9 ms·

LMAO of course Reason would publish this smug garbage. Gotta love these people’s kneejerk impulse to pull a “well ACKSHUALLY, the most important thing is point

LMAO of course Reason would publish this smug garbage. Gotta love these people’s kneejerk impulse to pull a “well ACKSHUALLY, the most important thing is pointing out that this author’s usage of language is better than other authors!”

yucky 4y ago
Should we care that we are being given blatantly and intentionally false data? Or should we throw logic out the window and just go with emotion?
- braingenious 4y ago
  Sure, intentionally false data is not good. Intentionally moving goal posts and then calling any data that doesn’t fit an arbitrary definition “false”is an example of said blatant intentional false data. If I decide that a “mass school shooting” actually requires 5 people shot, the number of “mass school shootings” goes down! If I define it as 2 people shot, it goes up! The topic of this article isn’t misinformation, the substance is. The only thing discussed is the author preferring one arbitrary definition over another. It’s literally about how he’s more clever than your average person.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Come on now, they literally cite where a gang member shooting another gang member at 1am near a school parking lot counts as a school shooting. Counting incidents like that when discussing Uvalde isn't even disingenuous, it's just a blatant lie. I think society can agree that 13 Uvalde's since 1966 is too many, but when you try to convince everyone that nighttime gang shootings in the parking lot near a school at 1am is a "school shooting", well now people no longer believe anything you're saying. And that's a problem because it means we'll never reach consensus. It's almost like these people selling this bullshit don't want to actually solve the problem.
    - braingenious 4y ago
      > It's almost like these people selling this bullshit don't want to actually solve the problem. Couldn’t agree more strongly. How can we ever reduce the number of dead kids from shootings without spending a huge amount of time deciding which Reason article’s belabored definition of “mass” is the best? In your opinion, if that one gang related shooting was not categorized in a way that bothered you, how would it bring us closer to fixing this situation?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - yucky 4y ago
        I can tell you didn't read the article, since most of the "school shootings" are versions of what I described, and not another Uvalde or Sandy Hook or Columbine. So again, what is the goal of lying? We know it will make people not trust what's being said, which I would hope we can agree is not a good thing. So then, what is the reason for lying about the real numbers? Perhaps you can explain the logic, because I'm not understanding it.
        braingenious 4y ago
        I did read the article. The point I’ve made plainly is that it’s a silly exercise to focus on things like pedantry when discussing something so viscerally real as school shootings. There are people, such as the author and yourself, that prefer to focus on intangible things in the wake of real life events. > So again, what is the goal of lying? It depends: Sometimes people with entrenched pro-gun ideals will use this tactic to avoid discussing actual solutions to reduce the future number of dead kids. Sometimes people aren’t particularly pro-gun but have vague libertarian ideals and this sort of discussion feels more aligned to their worldview. Sometimes there are people that legitimately do not give a shit about dead kids and only see an opportunity to flex their imagined mental muscles and try to impress internet strangers with their big scary brains. These people have only one interest: getting an internet stranger to say “You are right. You are smarter than me.” To that end they will move goalposts, feign outrage, accuse others of lying, etc. Lying absolutely serves the aims of these people and they engage in it gleefully.

yucky 4y ago

Should we care that we are being given blatantly and intentionally false data? Or should we throw logic out the window and just go with emotion?

braingenious 4y ago
Sure, intentionally false data is not good. Intentionally moving goal posts and then calling any data that doesn’t fit an arbitrary definition “false”is an example of said blatant intentional false data. If I decide that a “mass school shooting” actually requires 5 people shot, the number of “mass school shootings” goes down! If I define it as 2 people shot, it goes up! The topic of this article isn’t misinformation, the substance is. The only thing discussed is the author preferring one arbitrary definition over another. It’s literally about how he’s more clever than your average person.
- yucky 4y ago
  Come on now, they literally cite where a gang member shooting another gang member at 1am near a school parking lot counts as a school shooting. Counting incidents like that when discussing Uvalde isn't even disingenuous, it's just a blatant lie. I think society can agree that 13 Uvalde's since 1966 is too many, but when you try to convince everyone that nighttime gang shootings in the parking lot near a school at 1am is a "school shooting", well now people no longer believe anything you're saying. And that's a problem because it means we'll never reach consensus. It's almost like these people selling this bullshit don't want to actually solve the problem.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    > It's almost like these people selling this bullshit don't want to actually solve the problem. Couldn’t agree more strongly. How can we ever reduce the number of dead kids from shootings without spending a huge amount of time deciding which Reason article’s belabored definition of “mass” is the best? In your opinion, if that one gang related shooting was not categorized in a way that bothered you, how would it bring us closer to fixing this situation?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - yucky 4y ago
      I can tell you didn't read the article, since most of the "school shootings" are versions of what I described, and not another Uvalde or Sandy Hook or Columbine. So again, what is the goal of lying? We know it will make people not trust what's being said, which I would hope we can agree is not a good thing. So then, what is the reason for lying about the real numbers? Perhaps you can explain the logic, because I'm not understanding it.
      - braingenious 4y ago
        I did read the article. The point I’ve made plainly is that it’s a silly exercise to focus on things like pedantry when discussing something so viscerally real as school shootings. There are people, such as the author and yourself, that prefer to focus on intangible things in the wake of real life events. > So again, what is the goal of lying? It depends: Sometimes people with entrenched pro-gun ideals will use this tactic to avoid discussing actual solutions to reduce the future number of dead kids. Sometimes people aren’t particularly pro-gun but have vague libertarian ideals and this sort of discussion feels more aligned to their worldview. Sometimes there are people that legitimately do not give a shit about dead kids and only see an opportunity to flex their imagined mental muscles and try to impress internet strangers with their big scary brains. These people have only one interest: getting an internet stranger to say “You are right. You are smarter than me.” To that end they will move goalposts, feign outrage, accuse others of lying, etc. Lying absolutely serves the aims of these people and they engage in it gleefully.