[Discussion] Mass Shootings - Yeah, we need a thread just for this...

This year is the deadliest year ever in terms of mass shootings. In a political climate of polarization, it becomes harder to suss out legitimate information from the misinformation propagated by those with political agendas. Complicating this more is the continual resistance of 2nd amendment advocates to allow for political talk surrounding these massacres. This will involve political discussion to see if there are ways we can all agree might be good ways to prevent mass shootings.

This discussion should involve the details of any current, or future mass shooting, and how they compare to past mass shootings. How are they the same? How are they different? Do gun laws have an impact? Does the race of the shooter affect how we treat them? What makes one a hate crime and one an act or terrorism? Are these shootings the price of freedom?

gewy wrote:

on liberal politicians who apparently are responsible for turning the city into a violent, crime-infested, urban hellhole.

Urban here meaning black, and also liberal meaning "too nice to black people, who are probably on welfare," just to tie it to the earlier discussion.

Jayhawker wrote:

I really get sick of the whites that pretend they don't know any racist people, because racists are stupid and out themselves to other whites all the time.

I had a sheltered childhood, which meant that I didn't encounter the virulent expressions of racism since my immediate family is surprisingly free of that. Doesn't mean that we weren't racist, but it does mean that I never heard the n-word growing up. (Which also means I've never said the n-word, so take that YouTube streamers with poor impulse control.) Then I moved to Texas.

So many respectable people--church people, fine upstanding citizens, leaders of the community--who thought nothing of dropping slurs. Sometimes they held themselves back in front of their wives, as if it was merely impolite to use bad words in mixed company. Got to protect the womenfolk from knowing about the dangerous black folks.

(And I also got on the internet, another place you can find racists. Though with way less pretensions of being polite.)

It's just one part of this whole mass shooting thing. (Domestic violence is probably closer to the root.) But it is one reason why some politicians are disinclined to act: the whole point of owning a gun is so good white folks can protect themselves from zombies Hispanic and Middle Eastern immigrants and personal defense against the threats posed by the scary black burglars and muggers.

I think I've talked about it before, but the framing I find helpful is to say that I am racist: I am part of a society that oppresses non-white people in many, many ways. Some of which I contribute to, inadvertently or not. I have first reactions that are absolutely racist, I've said inappropriate things, I've definitely benefited from being white in many situations, and, most importantly, I've contributed to racist systems. Unintentionally, but intentions don't matter when you harm other people.

When your identity is wrapped up in being a white person who isn't racist, it makes it really hard to acknowledge the ways you participate in racism. Which you absolutely do, it is inescapable, especially in the US. So basing your identity on being the "good, non-racist white person" is fragile. Instead of denying that your lawn has dandelions, better to weed them as they appear.

Gremlin wrote:

I think I've talked about it before, but the framing I find helpful is to say that I am racist: I am part of a society that oppresses non-white people in many, many ways. Some of which I contribute to, inadvertently or not. I have first reactions that are absolutely racist, I've said inappropriate things, I've definitely benefited from being white in many situations, and, most importantly, I've contributed to racist systems. Unintentionally, but intentions don't matter when you harm other people.

When your identity is wrapped up in being a white person who isn't racist, it makes it really hard to acknowledge the ways you participate in racism. Which you absolutely do, it is inescapable, especially in the US. So basing your identity on being the "good, non-racist white person" is fragile. Instead of denying that your lawn has dandelions, better to weed them as they appear.

Social Justice is a Religion, and Racism is its Original Sin.

Not meant as a criticism, but as an observation. And an explanation for why religions that *should* embrace equity given the example of Jesus, instead they recoil from it--it offers everything they do, and threatens to disrupt them.

Well said Gremlin

Anyone who has ever driven through Rocky Mount, Lumberton, or Fayetteville knows first hand that there is no shortage of violence in America's "small towns".

Paleocon wrote:

Anyone who has ever driven through Rocky Mount, Lumberton, or Fayetteville knows first hand that there is no shortage of violence in America's "small towns".

People that fetish-ize rural America have A. Never Lived There or B. Did Live There and were not poor or minority.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Social Justice is a Religion, and Racism is its Original Sin.

Not meant as a criticism, but as an observation. And an explanation for why religions that *should* embrace equity given the example of Jesus, instead they recoil from it--it offers everything they do, and threatens to disrupt them.

Except that doesn't explain the difference between, say, black evangelicals and white evangelicals.

White evangelicals aren't embracing equity because they're afraid of that social justice will replace their religion. They're not embracing equity because they and their institutions are racist. Modern white evangelicalism was literally built on a foundation of racism: evangelical leaders who wanted to keep their private Christian schools lily white.

Reaper81 wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Anyone who has ever driven through Rocky Mount, Lumberton, or Fayetteville knows first hand that there is no shortage of violence in America's "small towns".

People that fetish-ize rural America have A. Never Lived There or B. Did Live There and were not poor or minority.

Yup. Well said.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Social Justice is a Religion, and Racism is its Original Sin.

Not meant as a criticism, but as an observation. And an explanation for why religions that *should* embrace equity given the example of Jesus, instead they recoil from it--it offers everything they do, and threatens to disrupt them.

Except that doesn't explain the difference between, say, black evangelicals and white evangelicals.

White evangelicals aren't embracing equity because they're afraid of that social justice will replace their religion. They're not embracing equity because they and their institutions are racist.

I think it explains it perfectly. It threatens the power (edit) of white evangelical churches in a way that it does not threaten that of black evangelical churches. If anything, it bolsters the power of black evangelical churches as something it is not the place of white people to criticize.

Modern white evangelicalism was literally built on a foundation of racism: evangelical leaders who wanted to keep their private Christian schools lily white.

I can't find it now, but once upon a time I read an article about how even the turn on abortion among Protestants was about school desegregation.

I'm not 100% on this, but I seem to recollect that black evangelicals have not been all that tolerant of the LGBT community.

They are not.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Social Justice is a Religion, and Racism is its Original Sin.

Not meant as a criticism, but as an observation. And an explanation for why religions that *should* embrace equity given the example of Jesus, instead they recoil from it--it offers everything they do, and threatens to disrupt them.

I partially disagree, mostly because the phenomenon I'm describing is well-entrenched in right-wing conservatives. They'd never think of themselves as social justice warriors or anything, though they often don't think of themselves as racist. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who showed up to lynchings in their Sunday best didn't think they were racist.

On the other hand, left-wing people who think that because they're not saying the n-word and would have voted for Obama three times if they could are absolutely also racist and unable to confront their internal contradictions.

As for religion, I posted a Kierkegaard quote a little while back in a different thread:

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in this world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

I open the New Testament and read: ‘If you want to be perfect, then sell all your goods and give to the poor and come follow me.’ Good God, if we were to actually do this, all the capitalists, the officeholders, and the entrepreneurs, the whole society in fact, would be almost beggars! We would be sunk if it were not for Christian scholarship! Praise be to everyone who works to consolidate the reputation of Christian scholarship, which helps to restrain the New Testament, this confounded book which would one, two, three, run us all down if it got loose (that is, if Christian scholarship did not restrain it).

Way too much of American Christianity is just middle-class anxiety given a religious gloss. Push them hard enough and their bourgeois fear will trump Christ's actual words. Not all of them, but the ones in power certainly are anti-Christ.

Spoiler:

Witness Jeff Session's denials.

Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

Gremlin wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Social Justice is a Religion, and Racism is its Original Sin.

Not meant as a criticism, but as an observation. And an explanation for why religions that *should* embrace equity given the example of Jesus, instead they recoil from it--it offers everything they do, and threatens to disrupt them.

I partially disagree, mostly because the phenomenon I'm describing is well-entrenched in right-wing conservatives. They'd never think of themselves as social justice warriors or anything, though they often don't think of themselves as racist. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who showed up to lynchings in their Sunday best didn't think they were racist.

Oh, I'm not saying they think of themselves as social justice warriors, what I'm saying is that Social Justice offers an alternative to religion itself. It threatens the very purpose of religion, white-dominated religions, at least. It even uses the same tropes, replacing Original Sin with Racism. Wokeness with being Born Again. In short, it provides a sense of deep purpose and practice that something like Humanism never could, and therefore represents a much more existential threat.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Oh, I'm not saying they think of themselves as social justice warriors, what I'm saying is that Social Justice offers an alternative to religion itself. It threatens the very purpose of religion, white-dominated religions, at least. It even uses the same tropes, replacing Original Sin with Racism. Wokeness with being Born Again. In short, it provides a sense of deep purpose and practice that something like Humanism never could, and therefore represents a much more existential threat.

I have to squint real hard to see two circles when I look at the Venn diagram of Social Justice Warrior and Humanist.

Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Oh, I'm not saying they think of themselves as social justice warriors, what I'm saying is that Social Justice offers an alternative to religion itself. It threatens the very purpose of religion, white-dominated religions, at least. It even uses the same tropes, replacing Original Sin with Racism. Wokeness with being Born Again. In short, it provides a sense of deep purpose and practice that something like Humanism never could, and therefore represents a much more existential threat.

I have to squint real hard to see two circles when I look at the Venn diagram of Social Justice Warrior and Humanist.

Humanism always came across to me as much more individualistic and entailing far fewer obligations than Social Justice, and therefore, much less of a threat.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Humanism always came across to me as much more individualistic and entailing far fewer obligations than Social Justice, and therefore, much less of a threat.

I think you're misinterpreting the "individualistic" aspect of humanism as "solipsistic".

Humanism provides an ethical framework that's independent of religious dogma, which, if anything, entails just as many obligations to your fellow man, it's just the rationale behind why and how you treat your fellow man is very different.

My point that "SJW" is a practical code of behavior that aligns entirely with the ethical model provided by Humanism.

Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Humanism always came across to me as much more individualistic and entailing far fewer obligations than Social Justice, and therefore, much less of a threat.

I think you're misinterpreting the "individualistic" aspect of humanism as "solipsistic".

Humanism provides an ethical framework that's independent of religious dogma, which, if anything, entails just as many obligations to your fellow man, it's just the rationale behind why and how you treat your fellow man is very different.

My point that "SJW" is a practical code of behavior that aligns entirely with the ethical model provided by Humanism.

No, I'm interpreting "individualistic" as just what you are saying--an ethical framework for dealing with your fellow man. Social Justice is much less individualistic than that. Social Justice is about how you behave towards systems while you yourself function inside those systems.

If you still think I'm mischaracterizing Humanism, then for the sake of argument let's grant that you're correct. What I'm talking about is how Social Justice isn't just another ethical model. It goes beyond that, and appeals to people in many of the ways that religions do. The obligations are not just of treating your fellow human well, they are more like the obligations of a Christian living in a fallen world, obligated to atone for the sins of their predecessors. All that adds up to much more *emotional* appeal than you find something that is just an ethical framework.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Humanism always came across to me as much more individualistic and entailing far fewer obligations than Social Justice, and therefore, much less of a threat.

I think you're misinterpreting the "individualistic" aspect of humanism as "solipsistic".

Humanism provides an ethical framework that's independent of religious dogma, which, if anything, entails just as many obligations to your fellow man, it's just the rationale behind why and how you treat your fellow man is very different.

My point that "SJW" is a practical code of behavior that aligns entirely with the ethical model provided by Humanism.

No, I'm interpreting "individualistic" as just what you are saying--an ethical framework for dealing with your fellow man. Social Justice is much less individualistic than that. Social Justice is about how you behave towards systems while you yourself function inside those systems.

If you still think I'm mischaracterizing Humanism, then for the sake of argument let's grant that you're correct. What I'm talking about is how Social Justice isn't just another ethical model. It goes beyond that, and appeals to people in many of the ways that religions do. The obligations are not just of treating your fellow human well, they are more like the obligations of a Christian living in a fallen world, obligated to atone for the sins of their predecessors. All that adds up to much more *emotional* appeal than you find something that is just an ethical framework.

Eh. I think we're talking past each other.

You seem to be talking about Social Justice as an experiential phenomenom, I'm talking about it a behavioral code.

Jonman wrote:

Eh. I think we're talking past each other.

You seem to be talking about Social Justice as an experiential phenomenon, I'm talking about it a behavioral code.

You're right--that make sense.

And to be clear, if that phenomenon is the best choice for saving lives, then so be it.

Some details about this "responsible gun owner" which probably won't be too surprising:

Gunman Juan Lopez, 32, had threatened to shoot up the Chicago Fire Department Academy nearly five years ago, around the time he was fired for failing to show up to work while facing allegations of “improper conduct” toward women there, officials said. In addition, his ex-wife in 2014 obtained a temporary order of protection against him, alleging that he slept with a pistol under his pillow and had pointed a gun at someone.
Nonetheless, police said, Lopez was licensed to carry a concealed weapon when he terrorized the hospital in the Bronzeville neighborhood on the Near South Side. It was unclear Tuesday whether Lopez’s alleged past conduct had ever led to any review or temporary revocation of his permission to own or carry a gun.
gewy wrote:
It was unclear Tuesday whether Lopez’s alleged past conduct had ever led to any review or temporary revocation of his permission to own or carry a gun.

Narrator: "It hadn't."

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
gewy wrote:
It was unclear Tuesday whether Lopez’s alleged past conduct had ever led to any review or temporary revocation of his permission to own or carry a gun.

Narrator: "It hadn't."

That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works.

Gremlin wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Social Justice is a Religion, and Racism is its Original Sin.

Not meant as a criticism, but as an observation. And an explanation for why religions that *should* embrace equity given the example of Jesus, instead they recoil from it--it offers everything they do, and threatens to disrupt them.

I partially disagree, mostly because the phenomenon I'm describing is well-entrenched in right-wing conservatives. They'd never think of themselves as social justice warriors or anything, though they often don't think of themselves as racist. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who showed up to lynchings in their Sunday best didn't think they were racist.

On the other hand, left-wing people who think that because they're not saying the n-word and would have voted for Obama three times if they could are absolutely also racist and unable to confront their internal contradictions.

As for religion, I posted a Kierkegaard quote a little while back in a different thread:

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in this world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

I open the New Testament and read: ‘If you want to be perfect, then sell all your goods and give to the poor and come follow me.’ Good God, if we were to actually do this, all the capitalists, the officeholders, and the entrepreneurs, the whole society in fact, would be almost beggars! We would be sunk if it were not for Christian scholarship! Praise be to everyone who works to consolidate the reputation of Christian scholarship, which helps to restrain the New Testament, this confounded book which would one, two, three, run us all down if it got loose (that is, if Christian scholarship did not restrain it).

Way too much of American Christianity is just middle-class anxiety given a religious gloss. Push them hard enough and their bourgeois fear will trump Christ's actual words. Not all of them, but the ones in power certainly are anti-Christ.

Spoiler:

Witness Jeff Session's denials.

Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

This is an exceptionally good post.

While Kierkegaard has some valid points about how many Christians like to pick and choose only the convenient parts of scripture to live by, he misses the whole point of the gospel in the NT. The gospel, or “good news” that Christ came to preach and confirm through His death and resurrection tells us that we are wholly unable to be perfect and that God has made a way to reconciliation with Him through Christ. The gospel says that even after acceptance of this truth, it is only God that can transform our selfishness into love as we daily repent of sin, submit to His authority, and depend on Him for the strength and wisdom to love others as He wants us to.

There is no excuse or justification for the abysmal treatment of the poor/marginalized and unbelievably broken immigration policy in our country, especially from those who claim Christ as their authority.

Nomad wrote:
Gremlin wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Social Justice is a Religion, and Racism is its Original Sin.

Not meant as a criticism, but as an observation. And an explanation for why religions that *should* embrace equity given the example of Jesus, instead they recoil from it--it offers everything they do, and threatens to disrupt them.

I partially disagree, mostly because the phenomenon I'm describing is well-entrenched in right-wing conservatives. They'd never think of themselves as social justice warriors or anything, though they often don't think of themselves as racist. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people who showed up to lynchings in their Sunday best didn't think they were racist.

On the other hand, left-wing people who think that because they're not saying the n-word and would have voted for Obama three times if they could are absolutely also racist and unable to confront their internal contradictions.

As for religion, I posted a Kierkegaard quote a little while back in a different thread:

The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in this world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

I open the New Testament and read: ‘If you want to be perfect, then sell all your goods and give to the poor and come follow me.’ Good God, if we were to actually do this, all the capitalists, the officeholders, and the entrepreneurs, the whole society in fact, would be almost beggars! We would be sunk if it were not for Christian scholarship! Praise be to everyone who works to consolidate the reputation of Christian scholarship, which helps to restrain the New Testament, this confounded book which would one, two, three, run us all down if it got loose (that is, if Christian scholarship did not restrain it).

Way too much of American Christianity is just middle-class anxiety given a religious gloss. Push them hard enough and their bourgeois fear will trump Christ's actual words. Not all of them, but the ones in power certainly are anti-Christ.

Spoiler:

Witness Jeff Session's denials.

Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

This is an exceptionally good post.

While Kierkegaard has some valid points about how many Christians like to pick and choose only the convenient parts of scripture to live by, he misses the whole point of the gospel in the NT. The gospel, or “good news” that Christ came to preach and confirm through His death and resurrection tells us that we are wholly unable to be perfect and that God has made a way to reconciliation with Him through Christ. The gospel says that even after acceptance of this truth, it is only God that can transform our selfishness into love as we daily repent of sin, submit to His authority, and depend on Him for the strength and wisdom to love others as He wants us to.

There is no excuse or justification for the abysmal treatment of the poor/marginalized and unbelievably broken immigration policy in our country, especially from those who claim Christ as their authority.

Ugh.

Nomad wrote:

This is an exceptionally good post.

While Kierkegaard has some valid points about how many Christians like to pick and choose only the convenient parts of scripture to live by, he misses the whole point of the gospel in the NT. The gospel, or “good news” that Christ came to preach and confirm through His death and resurrection tells us that we are wholly unable to be perfect and that God has made a way to reconciliation with Him through Christ. The gospel says that even after acceptance of this truth, it is only God that can transform our selfishness into love as we daily repent of sin, submit to His authority, and depend on Him for the strength and wisdom to love others as He wants us to.

There is no excuse or justification for the abysmal treatment of the poor/marginalized and unbelievably broken immigration policy in our country, especially from those who claim Christ as their authority.

Amen. All throughout scripture God shows his concern for the poor and for the "alien" in our midst. Christians should behave likewise.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Oh, I'm not saying they think of themselves as social justice warriors, what I'm saying is that Social Justice offers an alternative to religion itself. It threatens the very purpose of religion, white-dominated religions, at least. It even uses the same tropes, replacing Original Sin with Racism. Wokeness with being Born Again. In short, it provides a sense of deep purpose and practice that something like Humanism never could, and therefore represents a much more existential threat.

I have to squint real hard to see two circles when I look at the Venn diagram of Social Justice Warrior and Humanist.

Humanism always came across to me as much more individualistic and entailing far fewer obligations than Social Justice, and therefore, much less of a threat.

Humanism is the “I don’t see race!” of the social justice community.

bekkilyn wrote:
Nomad wrote:

This is an exceptionally good post.

While Kierkegaard has some valid points about how many Christians like to pick and choose only the convenient parts of scripture to live by, he misses the whole point of the gospel in the NT. The gospel, or “good news” that Christ came to preach and confirm through His death and resurrection tells us that we are wholly unable to be perfect and that God has made a way to reconciliation with Him through Christ. The gospel says that even after acceptance of this truth, it is only God that can transform our selfishness into love as we daily repent of sin, submit to His authority, and depend on Him for the strength and wisdom to love others as He wants us to.

There is no excuse or justification for the abysmal treatment of the poor/marginalized and unbelievably broken immigration policy in our country, especially from those who claim Christ as their authority.

Amen. All throughout scripture God shows his concern for the poor and for the "alien" in our midst. Christians should behave likewise.

I find myself, more and more, saying that the world would be a much better place if all the folks quoting John 3:16 would start living Matthew 25:40 instead.

nel e nel wrote:

Humanism is the “I don’t see race!” of the social justice community.

lolwut

EDIT: Digging back, I have to assume you were responding to specific terms as used by cheeze with those same terms as used by cheeze, and weren't trying to sound like Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty with a year of community college under his belt.

Paleocon wrote:

I find myself, more and more, saying that the world would be a much better place if all the folks quoting John 3:16 would start living Matthew 25:40 instead.

Unfortunately, there are too many claiming Christ who seem to believe that a few seconds of getting "saved" during an altar call is all they need and never get around to actually walking the walk as per Matthew 25:40, despite that Jesus *commands* Christians to love others as he loves us as per John 13:34.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Humanism is the “I don’t see race!” of the social justice community.

lolwut

EDIT: Digging back, I have to assume you were responding to specific terms as used by cheeze with those same terms as used by cheeze, and weren't trying to sound like Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty with a year of community college under his belt.

I see this phrase uttered within the context of dismissing issues of race, gender, sexuality etc.

It's a subtle way of tone policing and is often part of the whole "well if SJWs would just frame the issue differently, more people would join their cause!" Usually the same types of folks that are threatened by feminism and go out of their way to not acknowledge someone's skin color so as to appear more PC. How can we attempt to solve these issues if a significant part of the population refuses to even label them properly?

And since cheeze specifically pointed out that "humanism" is a less threatening term, that is exactly what I was responding to. It's a way to whitewash feminism and black lives matter and other phrases that directly address issues that minorities face.