U.S. Politics: Having a Good Time

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You did notice that the "Americas" category included Latin America and South America, right? That'd be muy embarrassing if your point about Hispanic rampage killers was because you thought bogota was somewhere in Georgia. 

South and Latin America doesn't count as America? Wow, we really are ignoring all politically correct precepts tonight, aren't we?

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

South and Latin America doesn't count as America? Wow, we really are ignoring all politically correct precepts tonight, aren't we?

Hah, you did fuck up. Nice try on the cover save for one small detail - I only used the term US. 

 

[karaddin]

Wow, you're just going for the bad faith arguing championship aren't you? American is generally understood to relate to the country of the United States of America rather than people from the continents of the Americas. Kalbear quite specifically used "US" and I used "American", looking back through the last page of the thread the only usage of just "America" was your own. So I guess if you're claiming you were intentionally using that to refer to the entirety of the Americas, then congratulations you've brought up a separate issue to what were were talking about as an attempted gotcha rather than overlooking a flaw in the data. The discussion was about mass shootings in the United States.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Hah, you did fuck up. Nice try on the cover save for one small detail - I only used the term US. 

 

Okay, I used the term America. Hah! GOTCHA! 

[Fragile Bird]

I think I'd need to see some statistics about mass killings and who commits them. For one thing, if you use the definition of 4 or more people being killed, I don't think the 1,300+ or so mass killings in the last 1,500 days were 'overwhelmingly' committed by white guys. You'd need to change the definition to high-profile shootings of 10 or more, wouldn't you? And even then you still have the Pulse Club, the Virginia Tech and the San Bernadino killings committed by non-whites, and the army guy.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

Wow, you're just going for the bad faith arguing championship aren't you? American is generally understood to relate to the country of the United States of America rather than people from the continents of the Americas. Kalbear quite specifically used "US" and I used "American", looking back through the last page of the thread the only usage of just "America" was your own. So I guess if you're claiming you were intentionally using that to refer to the entirety of the Americas, then congratulations you've brought up a separate issue to what were were talking about as an attempted gotcha rather than overlooking a flaw in the data. The discussion was about mass shootings in the United States.

The primary point that this started on was that many male mass killers share the trait of having a history of abusing women. That similarity cuts across racial boundaries. That was my point. It's not limited to just this particular shooting. 

[DMC]

 

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Because statistically, the white ethnic group in the US is overwhelmingly more likely to commit mass murder. White, male, either fairly young (18-20s) or 60+. 

Violence per se isn't specifically a likely predictor. White is much better. 

That's...a very dangerous statistic to start using.  As in, it can easily be used against minorities if circumstances change, especially if numbers on murders at this point if we change certain parameters for an operational definition.  Point is, I don't see the utility in pointing out race (although gender may be worthwhile).  And religion too (thanks John!)

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

 I don't want people to care about violence against sex workers because it predicts violence against non-sex workers once the piece of shit has worked up confidence, I want them to care about violence against sex workers because sex workers are people and deserve the same dignity and protection as every other human being.

But if we're talking mass shootings, which was the discussion, then the vast majority of the perpetrators fit a profile of failed straight white masculinity. There are exceptions and I don't try to erase them, for example the Pulse perpetrator, and these exceptions tend to have reasons that can be puzzled out, but the general trend we're talking about is pretty reliable. It's not something innate to white men, but is heavily related to being in the dominant social group, which obviously isn't going to apply to other racial groups as a general rule.

Again, I think your overall point has merit - it seems to be predominately white males that are intent on killing as many people as possible, and they usually have violent histories towards women.  However, I'm not sure I understand what practicality underlies emphasizing this point. 

Don't get me wrong, I worked for a shelter in HS, and if you're talking about certain restrictions the courts can - AND SHOULD (and still fucking aren't) - place on spouses, I'm totally there.  But it seems you're talking about gun control.  And when you mix that with race, I have to say, what are we supposed to do?  How does this change any fight towards any type of gun control beyond distancing oneself from white males?  Doesn't this just give similarly pissed off white people in general (which, unfortunately, still constitute a majority of the electorate) more incentive to paint any minority threat as more prescient to the American people?  In other words, I don't see how this is helping. 

My objective has always been to overcome the predominate white male perspective.  This type of argument seems solely designed to inflame it - and worse, in an argument in which you're relying upon incredible outliers for support.

[Seli]

3 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I think I'd need to see some statistics about mass killings and who commits them. For one thing, if you use the definition of 4 or more people being killed, I don't think the 1,300+ or so mass killings in the last 1,500 days were 'overwhelmingly' committed by white guys. You'd need to change the definition to high-profile shootings of 10 or more, wouldn't you? And even then you still have the Pulse Club, the Virginia Tech and the San Bernadino killings committed by non-whites, and the army guy.

There is this summary by CNN of the Mother Jones data set of mass shootings. With the relevant sections:

Quote

"If you look at the whole list, it turns out that whites and blacks are pretty proportionate to their population, very close,"

...

"Latinos are almost nowhere to be seen," Cullen told CNN's "New Day." "Asians continue to be heavily overrepresented -- more than 2½ times their size in the population."

 

[Which Tyler]

14 minutes ago, Seli said:

There is this summary by CNN of the Mother Jones data set of mass shootings. With the relevant sections:

 

Thank you, more information is always better than less.

[ants]

That does seem to back ME's point. 

[Bonnot OG]

 

2 minutes ago, ants said:

That does seem to back ME's point. 

Nah, it really doesn't, especially since white people do not experience racism. 

[Gorn]

11 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

 

Nah, it really doesn't

You convinced me with your detailed and well thought-out rebuttal.

Seriously, ME's point is that race should not be brought into discussion unless there is actual evidence that it plays a role, and statistics show that it doesn't. First, like dmc said, it sets a dangerous precedent that can be used against minorities (imagine someone writing "this is always how it works with these Asian guys" after the Virginia Tech shooting). Second, it distracts from stuff that is actually important, such as prevalence of males and discussion of mental health.

[karaddin]

There have been almost as many mass shootings in 2017 as there have been days, but the data sheet from mother jones has 92 entries in it. On the surface of those stats I'm willing to concede my perceptions of racial dynamics of the perpetrators may be off. Mother jones appear to be using a higher threshold, and I would have actually expected this group to skew white more heavily than the standard "4 peopled murdered" one. All of that said the difference between "thats how it always is with these white guys" and any other group that people continue to ignore is that white people are not being systematically discriminated against in America (or Australia) on the basis of their skin colour. The power dynamics cannot be removed from the equation and that is why one statement isn't racist and the other would be. If you're going to open up the conversation whining about racism against white people, a lot of people are going to draw conclusions about you that you may not like.

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Don't get me wrong, I worked for a shelter in HS, and if you're talking about certain restrictions the courts can - AND SHOULD (and still fucking aren't) - place on spouses, I'm totally there.  But it seems you're talking about gun control.  And when you mix that with race, I have to say, what are we supposed to do?  How does this change any fight towards any type of gun control beyond distancing oneself from white males?  Doesn't this just give similarly pissed off white people in general (which, unfortunately, still constitute a majority of the electorate) more incentive to paint any minority threat as more prescient to the American people?  In other words, I don't see how this is helping. 

My objective has always been to overcome the predominate white male perspective.  This type of argument seems solely designed to inflame it - and worse, in an argument in which you're relying upon incredible outliers for support.

I wasn't talking about gun control targeting white men, and I didn't parse anyone as actually making that argument. I think the US needs gun control sure, but I also know that's a project that's going to take generations to get the guns out of the population and nothing so limited as targeting a single demographic is going to do enough there. I'm also a dreadful SJW feminist and I'm predominantly looking at this from a gender issues point of view. There is something very broken with many forms of masculinity in modern western societies. It hurts and kills a huge number of women, and in the US it results in a lot of mass shootings. 

Gun control is harm minimisation, but it isn't going to fix the problem. Men will steal beat their wives/gfs/ex-gfs and kids to death without them. To solve the problem we need to address that which is sick within masculinity and restore healthy models of manhood. That is what I'm ultimately talking about. 

[LongRider]

The info coming out about the Vegas shooter includes that he was a known gambler and one game he played, video poker was mentioned.  I worked in casinos in Lake Tahoe and Reno and for ten years and developed a bit a gambling problem along the way, mainly on video poker.  (the original pay TV, as I liked to call it)  Anyway, whatever games he was playing, I can't help wonder if he didn't slide into a gambling addiction with a big recent losing streak.  The money he sent abroad could possibly have been money he was trying to get away from himself so he wouldn't piss it away in the casinos.  

If he played the tables and spent a lot of money he may have been able to write 'markers' which is a check like document, for a loan really, the casino provides to give the gambler money to play  and keep to on losing, and owning to the casino.  Did he have thousands of markers out that he couldn't pay?  

Casino's will clamp down tight on this type of info though I suppose with a subpoena law enforcement could find out.  Gambling consists of playing, drinks and it can be fun.  When it's not, it's humiliating and gamblers can become desperate and do really stupid things, including committing crimes, because they owe money, their life has fallen apart and they still want to play.   

[James Arryn]

Can I point out something that seems to get lost a lot about toxic masculinity? 

It's something that happens to men. It's not like men grow up being given a menu of options and repeatedly choose 'toxic'. If it's a thing, it's a socialized thing; in the same way that women in the past didn't say 'today I think I'd like to be valued on my appearance and how secure I make my boss feel in his authority', but often found over time their behaviour adapted to their environment, so too did men grow up being daily subjected to behavioural expectations that they adapted to without ever knowingly choosing.

I'm not even saying this like it's time to weep for the lot of men, but rather that masculinity ought not be mentioned in such an accusatory fashion the way it is. I say this being just about the least 'guy' guy I know in most ways, and growing up predominantly around women. If there are aspects of masculinity that are toxic, there are very few men out there actively choosing that behaviour pattern. Now, that doesn't excuse men who cross lines like with abuse or w/e...maybe it helps explain a bit...but short of that it would be cool if this was treated like other forms of socialization/social pressure to conform. 

 

 

[Luzifer's right hand]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

To solve the problem we need to address that which is sick within masculinity and restore healthy models of manhood. That is what I'm ultimately talking about. 

Restore? That honestly makes no sense to me. I doubt there was a time, at least in patriarchal societies in which men did not beat their wives.

Maybe I talk with too many old women but things seem to have improved a lot. My cleaning lady told me recently that any man that does not beat you is a keeper no matter what other flaws he has...

[King Ned Stark]

@karaddin, have you heard of the "Man Box", theory/idea?  I believe it's what James Arryn is referring to.

https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/megasahd-escape-the-act-like-a-man-box/

[karaddin]

But I'm not bringing it up in an accusatory fashion. I'm a trans woman, I grew up trying to bow to the pressures of masculinity and I know just how much it hurts when it doesn't fit. You say you're not saying it's time to weep for men, but I think it is - at least for boys. I don't say this lightly, but I consider it abuse by *society* (not individuals outside of explicitly abusive behaviour) on boys that emotionally impairs many. 

I don't weep for them when they've turned this harm outward and decided to harm others, particularly when they so often turn it on women and other minorities, but I do before that. I'm not talking about healthy models of masculinity because I'm blaming all men for it ffs, I'm saying that because I think it's a vital thing for men that don't currently fit to be able to be healthy and happy. 

ETA: this was replying to JA, the other posts were while I was typing. I'm not saying things were perfect but there are at least theories that western masculinity was significantly changed by the world wars last century, huge swathes removed from generations and massive trauma on many who survived does not make for healthy fathers. Look at the difference in intimacy in friendship between Frodo and Sam to what is typical of male friendship now. 

[James Arryn]

15 minutes ago, karaddin said:

But I'm not bringing it up in an accusatory fashion. I'm a trans woman, I grew up trying to bow to the pressures of masculinity and I know just how much it hurts when it doesn't fit. You say you're not saying it's time to weep for men, but I think it is - at least for boys. I don't say this lightly, but I consider it abuse by *society* (not individuals outside of explicitly abusive behaviour) on boys that emotionally impairs many. 

I don't weep for them when they've turned this harm outward and decided to harm others, particularly when they so often turn it on women and other minorities, but I do before that. I'm not talking about healthy models of masculinity because I'm blaming all men for it ffs, I'm saying that because I think it's a vital thing for men that don't currently fit to be able to be healthy and happy. 

I don't think I meant you specifically, more an accumulative thing. And maybe you're right about the weeping...I just personally didn't suffer too much because I luckily started rejecting most social pressures (gender and otherwise) at such a young age that it became second nature pretty quickly. So, I'm really talking about other men, and maybe I should be saying it's time to weep for them; good point.

Now that you've got me thinking I even think maybe there's potential pathos for those who do abuse or w/e...not acceptance or forgiveness, but for those who are genuinely appalled at what they themselves do...the kind that often attempt suicide or similar to stop the behaviour they hate...that's a pretty pathetic situation. 

 

Edit: King Ned Stark, thanks for the link. I had not myself linked the idea I was talking about to gay bashing, but of course it is part of it and that article made very interesting points. Cheers.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

 

Nah, it really doesn't, especially since white people do not experience racism. 

White people don’t experience institutional racism in the United States, but they can absolutely experience racism in general. And it’s attitudes like yours that drive white people to the Republican Party.