:

Spoiler: Warning, NSFW, etc. - Censored for AUP

Sufficient evidence of how casual all of that stuff is in there, and how they are motivated not only by race. In the bottom of the screenshot you can see that they revel in memes and gifs of their fantasies and morbid interests. It's not only white supremacy.

You can't even really know who among them is a 100% honest white supremacist, because everything is steeped in irony and misdirection. A user could be just a kid who gets off on transgressive ideas -- for the time being, at least. Or it could literally be the FBI playing along. It would be unwise to take at face value what is written in that screenshot. But of course, you can't discount it either. It's intentionally hard to pin down.

This is not something that that can be solved without better understanding how they think and what they're getting out of this, and going to the root of the problem. Unfortunately, the majority of our elected officials and the media are too ignorant of internet culture. It's not a joke to cite "****posting" culture anymore, and El Paso isn't simple racism or xenophobia. In my view it is now semi-loosely organized terrorism.

 

[Danoff]

El Paso isn't simple racism or xenophobia. In my view it is now semi-loosely organized terrorism.

"Terrorism" is a tough one to pin down too. I think a lot of white supremecy could fall under the definition of terrorism all by itself. What, after all, is the KKK doing when they put a burning cross in someone's yard if not attempting to control a population via fear in order to achieve political ends?

I know the KKK doesn't normally get called terrorist, but it doesn't seem out of line.

 

[Wolfe]

@Danoff -- Fair point. I was not emphasizing that distinction so much as trying to explain that there's more to it.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff -- Fair point. I was not emphasizing that distinction so much as trying to explain that there's more to it.

...and doing a good job of it. I'm just trying to help folks realize that you're being more thorough than perhaps you need to be (which is a good thing of course).

 

[TexRex]

In light of your attitude, I'll provide a sample if someone else is interested in one. Honest. 👎

I asked for a "sample" at the beginning, sans "attitude". I was and still am dubious of what you claimed*, and I demonstrated that with my "yeeeeaaahh...", but I think my solicitation was broadly respectful otherwise (not that I think that was disrespectful), particularly in expressing appreciation in advance for information that has yet to be rendered and now apparently won't--at least unto me--out of what is being presented as pettiness that, in light of this being dragged out, seems an awful lot like smokescreen.

*Which isn't to say that I wouldn't accept it if it was substantiated.

I assure you, I don't have to resort to the O&CE trope of teasing a citation and just vanishing when a staff member demands it.

That remains to be seen, as no staff member has demanded it, but you've done plenty of teasing without offering up anything substantive.

If you're just looking for a win and this is it, then take it because I'm not interested in playing that game.

I'm still just looking for a foundation for that initial statement, "...with the deliberate intention of...".

As for the notion of "winning", well...I addressed that earlier.

Yes. That is an option between taking him at face value, interpreting what he means with care, or going by what the media tells you he said. In a sense it's two of the three options.

Except it isn't; not in and of itself. It's merely a means to two of the three.

Given his propensity to omit, skew and downright make up things to best serve him and his preferred narratives, I'd say that the first option isn't really an option at all...especially when it comes directly from him.

No one said you rely on media hearsay, but I am pretty sure you've made some mistaken assumptions about me. If not, and what you're doing now is your vibe for every interaction in this subforum, then okay I guess. Seems pretty intense to me.

The suggestion alone--that someone simply accepts what "the media" says he says**--is what's laughable; the popular invocation of media as bogeyman. Being critical of any information offered to you¹ is indicative of shrewdness, but it so often comes off as being critical of any information you¹ don't like.

**Of course this isn't to say people who do this don't exist.

¹Offered in reference to the individual, which isn't to say "you, specifically".

As for my "vibe"; it's not my default setting, but it tends to come out when I feel someone is being deceptive. Dangling citations rather than providing them on the front end reeks of deception.

You might struggle with 8Chan, CloudFlare have withdrawn their support and it's been down for a day or so.

Good. For. Them.

Really, that's just fantastic. While I gather it's only temporary until they find another another (because their first move after CloudFlare's positive action has turned out to be temporary as well), this is what's necessary.

It's also humorous to see people mistakenly decry CloudFlare's positive action as censorship and an affront to free speech.

 

[TexRex]

Sufficient evidence of how casual all of that stuff is in there, and how they are motivated not only by race.

I'll absolutely grant you that it's pretty casual there, but it's hard for me to see anything more than racist generalizations.

Note: I fully intended to edit this response into my previous post, but was having difficulty selecting the text without being prompted to open a link (presumably to the quoted post). Apologies for the double post.

 

[Lizard]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...UkZJOChE4JMPyZBxqIMqJhzUKY#Echobox=1565111778

Wow I never realised racism was still this bad. Police leading a black man around like a literal slave.

 

[TexRex]

Heh. I was just about to post on that.

https://m.chron.com/news/houston-te...on-police-apologize-for-photo-of-14282778.php