Some things need to be said

[pucho812]

https://www.villagevoice.com/2014/08/06/ask-andrew-w-k-my-dad-is-a-right-wing-asshole/?fbclid=IwAR1OHFmb_4DAQEwnKu0ji-9r65ConhXJT9AUBGGHqZPBNphqzek9Z_GxWmQ

 

[Matador]

While it exposes a nice sentiment, I don't think anyone should be beholden to toxicity from anyone, especially from family.  While we have freedom of belief and expression of those beliefs, it doesn't mean we are free of the consequences of those beliefs and expressions.  It's interesting that the advice is to learn to accept and understand others, even when they aren't offering any acceptance or understanding in return.

 

[ruffrecords]

While it exposes a nice sentiment, I don't think anyone should be beholden to toxicity from anyone, especially from family.  While we have freedom of belief and expression of those beliefs, it doesn't mean we are free of the consequences of those beliefs and expressions. 

Indeed people forget freedoms are not free. Each one comes with a corresponding responsibility.

Cheers

Ian

 

[pucho812]

We don’t know if they are offering acceptance or understanding in return, the letter is not clear. Hard to accept someone or understand them when all they do is hate you for “insert here”

 

[boji]

On Dad's and douchb**ry-
When I was younger, politics created many fights between my Dad and I, much like the story in Pucho's post. Now that I'm at the age where being a father is on my mind, I have even less respect for the way he handled our disagreements.  What could have been instructive moments on the first-principles of conservative thinking never improved beyond, 'That's an idiotic thing to believe. Instead, think this'. 

Everything that goes around...
Now that I've mellowed-out and quietly rejected the religion of the left, I receive the same kind of vibe from many of my fellow liberals. In a strange reversal of mine and my father's roles, it appears the average left-leaning social media poster has no interest in my privileged, 'likely-harboring-racist-tendencies' approach towards conversation.
Not only did I not 'like' their cartoon of Trump winding up kkk dolls and toy soldiers (Here, think this), I had the gall to submit data on the number of mass shootings that occurred under Obama's watch ("that's a stupid thing to believe, fake news, how dare you" were the replies). 

As if by clockwork, should I now take issue with anything my liberal friends have to say on FB, it turns into coded instructions on why they have the best moral compass (really, it's tremendous).  Was I this good at deflection and psychological projection a decade ago with my dad? I'm sure the hard-right pundits don't let these kinds of tactics go unused either, but with few exceptions, the average liberal is only focused on drowning out evilspeak with peals from the trumpet of righteousness.  Meanwhile, big data is poised to completely overwrite the U.S. democratic voting system by 2020. Do any of you experience the same thing but from the right? Maybe I need more right-leaning friends for perspective?  :

 

[hodad]

had the gall to submit data on the number of mass shootings that occurred under Obama's watch ("that's a stupid thing to believe, fake news, how dare you" were the replies). 

I did a quick calculation from the first reputable source to show up on an internet search.  Not counting number of shootings but number of deaths & injuries:

Obama:  8 years, 275 dead, 295 wounded.
Trump:  2.5 years, 247 dead, 607 wounded. 

What qualifies as a mass shooting is certainly up for debate, so take it for what it's worth.

But even more:  what were you trying to prove?  Obama was in favor of sensible gun control laws but was thwarted by the NRA and Republicans in Congress. 
Obama didn't encourage this sort of behavior in his followers either, whereas Trump is counting on racial divisivenes & anti-immigrant rhetoric to keep his base charged up. 

I can think of only one noteworthy politically motivated shooting by an American left-winger in the past dozen years, and it didn't qualify as mass (the Steve Scalise shooting, if you were wondering.)  I can't say the same for the right.

 

[pucho812]

You can fudge the numbers to prove anything. I had a friend try and tell me most mass shooters were white and when I proved him incorrect, he changed the argument. What I find most interesting about the gun control debate is how most mass shootings would not be prevented by gun control. We had one recently upstate from me  in gilroy California. The shooter had an illegal(by ca law) firearm  which he purchased in Nevada and drove it into the state . We also had a mass knifing the other day around the corner from me. 
All that detracts from the op which is for the most part people have reduced their love ones from a person  to a singular thought process. If they disagree with that thought, then to hell with them. It doesn’t make life better. We can agree to disagree but we can still be respectful and such. 

 

[Matador]

Not only did I not 'like' their cartoon of Trump winding up kkk dolls and toy soldiers (Here, think this), I had the gall to submit data on the number of mass shootings that occurred under Obama's watch ("that's a stupid thing to believe, fake news, how dare you" were the replies). 

Then those people are idiots.  There's nothing wrong with bringing up what happened under Obama's term, however it's also hard to say with a straight face that any of his legislative ideas would have moved anywhere in Congress (like his call to renew the assault weapons ban in 2013).

However none of this addresses the current administrations actions.  Most (if not all) of Obama's executive actions on background checks and restrictions on gun purchases were undone quickly once Trump was in office.

You can fudge the numbers to prove anything. I had a friend try and tell me most mass shooters were white and when I proved him incorrect, he changed the argument.

Except he's mostly correct, however the outcome depends on the definition for 'mass shooter' in the context of the data.  If you include gang crime, or any incident with three or more fatalities using a firearm (a common criterion for Congress and the FBI), then the result is mixed (roughly 64% white).  However nobody really defines 'mass shooter' with those terms:  if you only consider people who enter public places with the intent to kill random strangers, then the top 5 deadliest shootings (combined with over 100 victims) were 100% perpetrated by white men.

 

[pucho812]

according to CNN even the top 5 mass shooting in the U.S. were not all done by white people.

What does it prove, nothing other then sick people are sick and need help.

World needs more love and less hate but I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[L´Andratté]

What does it prove, nothing other then sick people are sick and need help.

World needs more love and less hate but I don't see that happening any time soon.

So nothing can be done? Our hands are tied? Cui bono?

While the need for more love is real it is also quite abstract. But life is not abstract.
The shooters of Christchurch or El Paso they weren´t schizoid, not that I know of.
Sickness is an excuse, for a society that breeds hate and inequality and does not take responsibility for it. I´m not talking about US only here btw.

There´s a reason for these things to happen, when and where they happen.
And the answers are most uncomfortable.
But our hands are not tied, I don´t think so.

On a sidenote: Interesting web site "Calling bullsh*t"
https://www.callingbullsh*t.org/videos.html

(link needs manual fixing)

 

[boji]

what were you trying to prove?

Mostly that hate and murder wasn't born the day Trump took office. 

To further the point, it's not like these shooters sit in their rooms and wait for tweets from politicians to carry out their plans.  They are not wind-up toys. They are psychologically damaged, desperate and complex; primed by forces we don't yet fully understand.

And instead of trying to understand how someone gets to the point where they choose to die and to take as many people with them into hell, the left projects their fears into a familiar orange pig-demon, and begs their friends to help send it over the cliff.
In truth what politicians say isn't really going to change a mass shooter's mind.  What changes a shooter's mind would be a set of positive circumstances that offset a willingness to die in a fiery blaze of *** all of you,  *** this world.

 

[L´Andratté]

Mostly that hate and murder wasn't born the day Trump took office. 

To further the point, it's not like these shooters sit in their rooms and wait for tweets from politicians to carry out their plans.  They are not wind-up toys. They are psychologically damaged, desperate and complex; primed by forces we don't yet fully understand.

With all respect, I think while being right, you are still very wrong in ignoring a positive feedback loop.

You don´t have a ton of stale water in your backyard in the summer and say
"so what, mosquitos have been here long before, nothing can be done".

Those fringe people are emboldened by the (hopefully wrong) notion of being backed by the silent masses. Of course there will be always incidents like those shootings, but why boost them?

And weapons access (can of worms).

PS fxxx the left and right those concepts have become misleading and unclear. Why use words that have a private meaning for everybody? I´m what you´d call left but endlessly sick of twitter zealots etc.
Virtue signaling is not any help.

 

[boji]

very wrong in ignoring a positive feedback loop

I don't think you're actually drilling into what I'm saying, my friend.

Shooters are not mosquitoes.  Trump is not creating shooters.  We are creating shooters. Until the language of idealism is exchanged for a change of personal behavior- not by the words and cartoons of others- but by each individual coming to terms with the fact that they are what creates evil, all moral posturing is just a can of repellant. Understand evil, understand yourself.  It's those who think themselves above evil that look for evil in others. This is a main reason I have parted with where the left wants to go. They've lost the appreciation for what moral flag waving does to a society (Christian conservatives know all about it).

Edit: I use the word 'evil' as a catch-all for pestilence and murder-- anything that openingly betrays health and welfare.
Also since most on the left see Trump as an evil archetype, it fits. But these are not my ideas.  These are ideas of people much smarter and wiser than me that ring true. I could name-drop, but there are people around here who have made up their minds those names stand-in for evil too.  :

 

[AusTex64]

While it exposes a nice sentiment, I don't think anyone should be beholden to toxicity from anyone, especially from family.  While we have freedom of belief and expression of those beliefs, it doesn't mean we are free of the consequences of those beliefs and expressions.  It's interesting that the advice is to learn to accept and understand others, even when they aren't offering any acceptance or understanding in return.

A popular saying in 12 step programs is “clean up your side of the street”.

Consider what The Stoics had to say about accepting others but still maintaining one’s own virtues. Especially Marcus Aurelius.

Finally, the Golden Rule doesn’t say anything about “love others as you would like them to love you, but only if they love you back in the same way.” Also commandment #5 doesn’t say “honor your father and mother, but only if you approve of their beliefs, actions and attitudes.”

The only person I have control of is myself. And that’s contentious at times....

 

[Matador]

I wasn't saying he should be mean to his father, or treat him other than he should want to be treated.  I am saying, "Stop planting flowers in people's yard who aren't going to water them."