Another Day In The USA

[Derec]

So how does that fit the leftist myth that mass shooters are white?

The argument is the vast majority of mass shooters are white because that is the reality in the USA. According to this site - https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/ - out of the 114 public mass shootings between 1982 and August 2019, 64 were by white shooters. The next largest were 19 by black shooters.

Even though it excludes non-public mass shootings (whatever that is), 64/114 (56%) is still less than the proportion of white people in the US. So whites are actually underrepresented among mass shooters, contrary to the media narrative of those "white people" being uniquely responsible for mass shootings.

 

[laughing dog]

So how does that fit the leftist myth that mass shooters are white?

The argument is the vast majority of mass shooters are white because that is the reality in the USA. According to this site - https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/ - out of the 114 public mass shootings between 1982 and August 2019, 64 were by white shooters. The next largest were 19 by black shooters.

Even though it excludes non-public mass shootings (whatever that is), 64/114 (56%) is still less than the proportion of white people in the US. So whites are actually underrepresented among mass shooters, contrary to the media narrative of those "white people" being uniquely responsible for mass shootings.

The media narrative is not that the white people are uniquely responsible but they are the majority of the shooters, so you are attacking a straw man. And the fact remains that a majority of these shooters are white people.

BTW, non-public mass shootings include multiple shootings during the commission of another felony and domestic violence.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It stands for ArmaLite.

Pretty certain PyramidHead was being facetious.

There is insufficient evidence to reach that conclusion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So how does that fit the leftist myth that mass shooters are white?

The argument is the vast majority of mass shooters are white because that is the reality in the USA. According to this site - https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/ - out of the 114 public mass shootings between 1982 and August 2019, 64 were by white shooters. The next largest were 19 by black shooters.

Thus whites are underrepresented in mass shooters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even though it excludes non-public mass shootings (whatever that is), 64/114 (56%) is still less than the proportion of white people in the US. So whites are actually underrepresented among mass shooters, contrary to the media narrative of those "white people" being uniquely responsible for mass shootings.

Non-public mass shootings are either domestics (someone killing their family and generally then themselves) or gang warfare.

 

[ruby sparks]

I guess that is the underlying, ultimate fear, yes, though it's unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes, at least not in the US or Western Europe. Far into the future, who knows? The projected numbers are definitely not looking good, for one thing.

Imo it's a good time to make friends with people from other tribes rather than try to circle the wagons.

Which white, cisgendered, straight, 'westen' male are you guys calling "he"?

I don't understand your question.

Oh right. My spelling mistake. Yes, I spotted that too late.

 

[Bomb#20]

Which white, cisgendered, straight, 'westen' male are you guys calling "he"?

I don't understand your question.

Oh right. My spelling mistake. Yes, I spotted that too late.

No, not your spelling mistake.

Which white, cisgendered, straight male are you guys calling "he"? What's hard to understand about that question? You used a singular personal pronoun. "White, cisgendered, straight, 'westen' male is on the defensive these days, unsurprisingly, because he detects threats to his standing, which is being assaulted and eroded on several fronts." A singular pronoun refers to a single person. Which person? Who is the white, cisgendered, straight male that you are claiming detects threats to his standing?

I'm asking because I wish to fact-check ZiprHead's claim in post #360 (which you appear to have endorsed in your reply to him) that the person you're referring to by "he" is a person who treated minorities the way he fears that someday he will be treated.

I suspect that ZiprHead's claim is false. I suspect you two are using "he" to refer not to anyone in particular but rather to a personification of white, cisgendered, straight males collectively. It's sort of like the way other writers have written about "the Jew". And I suspect you two are laying former bad treatment of minorities at the door of this nonexistent generic white, cisgendered, straight male rhetorically, in order to lay it at the door of real live white, cisgendered, straight males who are on the defensive these days, in order to delegitimize their reasons for feeling defensive by holding them responsible for that former bad treatment of minorities, in spite of the fact that the white, cisgendered, straight males who treated minorities badly were completely different people from the defensive white, cisgendered, straight males whose reasons you're trying to rhetorically delegitimize. It's sort of like the way other writers have rhetorically laid the usurious interest rate some Jewish moneylender charged his clients at the door of every Jew in the world.

So show my suspicions are wrong. Tell us which white, cisgendered, straight male you guys are calling "he".

 

[ruby sparks]

Which white, cisgendered, straight, 'westen' male are you guys calling "he"?

I don't understand your question.

Oh right. My spelling mistake. Yes, I spotted that too late.

No, not your spelling mistake.

Which white, cisgendered, straight male are you guys calling "he"? What's hard to understand about that question? You used a singular personal pronoun. "White, cisgendered, straight, 'westen' male is on the defensive these days, unsurprisingly, because he detects threats to his standing, which is being assaulted and eroded on several fronts." A singular pronoun refers to a single person. Which person? Who is the white, cisgendered, straight male that you are claiming detects threats to his standing?

I'm asking because I wish to fact-check ZiprHead's claim in post #360 (which you appear to have endorsed in your reply to him) that the person you're referring to by "he" is a person who treated minorities the way he fears that someday he will be treated.

I suspect that ZiprHead's claim is false. I suspect you two are using "he" to refer not to anyone in particular but rather to a personification of white, cisgendered, straight males collectively. It's sort of like the way other writers have written about "the Jew". And I suspect you two are laying former bad treatment of minorities at the door of this nonexistent generic white, cisgendered, straight male rhetorically, in order to lay it at the door of real live white, cisgendered, straight males who are on the defensive these days, in order to delegitimize their reasons for feeling defensive by holding them responsible for that former bad treatment of minorities, in spite of the fact that the white, cisgendered, straight males who treated minorities badly were completely different people from the defensive white, cisgendered, straight males whose reasons you're trying to rhetorically delegitimize. It's sort of like the way other writers have rhetorically laid the usurious interest rate some Jewish moneylender charged his clients at the door of every Jew in the world.

So show my suspicions are wrong. Tell us which white, cisgendered, straight male you guys are calling "he".

I was generalising. Surely that's obvious. And so is Ziprhead I imagine. I for one am aware of the limitations of doing that while doing it.

Also, I am not trying to merely delegitimise feeling defensive, if we are talking generally. It will be, as ever, complicated. Some individual responses, even if they are of a defensive nature (and it's worth pointing out that a reaction isn't always defensive) will be more reasonable than others, imo. Nearly all of them, imo, will be at least understandable, in that they can be understood. Some will be both understandable and reasonable.

Broadly speaking, white, cisgendered, straight, 'western' males have generally had and continue to have (albeit to a lesser extent) more privileges than other groups in society. If you find that controversial then we are in for a long conversation and I'm not sure I'm necessarily up for it. It's a big topic but to me it's non-controversial. Obviously, it's more complicated than that. Some of that group will not have very many privileges at all, and may be indeed be (and are) underprivilged compared to society as a whole. But with the caveat 'all other things being equal' I'm happy with the statement. I think it's also fair to say that that group are losing some of their privileges and that many of them are feeling the loss. It's natural and to be expected.

Imo, there is also a case to say that members of that group (or part-members such as for instance 'white males' or even just 'whites') have been both unfairly demonised and to some extent neglected.

Take Ethnic Studies for example. By and large, from what I've read, that tends to either exclude or not be about, or much about, white people (with at least some justification). And broadly-speaking, Ethnic Studies takes a very positive stance towards its subject groups. By contrast Whiteness Studies generally tend to focus on the negatives of their subject group, as far as I can tell. But to some extent, this is understandable, in a traditionally white-dominated society.

 

[Derec]

The media narrative is not that the white people are uniquely responsible

Have you not watched/read any recently? It's all about how white people are somehow especially vulnerable to becoming a mass shooter.

but they are the majority of the shooters,

Even when excluding "non-public" mass shootings, white people are underrepresented. I.e. there are fewer white mass shooters than you would expect if mass shooters were uniformly distributed in the population.

And the fact remains that a majority of these shooters are white people.

A misleading "fact" because of how many white people there are in the US.

BTW, non-public mass shootings include multiple shootings during the commission of another felony and domestic violence.

I.e. they are excluded because including them would make it even harder to push the "it's white people" narrative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Dayton shooter did not kill his sister; he killed his trans brother.

He was not motivated by any flavor of leftist ideology.

It certainly looks like his relative was his primary target:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...-preparing-to-carry-out-mass-murder-in-dayton

Police Chief Richard Biehl said the shooter drove himself, his sister Megan, and his best friend Charles Beard, from their suburban home on Saturday night

So he certainly knew they were there.

Police said that he had been in communication with his sister for the past hour. They talked on the phone briefly, and then texted back and forth. During that exchange, she informed him that she was by the taco stand adjacent to Blind Bob's.

And knew where they were.

That was also where the shooting began, and his sister was one of the first three people he killed. He then ran down the street toward Ned Peppers, and continued to shoot.

And said relative was one of his first targets.

 

[Half-Life]

So we've established that compared to the percentage of whites in America, whites actually commit less mass shootings, not more.

Whites are 77% of the U.S. population and they commit 56% of mass shootings.

Blacks are 13% of the U.S. population and commit 16% of mass shootings.

Looks like blacks commit more mass murders based on percentage. But, this fact would be racist, so the media can't say it. Neither can you guys on this forum.

 

[Derec]

I guess this mass shooting doesn't matter. Even though the shooter used an assault rifle and everything, he is not the right hue.

The man accused of shooting 6 Philadelphia police officers 'should not have been on the streets,' DA says

Authorities say Maurice Hill, 36, shot and wounded six officers after police attempted to serve a narcotics warrant on a row house Wednesday afternoon. As they got toward the kitchen area, a gunman fired multiple rounds, forcing some officers to escape through the window, authorities said.
Others, including two officers, initially were trapped in the house with the gunman, prompting a SWAT team rescue.
As the shooter shot at police outside, bullets ricocheted on the pavement, sending officers crouching behind police cars.
The suspect surrendered outside almost eight hours after the standoff began.
"We do know this guy came actually outside with a gun ... so this could have been even more dangerous and volatile if not for the professionalism of SWAT" officers, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross said.
[..]
The suspect has a 12-page criminal record with charges including burglary, aggravated assault and taunting a police animal. But only a minority of the charges resulted in convictions, such as one for aggravated assault.
At least two weapons were used in the shooting, said Don Robinson, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agent in charge in Philadelphia.

I am confused by the headline though. Isn't Phily DA, Larry Krasner, one of those "progressive" DAs who doesn't like police locking people up?

[US Attorney] McSwain opened a news conference by reading a statement in which he lambasted the district attorney, a Democrat who took the position in January 2018.
"There is a new culture of disrespect for law enforcement in this city that unfortunately promoted and championed by District Attorney Larry Krasner and I am fed up with it," McSwain said. " ... and now we've endured for a year and half the worst kind of slander against law enforcement, with the DA routinely calling police and prosecutors corrupt and racist, and most recently comparing them to war criminals and comparing them to Nazis."

Charming!

Speaking of "culture of disrespect for law enforcement" ...
Crowd Taunts Philadelphia Police Officers, Laugh At Them In Midst Of Gunfire During Standoff In Nicetown-Tioga

I guess Nicetown ain't that nice ...

 

[laughing dog]

Have you not watched/read any recently? It's all about how white people are somehow especially vulnerable to becoming a mass shooter.

I guess we read different media.

Even when excluding "non-public" mass shootings, white people are underrepresented. I.e. there are fewer white mass shooters than you would expect if mass shooters were uniformly distributed in the population.

There is no rational apriori reason to expect mass shooters to be uniformly distributed in the population?

A misleading "fact" because of how many white people there are in the US.

It is not misleading just because you don't like it.

I.e. they are excluded because including them would make it even harder to push the "it's white people" narrative.

No, mass public shootings tend to have a larger number of victims. Duh.

 

[Jarhyn]

I guess we read different media.

There is no rational apriori reason to expect mass shooters to be uniformly distributed in the population?

A misleading "fact" because of how many white people there are in the US.

It is not misleading just because you don't like it.

I.e. they are excluded because including them would make it even harder to push the "it's white people" narrative.

No, mass public shootings tend to have a larger number of victims. Duh.

Not just more victims with the public shootings, but also a different victim profile. When poor people kill poor people, it's quite often going to be over an economic dispute involving activity that has forcefully been denied oversight by less immediately violent means.

 

[Bomb#20]

I was generalising. Surely that's obvious. And so is Ziprhead I imagine.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Yes, that was obvious. I hope it was also obvious that I was in lawyer mode: "Never, never, never, on cross-examination ask a witness a question you don't already know the answer to, was a tenet I absorbed with my baby-food."

I for one am aware of the limitations of doing that while doing it.

Also, I am not trying to merely delegitimise feeling defensive, if we are talking generally. It will be, as ever, complicated. Some individual responses, even if they are of a defensive nature (and it's worth pointing out that a reaction isn't always defensive) will be more reasonable than others, imo. Nearly all of them, imo, will be at least understandable, in that they can be understood. Some will be both understandable and reasonable.

Broadly speaking, white, cisgendered, straight, 'western' males have generally had and continue to have (albeit to a lesser extent) more privileges than other groups in society. If you find that controversial then we are in for a long conversation and I'm not sure I'm necessarily up for it. It's a big topic but to me it's non-controversial. Obviously, it's more complicated than that. Some of that group will not have very many privileges at all, and may be indeed be (and are) underprivilged compared to society as a whole. But with the caveat 'all other things being equal' I'm happy with the statement.

There's a fair amount to unpack there. I find it controversial, because people casually throw the word "privilege" around without making clear either what the various observable phenomena are that they're referring to, or what characteristic they mean to ascribe to those phenomena by choosing to label them "privileges". But it appears to me that we can divide these phenomena into at least three distinct types: (1) Being treated as an individual rather than as an interchangeable part of some category that lumpers like lumping people into. (2) Not having certain unchosen individual characteristics treated as negatives even though they are not in point of fact negatives. (3) Being given unearned access to intrinsically scarce benefits they have no right to. To my mind, only the third type of phenomenon is properly called a "privilege".

To the extent that people label phenomena of types 1 and 2 "privilege", they appear to me to be engaging in propaganda, not analysis. When people call those "privilege" and suggest that someone objects to losing that "privilege", they're insinuating that he objects not only to not having types 1 and 2, but also that he objects to somebody else getting to have types 1 and 2 too. But there's no limit on how many people can have types 1 and 2. Only type 3 is in limited supply. Objecting to losing types 1 and 2 is a completely different psychological state from objecting to someone else getting types 1 and 2 as well. Calling both those states "feeling the loss of privilege" is an equivocation, and can only obscure what's going on in people's minds.

I think it's also fair to say that that group are losing some of their privileges and that many of them are feeling the loss. It's natural and to be expected.

It is natural and to be expected that people losing any of those three things will feel the loss. That is not a legitimate argument for belittling the injury done to a person being stripped of phenomenon 1 or phenomenon 2 by dismissing his concerns as merely the understandable feelings of any person who's losing phenomenon 3. When social engineers either attempt to treat a white, cisgendered, straight, western male as an interchangeable representative of the generalized archetype of the white, cisgendered, straight, western male rather than as an individual, or they attempt to treat whiteness, cisgenderedness, straightness or westernness as a negative, and then those people interpret the understandable consequent feeling of loss as "feeling the loss of privilege", as though the man's feelings were merely the understandable feelings of any person who's losing preferential access to intrinsically scarce benefits he has no right to -- let alone as though they were the not-so-understandable feelings of a person who objects to somebody else getting to be treated as an individual too -- those people are not being understanding and empathetic about the man's feelings. What they are being is self-congratulatory condescending pricks who are adding insult to injury for the sake of their own self-image as superior life-forms.

But all that is a secondary issue. It is after all natural and to be expected that social engineers, just like everyone else, wish to be the heroes of their own narratives. When they casually insult the victims of their policies while deluding themselves that they're being fair-minded, welcome to H. sapiens. Being insulted by those who consider themselves our betters is part of the human condition. So if you're not sure you're necessarily up for that long conversation, suit yourself. It's secondary.

Imo, there is also a case to say that members of that group (or part-members such as for instance 'white males' or even just 'whites') have been both unfairly demonised

Bingo. That is the primary issue. Sometimes speaking condescendingly of their victims' defensiveness and feelings about "loss of privilege" isn't enough to assuage a social engineer's guilt for treating people as interchangeable parts and for treating irrelevant unchosen traits as negatives. When that happens, sometimes a social engineer feels the need to up the ante and say "I suspect he fears that someday he will be treated the way he treated minorities." That's not lame pop-psychology. That's not condescension. That's not mind-reading unobservable feelings. What that is is a vicious unfounded accusation that his victims are wrongdoers who deserve what he's doing to them as righteous payback for their own sins. That's demonization.

Worse, since you guys are generalizing, and appear to be aware of the limitations of doing that while doing it, you appear to know perfectly well that the "he" in "he fears that someday he will be treated" is a different person from the "he" in "the way he treated minorities", which means it's not just demonization. It's an endorsement of collective guilt.

You wrote "I guess that is the underlying, ultimate fear, yes". That is not the underlying ultimate fear, no. The generic defensive white, cisgendered, straight, western male's underlying ultimate fear is that someday he will be treated the way some completely different person treated minorities, by social engineers who believe in collective guilt. Collective guilt isn't a real thing, but collective punishment is very much a real thing. Collective punishment is a war crime.

and to some extent neglected.

Hey, being unfairly neglected is part of the human condition too. Neglect them if you must. Don't demonize them. Don't punish them. And if you imply you think they're guilty, don't blame them for being afraid of you punishing them.

 

[barbos]

I guess this mass shooting doesn't matter. Even though the shooter used an assault rifle and everything, he is not the right hue.

Generally accepted definition of mass shooting implies planned attack on more less random people with the goal to kill as much people as possible. this is not what we have here.