EPTPeople are calling out that, despite all this very genuine human empathy, nothing is being done to curtail deadly shootings. It's the cycle of rushing to let people know how bad you feel, and then doing absolutely nothing about it. And then using the fact that people call you out on it as an excuse to continue to do nothing, and to not even have the discussion. Now the discussion is all about how hurt your feelings are.
If 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. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
People are calling out that, despite all this very genuine human empathy, nothing is being done to curtail deadly shootings. It's the cycle of rushing to let people know how bad you feel, and then doing absolutely nothing about it. And then using the fact that people call you out on it as an excuse to continue to do nothing, and to not even have the discussion. Now the discussion is all about how hurt your feelings are. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
Pretending to care by offering nothing but words over something you actively fight to perpetuate deserve to be ridiculed and mocked. Either be honest and tell survivors/friends/next of kin that the death of their loved ones is an acceptable price for your guns or allow better gun laws to be enacted. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
There are a lot of pretty words that get trotted out every time people are killed in shootings, but no action. Ever. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 04:29 NewSunshine wrote: You're pulling a Ship of Theseus(maybe not the right word, idk) on the argument though, in a sense. By deducing one "implication" after another based on what they're actually saying, you set up the convenient strawman of them calling you inhuman. Now that they've effectively said such a horrible thing about you, you no longer have any obligation to substantiate the positions you choose to defend. When they never said such a thing. People are calling out that, despite all this very genuine human empathy, nothing is being done to curtail deadly shootings. It's the cycle of rushing to let people know how bad you feel, and then doing absolutely nothing about it. And then using the fact that people call you out on it as an excuse to continue to do nothing, and to not even have the discussion. Now the discussion is all about how hurt your feelings are. I have given adequate chance for the comments to be explained differently or withdrawn. I have concluded that he actually meant what he said about what I don’t have a problem with. If you actually countenance the fact that this concerns me, violent deaths of my fellow citizens, and especially if you fail to conclude that to be true of me from what I’ve written (aka I wouldn’t ordinarily say this about anyone, but this particular guy doesn’t care about violent deaths by gun), then speak up. You may call such a conclusion whatever you want, subhuman lacking in humanity psychopathic fanatical. The question is if this conclusion is shared by others, but it’s a damn convenient explanation for why you can discount shows of sympathy, I gotta tell you. If I really thought you didn’t give a shit about gun deaths, you better believe I wouldn’t accept thoughts and prayers. Is such a conclusion about what I care about among all the aspects of this debate true about your perspective as well? Would you draw a similar conclusion about the net collection of all my posts, presuming you read them? I hardly know if you share his perspective, think he’d rephrase it if he were able, or any third possibility of your choosing. And I won’t ever learn what you think if you don’t tell me, and I’m forced to assume the dude that thought I have no problem with such and such believes I have no problem with such and such. And no I don’t think he’s a nazi, or any other allegations, I think he explained a very chilling reason to deride expressions of sympathy quite well, if I’ve understood him, which is still a tiny bit difficult if he refuses to comment on his own words and I refuse to paraphrase him beyond the littlest necessary. The worst that can happen is I verbatim quote entire sentences you write within paragraphs that support that perspective, and you can change entire sections you wish you had phrased better at the end of the process. And maybe I learn a little bit more about your perspective on thoughts and prayers and other sympathetic expressions after tragedies that come from opponents of sweeping gun bans and confiscations! All I’ve got is what you thought about what I thought about what he said, and that hardly sustains much. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11630 Posts
And i refuse to be a part in that, as i think i have made clear. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 05:00 Simberto wrote: But it is so easy. Just bait people into that debate by putting words in their mouth, and you never have to talk about something you don't want to talk about. Like for example gun control. It is much more comfortable to talk about how people who want gun control are horrible nazis. If you wave that around long enough, someone will take the bait eventually. Which makes it a very good distraction tactic if the actual topic of discussion makes you look bad. And i refuse to be a part in that, as i think i have made clear. I quoted your own words, referencing your own posts, and you thought I was calling you a nazi. Well, speak up about what you’ve written or tell me you’ve changed your mind. This post, third paragraph. Do you stand by that post? May I fairly say direct quotes from that post aren’t “putting words in your mouth?” I’m at a loss with direct quoting sections you refuse to comment on, so all I know is you have some unstated problem with what you wrote and what I wrote after. The worst that can happen is you now think the phrasing was wrong, and you really do think I have a problem with violent gun deaths in America ... mass shooting or otherwise. I have linked to your post, I’ve quoted sentences in their entirety, and you still accuse me of putting words in your mouth as you remain stone faced about your own words. Man, even edit the post I just linked to to reveal your true feelings on the matter, and let me know. I really can’t go on with a person that for all intents and purposes counts prior posts as not his own words, and cries that I’m calling him a nazi when I respond to it. I have to know what you wrote is what your mind believes, before reaching what I believe may be argued as a conclusion about what you wrote. You’re not a nazi, and I don’t think you’re indifferent about shooting deaths. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 04:34 Gorsameth wrote: Thoughts and prayers are for disasters like a tornado or volcano where we have no control over it. Pretending to care by offering nothing but words over something you actively fight to perpetuate deserve to be ridiculed and mocked. Either be honest and tell survivors/friends/next of kin that the death of their loved ones is an acceptable price for your guns or allow better gun laws to be enacted. But climate change is said by some to increase the frequency of extreme weather events, so I don’t think this distinction holds. In any case, the frustration about wanting people that offer thoughts and prayers to later also support gun law change of the types you prefer is something I register. The feeling of inaction is a powerful thing, though the human emotion of sympathy after tragedies isn’t destroyed by policy disagreements. I promise to defend you if you offer condolences to the victims families in the wake of a terrorist attack, and somebody says you’re insincere since you don’t support the war on terror or selected country immigration bans. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11630 Posts
On December 12 2019 05:13 Danglars wrote: I quoted your own words, referencing your own posts, and you thought I was calling you a nazi. Well, speak up about what you’ve written or tell me you’ve changed your mind. This post, third paragraph. Do you stand by that post? May I fairly say direct quotes from that post aren’t “putting words in your mouth?” I’m at a loss with direct quoting sections you refuse to comment on, so all I know is you have some unstated problem with what you wrote and what I wrote after. The worst that can happen is you now think the phrasing was wrong, and you really do think I have a problem with violent gun deaths in America ... mass shooting or otherwise. I have linked to your post, I’ve quoted sentences in their entirety, and you still accuse me of putting words in your mouth as you remain stone faced about your own words. Man, even edit the post I just linked to to reveal your true feelings on the matter, and let me know. I really can’t go on with a person that for all intents and purposes counts prior posts as not his own words, and cries that I’m calling him a nazi when I respond to it. I have to know what you wrote is what your mind believes, before reaching what I believe may be argued as a conclusion about what you wrote. You’re not a nazi, and I don’t think you’re indifferent about shooting deaths. I am not doing any of that. You are once again putting words in my mouth. I just have no interest in that avenue of debate with you. The stuff i wrote is the stuff i wrote, and i have not edited most of these posts. I stand by what i wrote, but not by the things you interpret into what i wrote. I will not explain this further, as i have no interest in debating my opinions with you. Feel free to feel persecuted if that makes you happy. You are a person who claims that i describe people as subhuman, a word i never used (except to quote you) which is very clear nazi terminology. Thus, you are indeed calling me a nazi. You are also now insinuating that i am insane in your last post with stuff like "I have to know what you wrote is what your mind believes" "I really can’t go on with a person that for all intents and purposes counts prior posts as not his own words". My conclusion is that you are not debating in good faith, as you so often do. And thus, i have no interest in following you onto your detour into my opinions. You are trying to distract, and make this about me and what i think, instead of the immense bullshit going on in your country that you do not want to change, but that you also cannot really justify. And i guess you managed to actually bait me into this discussion now. As i said, a very effective strategy. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21953 Posts
On December 12 2019 05:17 Danglars wrote: nobody here is buying your fake sympathy buddy.But climate change is said by some to increase the frequency of extreme weather events, so I don’t think this distinction holds. In any case, the frustration about wanting people that offer thoughts and prayers to later also support gun law change of the types you prefer is something I register. The feeling of inaction is a powerful thing, though the human emotion of sympathy after tragedies isn’t destroyed by policy disagreements. I promise to defend you if you offer condolences to the victims families in the wake of a terrorist attack, and somebody says you’re insincere since you don’t support the war on terror or selected country immigration bans. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9717 Posts
On December 12 2019 05:30 Gorsameth wrote: nobody here is buying your fake sympathy buddy. I don't understand how you can know that danglars sympathy is fake. He can be genuinely sympathetic but still have other priorities. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 05:30 Gorsameth wrote: nobody here is buying your fake sympathy buddy. In fact I think it’s terrible when people doing good things like offering sympathy, help, condolences after a tragedy are attacked for their political views. I wouldn’t waste so much breath on Sermo’s “yeah asshole just because you said it’s a joke doesn’t excuse you” if I didn’t think it was on the list of things preventing action on the subject. Ala “don’t deal with these gun control nuts, you’ll always find them attacking grandmothers for offering prayers to the families. They’re all about the hate of gun rights campaigners, and not legislation that has a real chance of impact without disproportionately targeting the law-abiding citizens impacted.” I’d love to reverse that presumption. Those are the bad gun control nuts, there’s really this big, silent middle that wants increased legislation and won’t trash the other side, call them enemies, in order to achieve their goals. I don’t think there’s good odds of that happening in the next couple years based on all this bad blood evidenced in the last few pages. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26038 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On December 12 2019 05:32 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't understand how you can know that danglars sympathy is fake. He can be genuinely sympathetic but still have other priorities. You don’t understand how someone can look at Danglars’ posts and judge his claim of sympathy hollow? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 05:50 Wombat_NI wrote: Where is this silent majority though? I think they’re reflected in polls. In this particular forum, I think they’re reflected in the paucity of support for those reaming thoughts and prayers. I think the whole perspective that there are gun control enemies that must be opposed, and these people don’t show real sympathy, and don’t care about gun deaths, and that’s why they hold the gun rights views they do, is the minority perspective. A peaceable people living in a Democracy aren’t generally super agitated about the “other” that are stopping gun control. Their perspective is their vote. Maybe if these criminal acts were committed by card-carrying NRA members, more would sign on to the more vicious portrayal. As it stands, I know of no such instance among all the ones where NRA members contributed to the stopping of criminal gun violence. But as with all opinions on the silent majority not playing the there-are-enemies-amongst-us dance, it’s highly anecdotal and based on gaps between polling and congressional/presidential candidate views. I could be wrong on this. I’m hopeful that maybe a decade on, we look back at all the vilification on the extremes of both sides (and though I’m big on gun against encroachment, there are extremes on my side too) and thank the stars that they didn’t carry the day forever. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26038 Posts
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc. If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 12 2019 06:59 Mohdoo wrote: Its amazing seeing the exact same issues popping up in different threads. I confess that I smirked a little. Can’t lay this one at my feet, eh? But that’s a little sad to hear at the same time. | ||
| ||
