Most people disagree with conservative politics, and that goes doubly so for the fediverse. The voting system is more or less a agree/disagree system. And you are posting this to bolster Trump’s image.
Couple those together and it’s pretty straightforward why this got downvoted.
The whole “what could have stopped X” question is a loaded one. But regardless, the answer is gun control, and U.S. law should learn from modern German law:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/germany-gun-control-laws-a4366996.html
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/london-evening-standard/
It’s crazy how even this right wing sources seems to understand that gun control is necessary and a requirement for low gun death rates, given that they admit right at the begging of the article that they have amongst the lowest death rates out there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Total:
Germany: 1.04/capita
United States: 12.21/capita
Homicide only:
Germany: 0.06/capita
United States: 4.46/capita
If more guns & lax gun laws made us safe, we would should expect to see the opposite. Yet we don’t, because anybody with half a brain understands that a tool whose purpose is to kill as easily as possible will make killing easier when it is around untrained people/people with insufficient reason to own it/people who store them poorly.
That’s a 75x smaller gun homicide rate. We aren’t going to get that small of a rate without gun control.
Inb4 somebody calls me a troll despite putting effort into this: fuck off
Its like posting pictures of dogs in a cat sub, it just doesnt belong.
But the moment somebody posts a picture of a cat* wearing a nazi arm band, it gets deleted, despite quite a lot of cats* supporting/being complacent of nazis.
Tell me honestly, what grade school level are you in?
All he did was post the worksheet and claimed he won.
A quick reading of the actual material is all it takes to show this article to be full of shit.
No it does not. It does not say that reading and writing is a characteristic of white supremacy.
It’s obviously trying to conflate the two.
No, it’s not. It’s defining the phrase.
It is saying:
Is defined by:
It say nothing about the love of reading or writing, or contracts. And what’s worse is that they are very clearly saying that “worship of the written word” is a characteristic/trait of white supremacy, not white supremacy. So you’re missing (it seems willfully at this point) the meaning of what they are saying.
If you asked any random person what worshiping the written word was
If you did that, you’d get a million different answers. And that’s why they defined it:
they’d probably say “loving reading” or “loving writing” or something to that effect.
You’re just pulling this out of you ass.
It’s super obvious propaganda.
All you’re doing is making up a meaning that very clearly isn’t there, and then getting upset over your own made up meaning.
The actually way its worded:
Worship of the written word (one of nine core traits of white supremacy) = honoring only what is written and even then only what is written to a narrow standard, full of misinformation and lies. An erasure of the wide range of ways we communicate with each other.
The way the article frames it:
white supremacy = love of reading and writing
Yall just can’t be honest about what others are saying.
How is it prejudiced? All you’ve done is traded the word you’re using.
That’s not how the burden of proof works. You made the claim that it was racist. You have the burden to prove that it is racist. I have no burden to prove it isn’t.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
You can’t just shift the burden of proof onto me, it is a fallacy:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
Jack: I have tiny, invisible unicorns living in my anus.
Nick: How do you figure?
Jack: Can you prove that I don’t?
Nick: No.
Jack: Then I do.
So because I dont censor it, that must mean I agree with it?
Not even close to what I am saying.
What I am actually saying:
You are applying a double standard
You are failing to keep this place civil
And no I would never fit into the democrats. I’m neither woke nor a racist.
https://lemm.ee/comment/9020958
That is why so many Democrats are in prison compared to Republicans.
https://lemm.ee/comment/8872460
Democrats support illegal immigration. It’s not shocking since democrats love lawlessness.
https://lemm.ee/comment/8870239
As I’ve said many times, democrats. (Liberals) are racist.
https://lemm.ee/comment/8520157
That’s democrats who want the racial and gender caste system.
https://lemm.ee/comment/8513465
That is because Democrats love to spend money they don’t have.
https://lemm.ee/comment/8410895
It is well known the Nazis and Democrats are well connected. Two peas in a pod.
https://lemm.ee/comment/8405309
Democrats are still racist as they’ve always been.
https://lemm.ee/comment/8377599
This is just the past month alone, and just one user. Admittedly, 90% of these kinds of statements come from winter. But every single one, not a peep out of the mods saying “hey, don’t say that, democrats are not a monoloth”.
The exact one about democrats being violent must have been from a while ago. And tbh I don’t care enough to go digging for it. My point has been made.
Wow you straight up admitted you were cherypicking. You have no argument so I’ll move on.
Also it’s odd that you’re complaining that I’m grouping republicans together (for a post/article you guys agree with and support), but when someone comes along and says “dEMocRatS aRe VIoLenT” you’re silent. What a double standard.
Saying “Gun violence” instead of “Violence” is dog whistling that you care more about disarming people than saving lives.
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.
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.
Even if you’re just limiting to domestic terrorism, right wing terrorism is the majority of said terrorism.
Define shootings
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/
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.
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?
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.
Glorifying shooters only makes copy cats more likely. The AP is being responsible.
If you’re going to comment, at least try to address what I’m saying.
Pick one. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You guys remove posts that contain facts the moment they don’t have confirm the conclusions you already hold.