Conservative
A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff
-
Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
-
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
-
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.
A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.
view the rest of the comments
If you're going to comment, at least try to address what I'm saying.
You know what? Fuck it.
Saying "Gun violence" instead of "Violence" is dog whistling that you care more about disarming people than saving lives.
That aside, yes, most political violence world wide is right wing violence. This is mainly due to Islamic terrorism, which is right wing. Note that is not American right wing.
Define shootings. Because with one definition, you can have 300+ shootings every year, but that counts gang violence, and suddenly white men aren't the biggest contributors to the stat anymore. I'll let you guess which demographic would, since you brought it up.
Alternatively, excluding gang violence, you can have under a dozen every year, and white men are the biggest contributors. Not per capita, but still in absolute numbers.
Guess what? They have a right wing bias. They generally don't report shootings because there's no angle. Left wing sites do report on them because they want to push an anti-gun narrative, that and ratings.
Don't think I didn't notice just how light on details that AP is. They talk a bunch about the victims and Joel osteen, but they barely give you her name. They are pushing an angle by omission. Same as fox, same as cbs, same as every news site.
I'm saying gun violence because that's the topic. Getting upset over this wording is like getting upset somebody calls a ride on a plane "air travel" instead of "travel". That's the category of the subject being discussed.
Even if you're just limiting to domestic terrorism, right wing terrorism is the majority of said terrorism.
I thought it was pretty clear that I was talking about politically motivated attacks when I was talking about the straight white shooters thing. Gang violence isn't really politically motivated.
And your numbers are way off:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N363273/
So when left wing sources push an angle, it's to reduce deaths. When right wing sources push an angle, it's to demonize minorities who are already at risk for violence.
And you think the chosen angle for this particular case makes you look good?
Glorifying shooters only makes copy cats more likely. The AP is being responsible.
Per the Reuters article from 2016 - 2020, trans people accounted for 2.3% of mass shootings but per 2020 census data only account for 0.6% of the population. They are 4x more likely to commit a mass shooting then the rest of the population.
See I can cherry pick stats to make them say what I want to too.
Wow you straight up admitted you were cherypicking. You have no argument so I'll move on.
The difference between you and I is that I'm honest enough to admit when I'm using cherry picked stats.
Intentionally using cherry picked stats is by definition dishonest.
And I wasn't using cherry picked stats.
I see you've completely missed the point of why I used those stats and disclosed that they are cherry picked. I was hoping it would lead to critical thinking on your part, guess you showed me. I doubt you even know what made the stats I provided cherry picked even though I used two creditable sources census data from 2020 and the secret service study from 2016-2020.
You used mass shooting stats from 2013-2021, then claimed that trans shooters are a low percent. When you look into those numbers you'll see that starting in 2013 was intentionally dishonest. They pulled that stat down by moving the start date as far to the left as they could. Publicly sharing your whole life on social media is a relatively new phenomenon, relying on the media to discover their picked gender was more difficult than two clicks. That is why the secret service study which went from 2016 - 2020 had a much higher percentage. They relied on actual investigation data instead of searching facebook.
If you're just going to admit you're wrong, then I won't waste my time. You dug your own grave on this one all by yourself.
How did I dig my own grave?
We've been over this so many times, it's not worth typing it up anymore. But for our audience, gun violence is a propaganda term. It's basically, take all violence, and throw out anything that doesn't help with disarming the people. If pizza here actually cared about saving lives, he would actually look at violence itself. Remember, violence is a symptom. Disarming the people will not solve social-economic problems.
You're being intentionally obtuse. left wing sources want to disarm the people, not to save lives.
We're well past the point of worrying about copy cats.
Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true. I'm telling you my intention is to reduce harm. You can make up whatever bullshit you want to convince yourself that my intentions are elsewhere. You can lie to yourself all you want.
But I know my intentions, and they aren't "hur dur take da gunz".
But that's not the topic. This is a post about a shooting, a specific event, not violence as a whole.
I am aware. That doesn't change the fact that what I said is true.
I never said otherwise. You completely missed the point of what I am saying.
Prove it. Prove that their intentions are this hidden mischievous conspiracy.
For those such as yourself that don't care about people dying, sure. But for the rest of us it is still a concern.
What is even the point of arguing with you?
If you don't like arguing with people then perhaps becoming the head mod of a political subreddit wasn't a good idea.
You know, I used to. I used to enjoy digging up news articles, charters, recordings, studies, whatever. Felt like maybe I was getting through to people. Maybe not in the moment, but maybe theyd think about what they read. If not agreeing with me, at least just understanding just a little more.
Its really disheartening.
I love opposing views when they are good faith. I don’t like trolls. Some people are just trolls.