3 ms·

this definition is only commonly accepted amongst the left. as an example, would you call a gathering of 4 people a mass gathering. most wouldn’t.

cosmicgadget 1y ago
Probably because those are two different contexts.
- tekknik 1y ago
  no, it’s loaded speech and meant to manipulate human emotion to promote one’s goals.
abustamam 1y ago
I'd love for you to define it then.
- tekknik 1y ago
  it’s simple, don’t use verbiage meant to manipulate emotions. so just call it a shooting. the qualifier mass serves no purpose and changes nothing about how the case is prosecuted. the suspect is still charged with individual murder or manslaughter charges, not one single charge of multiple deaths.
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    I'll do one further. I don't care if the verbiage is "manipulative" or has a spin to it so long as the term and definition are not specifically crafted to overload plain english terms to facilitate being misleading with plausible deniability. That's how low of a bar I'll set and they still can't meet it.
Fezzik 1y ago
I think of ‘mass’ in the context of defining groups of things as just ‘a lot under the circumstances’. A mass gathering for an NFL game is 100,000 people; a mass crowd for a high-school JV basketball game is probably 100; a mass crowd for a 1 year old’s birthday is maybe 50. It’s relative to what is expected under normal circumstances. 4 people being shot or injured is a lot because nobody should be shot or injured.
- tekknik 1y ago
  this is again loaded language. the intent is to make things seem more severe than they were. the bombing of Nagasaki was a mass killing, shooting 4 people is a shooting with 4 victims, not a mass shooting.
  - abustamam 1y ago
    Why are you so intent on the definition of "mass?" whether "mass" means 4 or 400, one "mass shooting" is one too many. Arguing about how many people are allowed to die in an incident before we do something about it does nothing to prevent this from happening.
ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
There's this thing called "context"[0]. You seem to be unfamiliar with it. Perhaps you might brush up on that? Just a crazy thought. Toodles! [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context
- tekknik 1y ago
  your hateful response will have no change on anything whatsoever
  - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
    Hateful? Really? Providing definitions of words that seem not to be in one's vocabulary is hateful? Let's see: hateful[0] (adjective) 1 : full of hate : malicious 2 : deserving of or arousing hate Defining words arouses hate? Should I warn the fine folks over at Merriam Webster that you might come for them? Or is it that you think suggesting that context is an important part of understanding language is a hateful endeavour? Please, do tell. This is fascinating! I wish you well and hope there are folks who will welcome you and make you feel loved. Is that more hateful stuff too, friend? [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hateful https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hateful
    - tekknik 1y ago
      it’s your tone and an assumption that i don’t understand the definition of context. it is hateful disagreements like this that radicalize people. your response was hateful, reword it without defining words for people.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        Nope. Not gonna happen. It's not hateful at all. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I'm just calling out what seems pretty clearly to be your lack of nuance/flexibility of the language. Which is something you might expect from a recent English language learner or a child. Are you one of those? If not, you're pretty clearly being deliberately obtuse. I won't hazard a guess as to why you might do such a thing, as that would likely be uncharitable. I'll sum up, in case you're still confused: Calling you out for your tone deafness and/or deliberate obtuseness isn't hateful at all. In fact, it's meant to inform you of the above as a service, so that you might provide higher quality discourse here. As for being "hateful," I have no quarrel with you. I wish no harm on you, nor have you earned my ire. Rather, I have no strong feelings about you one way or the other. If a mild remonstration is considered to be "hateful" by you, I can hardly imagine your reaction to actual verbal abuse. I expect it wouldn't be pretty.

cosmicgadget 1y ago

Probably because those are two different contexts.

tekknik 1y ago
no, it’s loaded speech and meant to manipulate human emotion to promote one’s goals.

abustamam 1y ago

I'd love for you to define it then.

tekknik 1y ago
it’s simple, don’t use verbiage meant to manipulate emotions. so just call it a shooting. the qualifier mass serves no purpose and changes nothing about how the case is prosecuted. the suspect is still charged with individual murder or manslaughter charges, not one single charge of multiple deaths.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  I'll do one further. I don't care if the verbiage is "manipulative" or has a spin to it so long as the term and definition are not specifically crafted to overload plain english terms to facilitate being misleading with plausible deniability. That's how low of a bar I'll set and they still can't meet it.

Fezzik 1y ago

I think of ‘mass’ in the context of defining groups of things as just ‘a lot under the circumstances’. A mass gathering for an NFL game is 100,000 people; a mass crowd for a high-school JV basketball game is probably 100; a mass crowd for a 1 year old’s birthday is maybe 50. It’s relative to what is expected under normal circumstances. 4 people being shot or injured is a lot because nobody should be shot or injured.

tekknik 1y ago
this is again loaded language. the intent is to make things seem more severe than they were. the bombing of Nagasaki was a mass killing, shooting 4 people is a shooting with 4 victims, not a mass shooting.
- abustamam 1y ago
  Why are you so intent on the definition of "mass?" whether "mass" means 4 or 400, one "mass shooting" is one too many. Arguing about how many people are allowed to die in an incident before we do something about it does nothing to prevent this from happening.

ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago

There's this thing called "context"[0]. You seem to be unfamiliar with it. Perhaps you might brush up on that? Just a crazy thought. Toodles! [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/context

tekknik 1y ago
your hateful response will have no change on anything whatsoever
- ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
  Hateful? Really? Providing definitions of words that seem not to be in one's vocabulary is hateful? Let's see: hateful[0] (adjective) 1 : full of hate : malicious 2 : deserving of or arousing hate Defining words arouses hate? Should I warn the fine folks over at Merriam Webster that you might come for them? Or is it that you think suggesting that context is an important part of understanding language is a hateful endeavour? Please, do tell. This is fascinating! I wish you well and hope there are folks who will welcome you and make you feel loved. Is that more hateful stuff too, friend? [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hateful https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hateful
  - tekknik 1y ago
    it’s your tone and an assumption that i don’t understand the definition of context. it is hateful disagreements like this that radicalize people. your response was hateful, reword it without defining words for people.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
      Nope. Not gonna happen. It's not hateful at all. I wish you no ill will whatsoever. I'm just calling out what seems pretty clearly to be your lack of nuance/flexibility of the language. Which is something you might expect from a recent English language learner or a child. Are you one of those? If not, you're pretty clearly being deliberately obtuse. I won't hazard a guess as to why you might do such a thing, as that would likely be uncharitable. I'll sum up, in case you're still confused: Calling you out for your tone deafness and/or deliberate obtuseness isn't hateful at all. In fact, it's meant to inform you of the above as a service, so that you might provide higher quality discourse here. As for being "hateful," I have no quarrel with you. I wish no harm on you, nor have you earned my ire. Rather, I have no strong feelings about you one way or the other. If a mild remonstration is considered to be "hateful" by you, I can hardly imagine your reaction to actual verbal abuse. I expect it wouldn't be pretty.