|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 20:17:01 GMT -5
/// still ignores what I wrote and keeps sprouting inane BS /// God bless. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 6, 2019 20:19:51 GMT -5
It's guns. Guns guns guns. There simply is no way around that fact. No, it's not, and I can actually prove it. Ok, on average, the US suffered from one mass shooting every six months from The Texas tower shooting in the 60's to Columbine in 1999. Following that, the rate increased from once every six months on average to once every three months on average. It then doubled again, following Las Vegas. I suspect that it has actually just doubled again, but we'll have to wait for a bit. Now, if guns were the issue, the average would go up and down with the availability of guns. That's actually the REVERSE of what's happening. As additional measures and types of weapon have baan banned nad restricted, teh average continues to rise. I've been tearing my hair out trying to find something, anything, that follows this trend.
It's cell phones. Now, before anyone puts on their aluminum, hear me out, because I know how fucking crazy it sounds. In 2011 (IIRC) there was study published that showed that there was a direct link between cellphone service availability and outbreaks of violence in Africa. At the time, it was assumed that this was some form of methodology error, that the violence already existed and just wasn't reported. However, there have been several medical studies done on the effects of what excessive cell use does to the brain, and it changes both neural architecture AND nuerochemistry, above the 45 min a day mark. The average in the US for an adult right now? A whopping 3 hours and forty five min. Based on FBI studies of the perps in months leading up to their crimes, most have had some sort of severe stress event.
I think that it's making some people more sensitive to stress, as we do not yet fully understand some of the changes it's causing, and inducing a sort of temporary psychotic break or overwhelming fight response. Since this does not follow traditional definitions or modles of mental illness, and it may be possible that they recover afterwards, it makes this a bit hard to diagnose. And, according to WHO, possibly Brain Cancer, but that's a minor issue. Further, while mass shootings are more or less a US thing, it's actually a symptom of a world wide phenomena. It's just how Americans tend to express it. Japan has seen a spike in teenage suicide, the worst in 30 years, and it's been ticking up along the same curve, even while other suicides have fallen off. Africa had the aforementioned spike in overall violence. I haven't really looked elsewhere since reliable data on cellphone usage is a little hard to come by.
I suspect that it makes the victim susceptible to suggestions to commit certain types of violence, either to themselves or others. The perps tend to come from a variety of ideologies and ethnic backgrounds, though whites do make up 51% of US mass shooters. The only thing that they all seem to have in common is they belong to groups with an overwhelming cell phone addiction. And hte rate that cell phone usage on average increases is a very close match to the upward trend in US shootings on average. And while I know that correlation is not causation, this is a very suspicious trend.
I'm not sure I buy cell phones being the culprit... But, then again, in the 30s it was kosher to feed cocaine to kids as vitamins. HOwever, I do think the rise of social media plays a part in exacerbating the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 6, 2019 20:29:47 GMT -5
Baron, are there any studies to back up what you're saying? Correlation doesn't always equal causation. For example, anything this comes up with (like "Total Arcade Revenue" and "Computer Science Doctorates Awarded"): www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlationsAnd once again, whem ignores what I'm saying because he has to live in the world of "both sides are equally bad." (Also, whem, since you have the memory of a fucking goldfish, trump has called for violence several times. Remember, he'll pay your legal fees if you punch a protestor! Or when he said Or or either of these or But yeah, totally never advocated or supported violence right? |
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Aug 6, 2019 20:48:20 GMT -5
I don't understand how you could ever come to the conclusion that "both sides are bad" is a useful conclusion when one side is provably much worse than the other. Our conservatives here in Sweden do the same thing: far-sighted assholes have killed a bunch of people since 2000 in Sweden while the corresponding number killed by the far left is 0,and yet our equivalent of Antifa is what they want to focus on.
Fucking own up to the fact that you have a disproportionately large bunch of violent shitheads killing people. We know there's people on the left who are assholes too, but your insistence on bringing that up is like a man looking at a forest fire racing towards his house and shrugging because his neighbour's shed burned down once. It shouldn't be too hard to just look at the numbers and realise something's wrong.
Regarding the cellphone stuff, why is the US an outlier? We do have cellphones over here too you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 7, 2019 0:24:15 GMT -5
something, something political rhetoric doesn't inspire shootings (series of tweets) Something, something both sides are equally badOn a more serious note, if both sides are equal, who on the left is equal to neo-nazis? To white nationalists and supremacists? And I mean, equal in terms of the number of crimes, or violence, or shootings they commit. Actual, you know, data and proof. (But I don't expect a real answer from anyone, because the answer is obvious to anyone who isn't living in a reality made by trump.) |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 2:56:33 GMT -5
Whembly, when you say that for you as long as Trump does not meet the legal definition of incitement he can be in no way held morally responsible that is as rigid as you want to get. When you combine that with the false equivalency with Warren and Dayton there is just little to discuss.
When your response boils down to sticking your head in the sand and shouting that the only thing that matters is personal responsibility then what is the point? Do you even believe in extremist violence, right wing, jihadist or otherwise? Because from everything you have so far said about El Paso the answer seems to have to be that you don't if it comes to consistency. If all the blame falls on the perp and nothing else then how can any attack be extremist, because that requires recognizing the underlying ideology that goes beyond one man.
Not calling for violence is not the same as not in part being responsible for it. You can argue about the degrees of said part, but recognizing certain rhetoric contributes to it is not shifting the blame away from the perp.
TL;DR Trump is NOT directly responsible for these shootings, he just contributes to the sick culture behind them. Hold him morally responsible for his contribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 3:28:16 GMT -5
But yeah, totally never advocated or supported violence right? After El Paso everyone dug up his May rally where a supporter said to shoot illegal immigrants and Trump just made a joke about it like it was a mundane comment. 10 years is a long time, we went from that famous bit of McCain defending Obama of not being a secret Muslim to his own supporters, to Trump supporters saying shoot illegal immigrants and Trump basically going "lol, only in Florida!". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 3:57:11 GMT -5
Baron, are there any studies to back up what you're saying? Correlation doesn't always equal causation. For example, anything this comes up with (like "Total Arcade Revenue" and "Computer Science Doctorates Awarded"): www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlationsHollenbach et al assume that it's because cell phones allow them to better organize. Weidman (SP?) and a few others later offered up that these don't quite explain the results, and Hollenbach himself, in a later (2017) paper assumes it was reporting bias, using similar data from Afghanistan, which I suspect misses that Afghanistan was already a war zone at the time and had been for decades.
Unfortunately, most studies of the phenomena come at it with the idea that the communication is what's facilitating this link. While people have examined the biological and social alterations that cell phones cause, no one has looked at (AFAIK) the link between them and the increase in violent behavior directly. Because of our relatively primitive understanding of the brain, we're not sure what these changes actually mean, or the long term results of them. only that they're getting worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 7:41:10 GMT -5
To be fair Baron, that does nothing to dispute Walrus's argument that Europe has mobile phones too.
In other news, did Trump's favorite advisor, Tucker Carlson, just call white supremacy a hoax? Yes, yes he did!
George Orwell must be doing donuts in his grave right about now... is it time to start taking bets about when Fox will start referring to mass shootings as hoaxes with crisis actors? Is Carlson trying to jedi mind trick us, is that what it is when he pulls a dumb face?
|
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Aug 7, 2019 8:32:51 GMT -5
Baron, I don't think that's enough to go on to blame cell phones, especially as Disciple points out, it doesnt disprove the issue of Europe also having cellphones.
|
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Aug 7, 2019 9:05:12 GMT -5
I think the point behind cellphones is that they're part of how our culture is moving towards one of instant gratification. It's not that guns are everywhere or easy to get, it's that they've evolved into being perceived as the easy way out of all your problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 9:29:18 GMT -5
I think the point behind cellphones is that they're part of how our culture is moving towards one of instant gratification. It's not that guns are everywhere or easy to get, it's that they've evolved into being perceived as the easy way out of all your problems. But Baron set out to prove its NOT guns, while this circles back to guns being the unique problem. There has to be a problem, unique to America, that guns have no effect on, to be able to make the case that guns aren't the inherently problematic factor to any regular problem you can point out. |
|
|
|
Post by Disciple of Fate on Aug 7, 2019 9:59:17 GMT -5
On his way to El Paso, Trump just casually name drops Antifa together with white supremacy in the same sentence... Maybe he will regale us with another round of both sides and fine people with the white supremacists.
|
|
|
|
Post by tannhauser42 on Aug 7, 2019 10:38:13 GMT -5
I think the point behind cellphones is that they're part of how our culture is moving towards one of instant gratification. It's not that guns are everywhere or easy to get, it's that they've evolved into being perceived as the easy way out of all your problems. But Baron set out to prove its NOT guns, while this circles back to guns being the unique problem. There has to be a problem, unique to America, that guns have no effect on, to be able to make the case that guns aren't the inherently problematic factor to any regular problem you can point out. What I'm trying to say is it's not the guns themselves, or even the easy access to them, but the pervasive belief, particularly in America, that guns are the easy solution to a problem. It's the belief in the thing, not so much the thing itself, that's the problem. It's kind of like junk food. Junk food isn't the reason I'm fat, it's because I believe junk food is so tasty and I can't stop myself from eating it is the reason I'm fat. Although I'm doing better on choosing better foods, it's a matter of changing my habits. |
|
|
|
Post by whemblycthulhu on Aug 7, 2019 10:45:15 GMT -5
Whembly, when you say that for you as long as Trump does not meet the legal definition of incitement he can be in no way held morally responsible that is as rigid as you want to get. When you combine that with the false equivalency with Warren and Dayton there is just little to discuss. When you totally blame Trump morally, yet don't address Warren and Dayton. Then you're a political hack. Of course there's right wing violence. I'm not even disputing it. NOT. ONCE. Yet, you, wally and wolfie keep insisting that am. Yet the mere mention of me pointing out violences from the left, all you're interested in arguing that I'm trying to equivocate. Stop it. So mere rhetoric causes violence. Is that where we're at? Bad rhetoric requires confrontation of good rhetorics. That's a slippery slope man. It's the same thought process blaming rape victims for showing too much legs. How about you assign agency to those who pulled the fucking trigger. So what does that say of his critics? Are they morally responsible for their contributions? |
|
