EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 00:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote: As long as "thoughts and prayers" are the automatic and acceptable response, there will be nothing done to enact effective gun control. To express revulsion and mockery of the idea publically, is doing something, to change public opinion. That you seek to perpetuate "thoughts and prayers" as an acceptable response and seem to be encouraging it as a response is seen that you oppose the change in public opinion that might enable changes in society and legislation. In the human realm, expressing sympathy for the victims of a tragedy is an automatic, acceptable response. This stands in stark contrast to Simberto's "frustrated jokes" admission that only exasperation justifies the error. I won't demean the other posters in the thread by suggesting that they too think expressing sympathy already obviates effective gun control. But maybe this thread does need some right-wing balance to mocking sympathy for the victims before anyone gets the point that you're shooting yourselves in the foot here. Insinuate you're secretly glad for more shooting deaths, because it advances your political goals? Say you don't want to solve the problem, because then you'd be lacking in tragedies to take advantage of politically? There's some really dark depths you can get into once you double down on mocking human emotion as a good in itself. I don't think there's a single right-winger on this forum that will make that point explicitly and believably. Which is kind of a shame considering the comparatively deep ranks of fuck-your-emotion-you-animal among TLers. On December 11 2019 05:21 Sermokala wrote: Don't worry everyone its a joke it can't possibly be offensive if its a joke. You can't possibly object to anything I say if I say it was intended for humor. Ironically, I'm getting closer to believing Sermokala was objectively stating a believed opinion held by many. All justifications, no contradictions. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
On December 11 2019 23:54 Danglars wrote:
I was expecting to find agreement when I posted it. I'm not the best writer in these parts, so apologies if I let on that thinking Republicans are the evil enemy wouldn't be justified by the ideology of the people holding that opinion. That's always Plan A: No, no they're actually evil and I can prove it. The mirror image people that think Democrats don't really care about the victims of mass shooting based on the totally ineffective and counter-productive gun control measures they already support, conclude Dems just want to take your guns. They're evil, they're uncaring, and would still cheer at higher gun deaths provided gun controls continued to be tightened. The 2020 presidential candidates Beto O'Rourke wasn't extreme about wanting to take your guns, he was just too honest about an opinion everyone else is smart enough to hide for electoral success. Gun control proponents, following the legislative strategy of Monty Python: "Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Let me reiterate, this is found in the top 10 ways to make sure nothing ever gets done on gun control: "fuck your empathy, you hypocrites, now go prove to me you're not the subhuman uncaring scum I just called you!" We didn't start out at that point. If you refuse to do anything at all, to make any proposals, and block all attempts at a solution other people propose, for decades, to solve a problem that kills thousands every year, at what point am i justified to call you out on it? Your argument only works if people had any faith left that you guys would start doing things if we actually treated you with the velvet gloves that you like. (Funny how that always happens to the people who are so against "politically correct speech" and who like "calling it as it is") But that faith is just gone at this point. Decades of no action but "thoughts and prayers" have made people realize that no matter how they talk to you, it doesn't change what you do. It just makes you feel better about it. But i honestly don't see a reason to make you feel good here. It doesn't lead to any compromise, it doesn't lead to any attempt to solve this problem. Because you are happy with the status quo. And you can block any change. Basically, people have given up on you. You are not going to be something that moves the country forward. You are never going to be part of any solution to the problem of guns in america. You are just going to threw a spanner into the wheels for as long as you can. Nothing anyone can do is going to change anything about that. It doesn't matter how one talks to you, it doesn't matter what kind of proposals people make. Because everything you say and do is just a front that you hide behind, and which you can easily discard for a new front as soon as it isn't useful anymore. So at this point, people just make jokes about it to make you feel bad about it, make themselves feel a bit better due to gallows humour, and hope that at some point in the future, you are so far in the minority that things can actually be done. As long as that doesn't happen, people will keep on dying, and no one can do anything about it. Also, note that i didn't use the words you did. I never called anyone subhuman, and i would never do that. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 00:36 Simberto wrote: We didn't start out at that point. If you refuse to do anything at all, to make any proposals, and block all attempts at a solution other people propose, for decades, to solve a problem that kills thousands every year, at what point am i justified to call you out on it? Your argument only works if people had any faith left that you guys would start doing things if we actually treated you with the velvet gloves that you like. (Funny how that always happens to the people who are so against "politically correct speech" and who like "calling it as it is") But that faith is just gone at this point. Decades of no action but "thoughts and prayers" have made people realize that no matter how they talk to you, it doesn't change what you do. It just makes you feel better about it. But i honestly don't see a reason to make you feel good here. It doesn't lead to any compromise, it doesn't lead to any attempt to solve this problem. Because you are happy with the status quo. And you can block any change. Basically, people have given up on you. You are not going to be something that moves the country forward. You are never going to be part of any solution to the problem of guns in america. You are just going to threw a spanner into the wheels for as long as you can. Nothing anyone can do is going to change anything about that. It doesn't matter how one talks to you, it doesn't matter what kind of proposals people make. Because everything you say and do is just a front that you hide behind, and which you can easily discard for a new front as soon as it isn't useful anymore. So at this point, people just make jokes about it to make you feel bad about it, make themselves feel a bit better due to gallows humour, and hope that at some point in the future, you are so far in the minority that things can actually be done. As long as that doesn't happen, people will keep on dying, and no one can do anything about it. Also, note that i didn't use the words you did. I never called anyone subhuman, and i would never do that. Everyone and their grandma uses the excuse "I'm fine with compromise, I'm just not going to because we're negotiating with a side that are subhuman monsters." You take it a step further and justify even fucking trashing their sincere expressions of sympathy. I'm not going to repeat the same obvious point if all you've got is doubling down and tripling down on your allegations that it's justified to call your opponents the enemy, evil, uncaring, and all the expressed and implied things in your first post. I do sincerely feel for you in describing a sad arrival at "faith is gone at this point." I'm human too, and pity people that end in hopelessness in finding humanity in the other side, whether that's white supremacy/racial supremacy or health insurance or sexism. From the frustrated gun control proponent that feels like change is impossible, to the pro-life person that feels like killing babies is just a fact of life these days, a frustration with not achieving political goals that are deeply believed to be moral and societal good can end in dehumanizing and discounting the other side to the debate. So I don't want to say I can't understand where frustration has led you. Gun control is pretty high on the emotional stakes, but it happens for a whole host of other issues and I've seen the jaded results of the big campaigners that have totally given up one even the presumption that the other side can feel real emotion and mock them endlessly. I've personally seen people like this and experienced it at times myself. And frankly it takes some internal changes to come out of it, instead of external people telling you to rekindle hope and treat fellow citizens as moral actors also wanting to tackle the same issues in different manners. Try telling someone that abandoned hope that red flag laws will be passed, and increased policing of gun shows violating Licensed Gun Dealer regulations, but because they don't agree with AR-15 mandatory confiscation and universal gun registries, other people discount his views on the rest. Indeed, it's very common even in a forum like this when you can look back on specific times Sermo or I or others (who long ago stopped posting) advocated specific changes to gun control laws, for people to not invest one iota of their time in revisiting stuff they only skimmed over or entirely skipped to conclude it's all fruitless. That's the human condition: those that don't share my 5 biggest supported changes get discarded and assumed to support nothing whatsoever. It might be a language thing and a partisan blindness thing, but I absolutely believe anyone who justifies and defends and argues to the death for mocking genuine displays of sympathy do consider their ideological enemy subhuman in some respect. You might not like the very clear implications of your posting, but the sum of your posts show it's okay to you to treat actually outpouring of emotion with derision. I believe you're accurately stating your own views when you say [others] "have no problem with the fact that a lot of people die to gun every year" and "They have no problem with the fact that a smaller a lot of people die randomly in mass shootings every year." I don't think you simultaneously believe this and also believe in the full humanity of your fellow man you accuse of not having problems with death. That to me is an impossible view to defend. Now, if we were to contrast that with a more human response, say that others in fact also consider it a very real problem, but think just taking away the guns from law abiding citizens is not a good solution to criminal gang violence with guns, or cartel violence with guns, or mass shootings, or intimate partner gun violence ... then I would believe you actually confer full humanity onto your "enemy." Fuck, if you start with believing the enemy has no problem with it, I'm immediately reminded of the worst demagogues in human history that also say the enemy has no problem with things the righteous of course have a problem with. And use that to justify some very shocking stuff! Anyways, sorry for the length Simberto. I have to make sure you fully understand my entire perspective should you read every word of my post and understand it. And let me know if I could be more plain about anything mentioned inside the post. I hope you think differently in the future regarding your stated opinion about enemies and what they have no problem with. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
"I'm fine with compromise, I'm just not going to because we're negotiating with a side that are subhuman monsters." I'm human too, and pity people that end in hopelessness in finding humanity in the other side, whether that's white supremacy/racial supremacy then I would believe you actually confer full humanity onto your "enemy." I'm immediately reminded of the worst demagogues in human history Wow, good job at painting me as a nazi there. Thanks for reminding me why i stopped debating with you. As others have explained, a part of the argument is that people don't believe that those "displays of sympathy" are actually genuine. Because if they were genuine, that would also lead to some action, and not just going back to the status quo 2 days later, 50 times a year. Edit: All the quotes and stuff added. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9193 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I have really tried to quote your exact words on this issue as much as I can, so you can tell me what's wrong with what I think logically follows from sincerely believing these words. That is part of my attempt to remove errors in my apprehension of what you actually believe. So I must beg you to reread my post and tell me if anything I'm saying are your views are wrong, particularly the passages that I directly quote your past words back to you, as well as tell me what's faulty in considering "no problem [with death]" as being something detached from the human condition, or common humanity. Not to put too fine a note on it, but lack of belief in common humanity is still high on my list for why more agreement has not been found on gun control. One additional note after your edit: I fundamentally think doubting genuine responses of sympathy are separate philosophically from using political policy conclusions to back-rationalize the doubt. It's an absolute logical fallacy to conclude lack of genuine emotion, because someone isn't taking your favored action in response to felt emotion. The rest relies on whether or not you cite the core argument of my post regarding shared humanity in the gun control debate, so I can discover whether I'm attributing meaning to words you did not intend, or whether your perspective has at all changed on whether there's something actually lacking in humanity for having no problems with the violent death of humans. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 01:20 Sent. wrote: Do you not see you're not giving Danglars the same level of respect you expect from him in debates where people from his camp attack people from yours? In his defense, merely spending so much time composing long posts in series means he conveys a basic level of respect. I'm just hoping we can arrive at some basic level of shared humanity regarding word for word quotes of his genuine beliefs. If violent deaths of other humans actually arouse no problem in the mind of an enemy, no problem at all, then it's directly implied that the enemy is lacking in common humanity, and is thus subhuman in an important way. I tried to contrast this, thus far fruitlessly, with differing ideological positions that nonetheless similarly conclude that the enemy is unfeeling at a fundamentally base level and justifies a perspective of what constitutes acceptable actions after this aforementioned lack has been established. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
I refuse to engage you on the "Simberto is a nazi" angle of the discussion. But you have my thoughts and prayers if you feel treated badly by me. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 11 2019 19:53 Simberto wrote: The fact of the matter is that in this case, they ARE the enemy ... They have no problem with the fact that a smaller a lot of people die randomly in mass shootings every year. They have no problem with the fact that there is a mass shooting pretty much every day I hope you elucidate a meaning I've failed to ascertain from your post, other than the apparent one of inviting someone to prove they're fully human and capable of having a problem with the violent deaths of other humans. I must continue to insist the stark conclusion is that you think your enemy is subhuman and lacking in humanity in a very fundamental way. Maybe the thread ought to be titled "another shooting happened, and people have no problem that a lot of people died" if I'm wrong about this. I see no reason to go too deep into the policy aspects, without agreement that one's enemy is human, and thus must treat the violent deaths of other humans as a problem. There's no point pretending to have a debate on policy with someone that thinks he knows the other debater doesn't care about deaths, and thus wouldn't care if mass shooting deaths doubled or tripled, for he has no problem with death. He's inhuman! Deaths aren't a problem! There's no core debate unless your personal "other minds" philosophy can say he would think it good if violent shooting deaths were reduced. The dehumanizing effects of mocking genuine sympathy, including those who think real emotion must conform to their own favored public policy support, and discarding shared humanity is one of the reasons this debate is so polarized. If you can't admit to others having a problem with shooting deaths, then no debate is possible (and vice versa, if the other side wouldn't think it good if violent shooting deaths decreased even if gun ownership remained constant). If you must first convince the other that you're fully human, counting the problem of homicide as an actual problem in the list of things that are problems, then there's really no point advancing to policy until they humanize the policy actors. First a human of the race of humans, then a human who disagrees with you politically. My prior posts/responses here and here and here contain more background thinking on the matter, and logical antecedents to this post, for those interested. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
| ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1926 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 02:26 Broetchenholer wrote: Nobody is calling you subhuman. You are being called hypocrite because your thoughts and prayers don't align with your actions. Whether you actually feel great empathy towards the victims or not does not matter at all, it's just the difference between the two that does. You don't have to prove you are human by agreeing with simberto. But maybe don't talk up your empathy if it does not materialize into something tangible. I’ve argued exactly about what he said whose plain meaning is eliminating shared humanity in this debate. Thus far, nobody was taken me up on the reasoning behind it. I invite anyone to quote and response to my post if they think something is lacking. I invite anyone else that say I have no problem with the violent shootings deaths of other humans to then claim that isn’t equal to erasing the shared humanity of the participants in the debate. Or perhaps let’s invite someone to say with a straight face, “I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with his humanity, I’m just saying he has no problem with the mass shootings deaths of hundreds.” I’m saying that would fail to convince a child. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
Instead of talking about the gun violence, lets talk about how the bad people who want gun control take away the humanity of the poor gun supporters who just want to display genuine human empathy and sympathy. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote: Distract, deflect. Instead of talking about the gun violence, lets talk about how the bad people who want gun control take away the humanity of the poor gun supporters who just want to display genuine human empathy and sympathy. I quoted you, but will not continue to do so if you won’t explain and defend the plain meaning of the words you quoted. It goes without saying that people are less inclined to participate in a debate where their expressed sympathies for victims are discounted and ridiculed, and others pretend to know they “have no problem with the fact that there is a mass shooting pretty much every day.” Is that how things are done in Germany? Will you continue to totally discount your past posts, or let me know you no longer believe in what you wrote? I quoted your very words for fear of putting words in your mouth, and don’t know if your reluctance to argue about their plain meaning comes from a change of mind, or an unwillingness to confront unpleasant truths of justified conclusions. And please, anyone else you knows their enemies don’t care about mass shooting deaths, let me know that before wasting time arguing from unshared preconceptions. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11507 Posts
Why do you not instead explain how they care about those deaths, but still manage to stop anything that would help prevent future deaths without fail every single time? Without proposing any of their own solutions? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 03:55 Simberto wrote: Can you not accept that i will not follow your distraction? I have no interest in following you into a distraction debate that is all about me defending myself from your allegations that i am a horrible person who destroys the debate by being not nice enough to you gun people, and how that actually makes me a nazi. Why do you not instead explain how they care about those deaths, but still manage to stop anything that would help prevent future deaths without fail every single time? Without proposing any of their own solutions? The very first response to the latest mass shooting was mocking the thoughts and prayers, and your first post to me defended that perspective. You continued to an end that stated your knowledge of my having no problem with mass shooting deaths nor any shootings deaths. I did not edit in your statement of what you think you know I have no problem with, and I refuse to echo your thoughts on indifference to violent death back at you, out of respect for your humanity in fact. Why assign genuine sympathy to people you think lack basic humanity, for who can not consider violent deaths to not be a problem but those lacking in it? Basically, people have given up on you. You are not going to be something that moves the country forward. You are never going to be part of any solution to the problem of guns in america. You are just going to threw a spanner into the wheels for as long as you can. Nothing anyone can do is going to change anything about that. It doesn't matter how one talks to you, it doesn't matter what kind of proposals people make. Because everything you say and do is just a front that you hide behind, and which you can easily discard for a new front as soon as it isn't useful anymore. This remark was a fitting conclusion from you, and you have mine: your active denial the humanity of your enemy, that they are subhumans unconcerned (“no problem”) with the violent shootings deaths of other humans, as I quoted from you several times now, sustains the argument for mocking genuine sympathy offered in the wake of a tragedy. I don’t care if your response is to assume that means I’m calling you a nazi, and you’ve shown no signs of racial superiority doctrine, all I care about is if you stand by your past words and will ever offer an alternative interpretation to saying someone has no problem with the violent deaths of other humans. You have mine. Any further questions should be directed at my previous posts detailing the how and the why for the pity I feel at anyone arriving at that statement of callous devaluing, or why debates should start with recognizing the shared humanity of all involved, not presumed animalistic natures of the enemy within the debate. I won’t relitigate easily found posts I wrote earlier today. | ||
| ||
