This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How are they not? These don't seem to be "gang member just shoots another gang member" shootings, they include multiple victims and motivations outside of gang affailation. Evergreen, Antioch and FSU seem to have been motivated by neonazism (Ikner of FSU even used a Hitler profile picture and called his gaming account Schutzstaffel), not gang violence.
Lincoln University shooting is barely covered in the news, it was basically just dropped right away. Which really is just another piece of evidence towards society not really caring about mass shootings that we don't even have followup on a 7 person attack.
For one thing, certain bodies (among them Mother Jones) define a "mass shooting" as one in which at least three fatalities are incurred.
Ok well I think that's a ridiculous definition as I already explained. The idea that distance to a hospital or a shooters aiming skill makes a meaningful difference seems laughable.
"makes a meaningful difference" to what?
In the context of discussing mass shootings obviously.
I still don't understand your point. The number of people killed doesn't make a meaningful difference to what does and doesn't count as a mass shooting? If a lot of people aren't killed, in what sense is it a mass shooting?
Compare "mass casualty event".
I think you're perhaps inadvertently reinforcing my point. magicalkittycat is taking a very literal understanding of the terms that I would assert is outside common parlance; at least outside of the common parlance of a significant group of people.
There was a "shooting"; shots were literally fired, multiple people were hurt. As you note a mass causality event, but within valid definitions of the terms "mass", "shooting", and "casualty" synonyms.
It's like when people post a stat about "gun violence" that include suicides. Yes, some literal definitions of violence can encompass suicide but it's not the norm.
As I pointed out with magicalkittycat initial example, the shooter got 5 years. While injured vs fatalities might make no meaningful difference to magicalkittycat it makes a massive difference to the justice system.
If your point is that "a bunch of people got shot but only one person was killed" does not reflect how the term "mass shooting" is used in common parlance, then I agree with you. Is that what you're driving at?
Yes, that is what I'm driving at.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link