5 ms·

> 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 numbe

> 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
    With all due respect, you answered the question about what the goal of lying is with "it depends" and then didn't actually answer how the lying is anything other than a bad thing that causes more problems? Which was my point. So it's not pedantic to say we should discuss real numbers. In fact, it would work better since we could all at least know we're being honest with each other, something lacking currently. When you start off every conversation with a blatant lie and then call out "PEDANTRY" when called out on it. that will never lead to civil discourse or positive solutions. So why do it?
    - braingenious 4y ago
      What is your definition of the word “goal”? Example 1: The person focuses on abstract definitions of words like “mass” because they have a goal of avoiding meaningful discussion. This tactic of arguing about words accomplishes this goal. Example 2: Arguing about words makes the poison feel good. Their goal of feeling good about themselves is accomplished. Example 3: A cynical loser who only cares about looking clever online chooses to argue about abstract definitions of words… chooses to argue about abstract definitions. This accomplishes the goal of asserting their superior intellect and better understanding of the world. Edit: LOL what is the blatant lie that I have repeatedly posted? I’ve mostly expressed my opinion that the author of the article is a masturbatory idiot and people that parrot his silly chin stroking nonsense are equally masturbatory idiots. That… isn’t a lie. I genuinely believe that to be the case!
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - yucky 4y ago
        I'm asking what the goal of lying is because I'm giving the people lying the benefit of the doubt, that maybe they are in their minds telling a "noble lie" or that they are doing it for some actual reason. If there is no "goal" to them lying about the numbers, then they're just lying to lie? Isn't that worse? I guess I'm trying to understand why people would intentionally undermine their position from the start by using statistics that they know aren't accurate or that are intentionally misleading, knowing that it immediately undermines their argument. So why would they do that? That's the question. You seem to be ok with them spinning a false narrative (ie. 27 "school shootings" this year) so I'm asking you since presumably you're ok with them starting the conversation with lies. Don't you understand that has the opposite of the intended effect?

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
  With all due respect, you answered the question about what the goal of lying is with "it depends" and then didn't actually answer how the lying is anything other than a bad thing that causes more problems? Which was my point. So it's not pedantic to say we should discuss real numbers. In fact, it would work better since we could all at least know we're being honest with each other, something lacking currently. When you start off every conversation with a blatant lie and then call out "PEDANTRY" when called out on it. that will never lead to civil discourse or positive solutions. So why do it?
  - braingenious 4y ago
    What is your definition of the word “goal”? Example 1: The person focuses on abstract definitions of words like “mass” because they have a goal of avoiding meaningful discussion. This tactic of arguing about words accomplishes this goal. Example 2: Arguing about words makes the poison feel good. Their goal of feeling good about themselves is accomplished. Example 3: A cynical loser who only cares about looking clever online chooses to argue about abstract definitions of words… chooses to argue about abstract definitions. This accomplishes the goal of asserting their superior intellect and better understanding of the world. Edit: LOL what is the blatant lie that I have repeatedly posted? I’ve mostly expressed my opinion that the author of the article is a masturbatory idiot and people that parrot his silly chin stroking nonsense are equally masturbatory idiots. That… isn’t a lie. I genuinely believe that to be the case!
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - yucky 4y ago
      I'm asking what the goal of lying is because I'm giving the people lying the benefit of the doubt, that maybe they are in their minds telling a "noble lie" or that they are doing it for some actual reason. If there is no "goal" to them lying about the numbers, then they're just lying to lie? Isn't that worse? I guess I'm trying to understand why people would intentionally undermine their position from the start by using statistics that they know aren't accurate or that are intentionally misleading, knowing that it immediately undermines their argument. So why would they do that? That's the question. You seem to be ok with them spinning a false narrative (ie. 27 "school shootings" this year) so I'm asking you since presumably you're ok with them starting the conversation with lies. Don't you understand that has the opposite of the intended effect?