Rich Men North of Richmond

[StoneTheCrow]

He’s a plant sent by Big Snack. I haven’t thought about a Fudge Round in 15 years but you better believe I’ll be picking some of those delicious discs up next time I’m at the store.

[HarleyDog]

(08-28-2023, 11:40 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: He’s a plant sent by Big Snack. I haven’t thought about a Fudge Round in 15 years but you better believe I’ll be picking some of those delicious discs up next time I’m at the store.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2023, 11:39 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: If he didn't use the word "milkin'" I would agree with your interpretation.

Milking, to me, has a very negative connotation that implies the person is abusing the system, not the other way around.

Like I said, I largely agree with the sentiment of the song and think he's on the right track. That line just stuck out as kind of...the reverse of the rest of the song. The song is almost entirely about how government (or similarly powerful systems like corporations) is abusing people in one way or another, and then he sneaks in this line implying fat people are abusing a government assistance program, it threw me off.

Maybe he thinks that people should have some personal responsibility for their behavior as well?  I get your point about the wording, but, again, I think it's looking for something to nitpick, especially as the right immediately picked this song up and ran with.  So, of course, the left had to find something objectionable in it to attack.

[CJD]

(08-28-2023, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Maybe he thinks that people should have some personal responsibility for their behavior as well?  I get your point about the wording, but, again, I think it's looking for something to nitpick, especially as the right immediately picked this song up and ran with.  So, of course, the left had to find something objectionable in it to attack.

I agree it's a nitpick. Like I said, I largely support the message and it's a catchy song too. 

I think the left just associates small, rural towns with republicans nowadays.

It's sad, honestly. The left is supposed to be for the working class (it's literally how the left vs right came to be), so I was a bit frustrated how harshly the left came out against this song. I saw some even say it was confederate apologia because it references Richmond, which was the capital of the confederacy.

Like...okay guys. Or maybe he chose it because it sounds like "Rich men." 

The right certainly did run with it, until he came out and said he didn't like the GOP debate referencing his song because, in his view, that song was about the people on that stage (among others, of course).

Since then, it's been a bit more of a mixed bag response across all sectors. Lefties loved that follow up video, righties hated it. Some right wingers did not appreciate him not falling in line.

In that same video, he doesn't have the signature southern accent from the song, so some have even accused him of faking being a country person for fame and clout. Which I also found interesting. 

I figured it was just code switching. But others feel like he devised some scheme to trick country people into liking him and then, what, he just forgot to use his accent in a video that he pre-recorded and posted onto his Youtube channel? He'd give the game away that quickly?

None of that matters, I'm just rambling now. The point is, this song is fascinating in a lot of ways. From the lyrics, to the politics to the perceived politics to who didn't like it (or him) and why. It's just peak American politics. All wrapped up into a single song.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-28-2023, 12:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I agree it's a nitpick. Like I said, I largely support the message and it's a catchy song too. 

I think the left just associates small, rural towns with republicans nowadays.

It's sad, honestly. The left is supposed to be for the working class (it's literally how the left vs right came to be), so I was a bit frustrated how harshly the left came out against this song. I saw some even say it was confederate apologia because it references Richmond, which was the capital of the confederacy.

Like...okay guys. Or maybe he chose it because it sounds like "Rich men." 

The right certainly did run with it, until he came out and said he didn't like the GOP debate referencing his song because, in his view, that song was about the people on that stage (among others, of course).

Since then, it's been a bit more of a mixed bag response across all sectors. Lefties loved that follow up video, righties hated it. Some right wingers did not appreciate him not falling in line.

In that same video, he doesn't have the signature southern accent from the song, so some have even accused him of faking being a country person for fame and clout. Which I also found interesting. 

I figured it was just code switching. But others feel like he devised some scheme to trick country people into liking him and then, what, he just forgot to use his accent in a video that he pre-recorded and posted onto his Youtube channel? He'd give the game away that quickly?

None of that matters, I'm just rambling now. The point is, this song is fascinating in a lot of ways. From the lyrics, to the politics to the perceived politics to who didn't like it (or him) and why. It's just peak American politics. All wrapped up into a single song.

Can't disagree with this.  The older I get the more I recognize the conscious decisions at higher levels to keep people squabbling with each other instead of noticing the hand that's picking their pockets.  Take the recent shooting that's now all over the news.  Why the hyper focus on this shooting instead of the other shooting that took place this week?  Because it foments racial tension, so highlighting it gets people angry.  Black people are angry because three people were killed.  White people, right leaning at least, are angry because focusing on this killing comes off as painting them as inherently racist.  Meanwhile there are shootings in which three or more people are killed every week, but you'll never hear about them.  Are those victims less important?  Is this killer uniquely evil?  Or is it a big loud distraction?

There's a clear agenda at work here, and it has nothing to do with what it says it is, and that's equally true for both sides.

[GMDino]

(08-28-2023, 12:15 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I agree it's a nitpick. Like I said, I largely support the message and it's a catchy song too. 

I think the left just associates small, rural towns with republicans nowadays.

It's sad, honestly. The left is supposed to be for the working class (it's literally how the left vs right came to be), so I was a bit frustrated how harshly the left came out against this song. I saw some even say it was confederate apologia because it references Richmond, which was the capital of the confederacy.

Like...okay guys. Or maybe he chose it because it sounds like "Rich men." 

The right certainly did run with it, until he came out and said he didn't like the GOP debate referencing his song because, in his view, that song was about the people on that stage (among others, of course).

Since then, it's been a bit more of a mixed bag response across all sectors. Lefties loved that follow up video, righties hated it. Some right wingers did not appreciate him not falling in line.

In that same video, he doesn't have the signature southern accent from the song, so some have even accused him of faking being a country person for fame and clout. Which I also found interesting. 

I figured it was just code switching. But others feel like he devised some scheme to trick country people into liking him and then, what, he just forgot to use his accent in a video that he pre-recorded and posted onto his Youtube channel? He'd give the game away that quickly?

None of that matters, I'm just rambling now. The point is, this song is fascinating in a lot of ways. From the lyrics, to the politics to the perceived politics to who didn't like it (or him) and why. It's just peak American politics. All wrapped up into a single song.

All of this is why I don't hitch my wagon to the latest viral thing, or the most popular thing.

Too often, especially now, everything has to be black or white and the nuances get ignored and the meaning gets fit into whatever personal agenda people have.

Good post.

[CJD]

(08-28-2023, 12:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Can't disagree with this.  The older I get the more I recognize the conscious decisions at higher levels to keep people squabbling with each other instead of noticing the hand that's picking their pockets.  Take the recent shooting that's now all over the news.  Why the hyper focus on this shooting instead of the other shooting that took place this week?  Because it foments racial tension, so highlighting it gets people angry.  Black people are angry because three people were killed.  White people, right leaning at least, are angry because focusing on this killing comes off as painting them as inherently racist.  Meanwhile there are shootings in which three or more people are killed every week, but you'll never hear about them.  Are those victims less important?  Is this killer uniquely evil?  Or is it a big loud distraction?

There's a clear agenda at work here, and it has nothing to do with what it says it is, and that's equally true for both sides.

The reason racially motivated shootings get more tv time than a typical shooting is because they're much scarier. And the news loves scaring people. Because scared people watch more news. The more news is watched, the higher the ratings, the more they can demand from advertisers.

(It's capitalism, baby!)

If a person killed 3 people who he was working with and they screwed him over in some way, that's tragic but not all that scary. The takeaway message would be "oh okay, well, if I don't screw someone over, then I won't be murdered. This story is not relevant to me."

If a man murders his wife for cheating on him and the person she was cheating on him with, the takeaway message would be "oh okay, well, I didn't cheat on my husband and I am not the lover of a cheater, so this story does not apply to me."

Racially/Religiously/Identity motivated murders like this one make the news because the violence is, essentially, senseless. A black person cannot stop being black. A Latino person cannot stop being Latino. A Jewish person cannot stop being Jewish. A Christian person cannot stop being Christian. At least not within reason (you can technically stop being Christian, but that is not a reasonable step to prevent being murdered by a stranger in a grocery store or school).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 11:27 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The reason racially motivated shootings get more tv time than a typical shooting is because they're much scarier. And the news loves scaring people. Because scared people watch more news. The more news is watched, the higher the ratings, the more they can demand from advertisers.

(It's capitalism, baby!)

If a person killed 3 people who he was working with and they screwed him over in some way, that's tragic but not all that scary. The takeaway message would be "oh okay, well, if I don't screw someone over, then I won't be murdered. This story is not relevant to me."

If a man murders his wife for cheating on him and the person she was cheating on him with, the takeaway message would be "oh okay, well, I didn't cheat on my husband and I am not the lover of a cheater, so this story does not apply to me."

Racially/Religiously/Identity motivated murders like this one make the news because the violence is, essentially, senseless. A black person cannot stop being black. A Latino person cannot stop being Latino. A Jewish person cannot stop being Jewish. A Christian person cannot stop being Christian. At least not within reason (you can technically stop being Christian, but that is not a reasonable step to prevent being murdered by a stranger in a grocery store or school).

I'd like to agree with you, but history rather works against this.  Just look at the incidents Biden chooses to comment on, or better yet visit.  Hell, with the transgender shooter in Georgia the three clown state legislators got more media coverage and attention than the shooter or victims.  And this was yet another shooter motivated by hate.  How much hate we don't know, as their manifesto still hasn't been released, unlike this current shooter.

Biden's grimy ass even had the "Tennessee three"  idiots to the White House, but not a damn thing for the victims.  While your post does explain part of this, it doesn't explain all of it.  There is an agenda here, and it's not hard to see once you notice it.  Honestly, having those lawmakers to the White House while ignoring the victims and their families was nauseating.  If it can't be blamed on "white supremacy" the Dems don't give a shit about it.

[CJD]

(08-29-2023, 11:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd like to agree with you, but history rather works against this.  Just look at the incidents Biden chooses to comment on, or better yet visit.  Hell, with the transgender shooter in Georgia the three clown state legislators got more media coverage and attention than the shooter or victims.  And this was yet another shooter motivated by hate.  How much hate we don't know, as their manifesto still hasn't been released, unlike this current shooter.

Biden's grimy ass even had the "Tennessee three"  idiots to the White House, but not a damn thing for the victims.  While your post does explain part of this, it doesn't explain all of it.  There is an agenda here, and it's not hard to see once you notice it.  Honestly, having those lawmakers to the White House while ignoring the victims and their families was nauseating.  If it can't be blamed on "white supremacy" the Dems don't give a shit about it.

Point of clarification, is the Jacksonville shooters' manifesto actually released? This article from Forbes said that was rightwing misinformation intended to divide people by comparing this shooting to the trans shooter you mentioned:

Quote:Conspiracy theorists on Twitter spent the weekend insisting the racist shooter in Jacksonville, Florida who killed three people on Saturday was part of a “psyop” somehow organized by the U.S. government. As evidence for the theory, many far-right accounts said the shooter’s manifesto was immediately released, while other left-wing shooters have had their manifestos withheld. The only problem? That’s simply not true.
...
Jacksonville sheriff T.K. Waters held a news conference on Sunday explaining the case, including the fact that 21-year-old Ryan Christopher Palmeter shot three Black people at a local Dollar General store in what authorities say was a racist hate crime. Waters says the shooter wrote “several” manifestos that “detailed the shooter’s disgusting ideology of hate.” Palmeter eventually turned the gun on himself.

But those manifestos have not been released, contrary to widespread reports on Twitter, the social media platform now officially known as X, where people insist the manifestos have been publicly released by local authorities.

“Plainly put, this shooting was racially motivated, and he hated Black people,” Waters said at the Sunday news conference.
...
Manifestos from mass shooters of any political persuasion are typically not released by police, though the rise of the internet over the past two decades has allowed plenty of them to first share their hateful ideas online before they carry out their attacks. The Jacksonville shooter did not share his manifestos online, nor did the Nashville Christian School shooter.

I looked around and couldn't find any report indicating the manifesto had been released. It sounds like the Sheriff just mentioned that the contents of the manifesto confirmed it was a racially motivated crime.

Are you suggesting that he said that specifically to create racial tensions? Because Waters happens to be a Republican.

As for the Tennessee three, I agree that was clearly partisan. The Republicans of Tennessee did a stupid thing, which was made even worse by that one guy who voted against the two black members but not the white member (why did he do that shit? Made them look HORRIBLE), and Biden wanted to highlight that stupid thing the Republicans did.

The agenda there was highlighting a Republican mistake and highlighting a group of young congresspeople who may convert this publicity into national seats from Tennessee in the US congress in the near future (currently both Senators, and 8 of 9 US Representatives from Tennessee are Republicans)

I can't speak to why Biden didn't invite the victims of the shooting to the Whitehouse. I can't say how common that is for other shootings either. If he has invited the victims of several other shootings to the White house, but not these, then I agree with you that's a slimy move.

If it isn't common practice to invite victims of a shooting to the White House, then this would fall in line with the standard.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 12:57 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Point of clarification, is the Jacksonville shooters' manifesto actually released? This article from Forbes said that was rightwing misinformation intended to divide people by comparing this shooting to the trans shooter you mentioned:

I looked around and couldn't find any report indicating the manifesto had been released. It sounds like the Sheriff just mentioned that the contents of the manifesto confirmed it was a racially motivated crime.

I actually got it from the Atlantic, in the following article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/jacksonville-killer-wanted-everyone-know-his-message-hate/675155/

He was in possession of an AR-15-style weapon and a handgun; he left manifestos about his hatred toward African Americans; he was wearing a tactical-style uniform, as if going to war. 

From the underlined.  Maybe they didn't release the entire manifesto, as I can't find it either.  In this instance the point still stands, as we have zero idea what is in the TN shooters manifesto.  Of course, The Atlantic had to make this about a broad ongoing plan.

His actions yesterday were not just a hate crime. They were a performance for all the world to see. This is the age of mass shooting as production. And we misunderstand what is happening if we see this as a play with only one act at a time.

Quite the Qanon style conspiracy statement, no?  This type of "journalism" is common for shootings in which the shooter was white and motivated by race.

Quote:Are you suggesting that he said that specifically to create racial tensions? Because Waters happens to be a Republican.

[url=https://ballotpedia.org/T.K._Waters][/url]
I actually think he said it to calm people and assure them this is the act of a lone individual.  Interesting that left leaning media has used to to claim the exact opposite.

Quote:As for the Tennessee three, I agree that was clearly partisan. The Republicans of Tennessee did a stupid thing, which was made even worse by that one guy who voted against the two black members but not the white member (why did he do that shit? Made them look HORRIBLE), and Biden wanted to highlight that stupid thing the Republicans did.

The agenda there was highlighting a Republican mistake and highlighting a group of young congresspeople who may convert this publicity into national seats from Tennessee in the US congress in the near future (currently both Senators, and 8 of 9 US Representatives from Tennessee are Republicans)

You are absolutely correct, which IMO makes it even scummier.  You're trying to score points of dead children, all the while making no effort to contact the victims families.  Contrast that with an in person visit to Buffalo.

Quote:I can't speak to why Biden didn't invite the victims of the shooting to the Whitehouse. I can't say how common that is for other shootings either. If he has invited the victims of several other shootings to the White house, but not these, then I agree with you that's a slimy move.

If it isn't common practice to invite victims of a shooting to the White House, then this would fall in line with the standard.

Well, he visited Buffalo, Uvalde and Monterey Park in person.  He did send his wife to TN, I guess those dead kids weren't important enough for him to come.  My main point is that these shootings are used to further an agenda.  It's always gun control, as you repeatedly get the bald face lie that guns are the "#1 cause of death for children" which the media consistently repeats without calling it out for the blatant lie that it is.  And if the shooter is a white male then we'll definitely get the evil "white supremacy" angle as well, even though such incidents account for less than 1% of gun related homicides, likely less than .05%.

For those that care, the following site is an excellent resource on actual gun statistics.  Everything is sourced.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/children-and-guns/

I just posted the link to the page on the lies about children and guns as well as school shootings to address my statements above.

[GMDino]

I mean if the POTUS traveled to every mass shooting in America he wouldn't have time to do anything else.

Just saying.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 01:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: I mean if the POTUS traveled to every mass shooting in America he wouldn't have time to do anything else.

Just saying.

Not if he just went to the ones that get national media coverage.  Considering the vast, vast majority of mass shootings, as defined by the gun control groups, are committed by gang members targeting other gang members.  But those people don't matter because their deaths can't be exploited to further a political agenda, and they certainly work against the Democratic party's narrative about gun violence.


http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/mass-shootings/

[CJD]

(08-29-2023, 01:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually got it from the Atlantic, in the following article.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/jacksonville-killer-wanted-everyone-know-his-message-hate/675155/

He was in possession of an AR-15-style weapon and a handgun; he left manifestos about his hatred toward African Americans; he was wearing a tactical-style uniform, as if going to war. 

From the underlined.  Maybe they didn't release the entire manifesto, as I can't find it either.  In this instance the point still stands, as we have zero idea what is in the TN shooters manifesto.  Of course, The Atlantic had to make this about a broad ongoing plan.

His actions yesterday were not just a hate crime. They were a performance for all the world to see. This is the age of mass shooting as production. And we misunderstand what is happening if we see this as a play with only one act at a time.

Quite the Qanon style conspiracy statement, no?  This type of "journalism" is common for shootings in which the shooter was white and motivated by race.


[url=https://ballotpedia.org/T.K._Waters][/url]
I actually think he said it to calm people and assure them this is the act of a lone individual.  Interesting that left leaning media has used to to claim the exact opposite.



You are absolutely correct, which IMO makes it even scummier.  You're trying to score points of dead children, all the while making no effort to contact the victims families.  Contrast that with an in person visit to Buffalo.


Well, he visited Buffalo, Uvalde and Monterey Park in person.  He did send his wife to TN, I guess those dead kids weren't important enough for him to come.  My main point is that these shootings are used to further an agenda.  It's always gun control, as you repeatedly get the bald face lie that guns are the "#1 cause of death for children" which the media consistently repeats without calling it out for the blatant lie that it is.  And if the shooter is a white male then we'll definitely get the evil "white supremacy" angle as well, even though such incidents account for less than 1% of gun related homicides, likely less than .05%.

For those that care, the following site is an excellent resource on actual gun statistics.  Everything is sourced.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/children-and-guns/

I just posted the link to the page on the lies about children and guns as well as school shootings to address my statements above.

I disagree with your interpretation of that particular sentence in the Atlantic article. I think mass shootings keep occurring because they are publicized. The whole "world stage" thing is just this author's way of saying "These shooters are doing this because they know it will make the headlines, which will cause people to talk about them and their reasoning etc." I don't consider that a conspiracy theory to think these shooters want attention. They write those manifestos for a reason. And that reason is to be noticed and talked about. 

Now...the problem with that is a journalist is saying it while talking about the shooting. I've long held the belief that mass shootings would decrease in occurrence if the shooters and their reasoning were not even identified. Just say "a person shot 3 people. Here are the three people. The shooter's identity and ideology are not important."

But then, that goes against human nature. We yearn to understand why things happen, which leads to us inevitably investigating deranged shooters' histories, which uncover social media posts that reveal their ideology and they even write their own manifestos etc. It's part of human preservation to understand why a person would murder 3 strangers and tie that back into whether you are in danger of something similar happening to you.

I think the much more interesting discussion is WHY these shooters are motivated by race. Why would a 21 year old white man in America hate black people to the degree that he'd gun down 3 strangers? Why would he take his own life just to get this small ounce of what he perceives to be "justice" for whatever ills, cultural, societal, personal or otherwise, he attributes to black people?

For the trans shooter, we know they went to that school, so a lot of people speculated that they were, in some way, mentally scarred by their upbringing involving that school and went insane and shot the school up. There was a personal link to the school that was easily identifiable and from there, motives were assumed. We won't know for sure that that is the reasoning, but the link is easy enough to make. If a man kills his wife, you figure she probably did something he didn't like. If a worker shoots up his job, you figure they probably hated the people they had to interact with every day. If a student shoots up the school they are currently going to, you figure they hated the people they were around all day every day. There's a personal link between the shooter and the victims, no matter how vague or tangential it is.

But why does a 21 year old white man hate black people? Why strangers? It makes no sense to a logical individual. So you pull on that thread.

But then, that often devolves into a question of what media he consumes and whether that media is propaganda and/or meant to generate a response such as fear or anger (to keep the clicks coming) and now we're back to the capitalism angle.

There's no way to discuss things like this without slinging mud one way or another. The talk that you consider an "agenda."

As far as the gun control discussion, I am not well versed enough in the topic to counter anything on that website. It seems like they did their homework, but I'm not about to dig into a bunch of studies to verify they are interpreting the data correctly. I personally find it unusual that this is a uniquely American phenomenon (I know there have been the occasional mass shooting in other countries, but nowhere near the scale as in America), but I could chalk that up to any number of things. Without data behind it, it would just be speculation.

On the Biden point, politicians use any and every opportunity to score points. Nothing is sacred to politicians.

That's literally what the Republicans in Tennessee did. They attempted to expel these three people from Congress because they thought it would be politically advantageous to do so. It just so happens, they misread the situation and it backfired on them immensely. And Biden took advantage of that misjudgment.

That's what makes them politicians and there's a reason nobody likes politicians. They all became politicians because they wanted to make some change to the world (even if that change is just to assist in their own enrichment haha) and that involves influencing people to side with you or your allies.

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 01:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not if he just went to the ones that get national media coverage.  Considering the vast, vast majority of mass shootings, as defined by the gun control groups, are committed by gang members targeting other gang members.  But those people don't matter because their deaths can't be exploited to further a political agenda, and they certainly work against the Democratic party's narrative about gun violence.


http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/mass-shootings/

This stuff gets brought up all the time.  I lived in a suburb of Chicago for 2 years and the way people talk about that place you'd think I was the ultimate badass to walk out of that warzone unharmed.  Personally, I like to take talking points from both sides because I'm a nihilist who wants to conclude that people were merely born to kill each other and guns just make it easier.

EDIT - actually, it's probably more accurate to say that Americans dream about shooting each other, and then sometimes some people actually go out and do it.

[HarleyDog]

(08-29-2023, 02:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote:  Personally, I like to take talking points from both sides because I'm a nihilist who wants to conclude that people were merely born to kill each other and guns just make it easier.

Fun Fact: Cigarettes kill more people than guns each year. So why not a major push to ban cigarettes? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 03:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Fun Fact: Cigarettes kill more people than guns each year. So why not a major push to ban cigarettes? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It wouldn't surprise me if Americans spend more on guns per year than cigarettes.  Guns are a huge business, and I never cared for smoking but I won't rule out dropping a few thousand on guns in my life.

[HarleyDog]

(08-29-2023, 03:07 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if Americans spend more on guns per year than cigarettes.  Guns are a huge business, and I never cared for smoking but I won't rule out dropping a few thousand on guns in my life.

IMO, overall, I would say there's no comparison to money spent on Cigarettes vs. guns. Cigarettes is a huge revenue to both state and federal government. The point is, don't fall for the gun hype. If politicians really gave a damn about you, they would have been trying to ban cigarettes. But, they want that money.

[CJD]

(08-29-2023, 03:03 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Fun Fact: Cigarettes kill more people than guns each year. So why not a major push to ban cigarettes? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It's Capitalism, baby!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-29-2023, 02:35 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I disagree with your interpretation of that particular sentence in the Atlantic article. I think mass shootings keep occurring because they are publicized. The whole "world stage" thing is just this author's way of saying "These shooters are doing this because they know it will make the headlines, which will cause people to talk about them and their reasoning etc." I don't consider that a conspiracy theory to think these shooters want attention. They write those manifestos for a reason. And that reason is to be noticed and talked about.

I 100% agree.  The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the legacy media is scrambling to stay afloat with the proliferation of news sites available to the public.  Sensationalism is a survival strategy for them at this point. 

Quote:Now...the problem with that is a journalist is saying it while talking about the shooting. I've long held the belief that mass shootings would decrease in occurrence if the shooters and their reasoning were not even identified. Just say "a person shot 3 people. Here are the three people. The shooter's identity and ideology are not important."

And this is a common problem in modern journalism.  They muddy the waters in their own stories.  The difference between me and you is I think this is done deliberately.

Quote:But then, that goes against human nature. We yearn to understand why things happen, which leads to us inevitably investigating deranged shooters' histories, which uncover social media posts that reveal their ideology and they even write their own manifestos etc. It's part of human preservation to understand why a person would murder 3 strangers and tie that back into whether you are in danger of something similar happening to you.

I think the much more interesting discussion is WHY these shooters are motivated by race. Why would a 21 year old white man in America hate black people to the degree that he'd gun down 3 strangers? Why would he take his own life just to get this small ounce of what he perceives to be "justice" for whatever ills, cultural, societal, personal or otherwise, he attributes to black people?

Racism, at a personal level, is IMO at an all time low.  Or rather, it was until very recently.  What I think is happening is a combination of factors.  Some people fear the country no longer resembling what they grew up with.  This is coupled with this belief, which is rather consistently advanced, that the US is irredeemably racist and anyone supporting it is guilty of the same.  Another issue is that many view it as a uniquely white issue, which it most certainly isn't and was vividly demonstrated during the "stop Asian hate" news cycle.  The problem isn't discussed honestly by pretty much anyone and the few people who do try and have this conversation are immediately attacked and labeled.

Quote:For the trans shooter, we know they went to that school, so a lot of people speculated that they were, in some way, mentally scarred by their upbringing involving that school and went insane and shot the school up. There was a personal link to the school that was easily identifiable and from there, motives were assumed. We won't know for sure that that is the reasoning, but the link is easy enough to make. If a man kills his wife, you figure she probably did something he didn't like. If a worker shoots up his job, you figure they probably hated the people they had to interact with every day. If a student shoots up the school they are currently going to, you figure they hated the people they were around all day every day. There's a personal link between the shooter and the victims, no matter how vague or tangential it is.

Maybe.  We could actually know if the details of their manifest were released, or even discussed.  That they haven't is, as you stated earlier, grist for the mill for the far right.

Quote:But why does a 21 year old white man hate black people? Why strangers? It makes no sense to a logical individual. So you pull on that thread.

But then, that often devolves into a question of what media he consumes and whether that media is propaganda and/or meant to generate a response such as fear or anger (to keep the clicks coming) and now we're back to the capitalism angle.

There's no way to discuss things like this without slinging mud one way or another. The talk that you consider an "agenda."

The reason I label it an agenda is because there's a clear pattern at work.  That, and the topic is never discussed in an open and fair manner.  Biden will ramble on endlessly about "white supremacy" (despite making an extremely racist statement himself on the floor of Congress) but ignoring the vast majority of shootings that he can't turn into political capital.

Quote:As far as the gun control discussion, I am not well versed enough in the topic to counter anything on that website. It seems like they did their homework, but I'm not about to dig into a bunch of studies to verify they are interpreting the data correctly. I personally find it unusual that this is a uniquely American phenomenon (I know there have been the occasional mass shooting in other countries, but nowhere near the scale as in America), but I could chalk that up to any number of things. Without data behind it, it would just be speculation.

Actually, the second link I posted addresses exactly that, and it's not what you think.  I discovered that guy on Twitter a long time ago.  He's a great source for scientific evidence and actual statistics.  He consistently tweets in response to Everytown, Gifford and Shannon Watts and they never, ever respond.  He's not rude or abrasive either, he just counters their false claims with actual facts.

Quote:On the Biden point, politicians use any and every opportunity to score points. Nothing is sacred to politicians.

That's literally what the Republicans in Tennessee did. They attempted to expel these three people from Congress because they thought it would be politically advantageous to do so. It just so happens, they misread the situation and it backfired on them immensely. And Biden took advantage of that misjudgment.

I actually had zero issue with them being expelled based on their flagrant violation of the rules.  The argument that other people hadn't been expelled doesn't really impress me.  "But he did it to" stopped being a reasonable excuse for behavior in grade school.

Quote:That's what makes them politicians and there's a reason nobody likes politicians. They all became politicians because they wanted to make some change to the world (even if that change is just to assist in their own enrichment haha) and that involves influencing people to side with you or your allies.

Which I understand.  When I take issue with it is when it is in promotion of a lie, especially a lie being told to try and curtail the rights of others.

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2023, 03:23 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: IMO, overall, I would say there's no comparison to money spent on Cigarettes vs. guns. Cigarettes is a huge revenue to both state and federal government. The point is, don't fall for the gun hype. If politicians really gave a damn about you, they would have been trying to ban cigarettes. But, they want that money.

I'm not saying that I think politicians give a damn about me, I'm just saying guns have huge lobbies and bring in billions of dollars, too.