Yet another school shooting.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I take it Lee's post is trying to draw a correlation between millennial/young men, loneliest generation, easy access to hate speech, desensitized by violent video games & movies etc.

... but all the mass shooting are (mostly?) by white young adults and disenchanted middle age men. Black, brown and yellow all experience the same thing. Sure those other groups do violence too but specifically for mass shootings due to hate, bullying, mental health etc. (vs criminal activities) ... what explains that?

I wonder if white people are, on average, more at risk of isolation in the U.S. since they're less likely to have that built-in community and established family looking out for them like you'd have in many minority groups who are more likely to be going through the same kinds of things collectively.

And that's probably tied in with family and church and neighborhood communities becoming much less important in America than they were decades ago. It's just much easier to get lost.

When there are minority shooters (Virigina Tech), they seem to share those mass shooter characteristics.

[Ben E Lou]

She's getting a nasty tweet tomorrow morning.

Mayor of Dayton Nan Whaley: "I've heard that [President Trump's] coming Wednesday but I have not gotten a call. And you know he might be going to Toledo, I don't know." pic.twitter.com/CYnyF6hA31

— The Hill (@thehill) August 5, 2019

[QuikSand]

that's some serious smoke

[Edward64]

If only Trump (or his speechwriters) could be as eloquent as Obama in trying to reassure the country.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What is elite about making everyone's vote equal? It's elite to give more voting power to certain citizens over others.

The reason even popular policies like background checks can't get passed is because the Senate is controlled by a minority of the population. The Presidency is also controlled by a minority of the population. This allows unpopular ideas to remain.

This country is heavily in favor of background checks, raising the minimum age, and banning of the AR-15. But as long as someone in Wyoming's vote is 70 times as effective as one in California, the minority sets the rules.

Maybe I explained it poorly, but I think we were better off when Senators were nominated by governors and state houses, kinda like how you have the House of Lords in England. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[JPhillips]

Gerrymandering would then also pick US Senators? No thanks.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Maybe I explained it poorly, but I think we were better off when Senators were nominated by governors and state houses, kinda like how you have the House of Lords in England. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

I don't think the Senate should exist at all. It's an outdated system that gives immensely more power to some voters over others.

Also the House of Lords has very little power.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think the Senate should exist at all. It's an outdated system that gives immensely more power to some voters over others.

Also the House of Lords has very little power.

I thought about that today but also don't really want to muddy this thread up too much....

A long term goal of the American left should be to turn the Senate into what the House of Lords in the UK currently is..... powerless.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by lungs

I thought about that today but also don't really want to muddy this thread up too much....

A long term goal of the American left should be to turn the Senate into what the House of Lords in the UK currently is..... powerless.

If DC and Puerto Rico become states the GOP will do it for them.

[Edward64]

Didn't know there was such a things. Kinda scared to google on it ...

EXCLUSIVE: Dayton Shooter Was in a “Pornogrind� Band That Released Songs About Raping and Killing Women – VICE News

Before he killed nine people in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio, early Sunday, Connor Betts was deeply involved in the misogynistic, male-dominated “goregrind” or “pornogrind” extreme metal music scene. It has a regional following in the Midwest and is known for sexually violent, death-obsessed lyrics and dehumanizing imagery depicting women.

Over the past year, the 24-year-old shooter occasionally performed live vocals in the band Menstrual Munchies, which released albums titled “6 Ways of Female Butchery” and “Preeteen Daughter Pu$$y Slaughter,” with cover art showing the rape and massacre of female bodies. He also performed with a group called Putrid Liquid.

Now one of Betts’ bandmates, Jesse Creekbaum, 25, is taking the recordings down. He says he’s removing them out of fear the vulgar music he produced will make a cult hero out of the murderer, who was killed by police at the scene. He’s also received death threats online because of his association with Betts.

Creekbaum, who has been writing and recording music under the name Menstrual Munchies for more than five years, says he did it mostly as a joke and now is sickened that Betts apparently took it all seriously.

[thesloppy]

It seems highly likely to me that the Dayton dude's primary target/motivation was his sister. Even if they're just one of many victims I can imagine you get armored up and murder your siblings by coincidence or mistake.

[PilotMan]

The misery his parents must be going through must be horrible. I can't even, nor want to comprehend it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The misery his parents must be going through must be horrible. I can't even, nor want to comprehend it.

Me too.

I do wonder how parents of these mass murderers cope long term with the loss, pain, guilt ...

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Me too.

I do wonder how parents of these mass murderers cope long term with the loss, pain, guilt ...

It's even more than that. It's the knowledge that after 24 years, that this is the person that you gave life to, raised, and loved watched turn into adulthood. That this was how he chose to live his life. That not only did you lose him, but you lost your daughter too. That you lost your other child, in the same moment, and that you lost her to her sibling, that she had known her whole life, that, at least at one time, she loved, and he loved, and that all the hopes and dreams that you had for your kids, and your life, and watching them grow up and have families of their own are washed away in some emotional nightmare. Kids are the parents identities for two decades or more sometimes. I just don't know how you even get out of bed, how you try and navigate a day? How you ever pretend to be normal, ever again? I just don't. I'm not sure I ever could again.

[RainMaker]

Seems like the warning signs were there once again. Kicked out of high school for creating a rape and murder list of girls. Was allowed back by writing an apology.

Maybe it's time to take it serious when people incessantly talk about wanting to butcher people.

[thesloppy]

I have incredible pity for the parents. The cynic inside me also wonders how many of these murdering young men (and pornogrind aficionados?) had exceptionally shitty parents? Not that I think they 'deserve' any suffering so much as I'm morbidly curious about what is influencing these maniacs.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I have incredible pity for the parents. The cynic inside me also wonders how many of these murdering young men (and pornogrind aficionados?) had exceptionally shitty parents? Not that I think they 'deserve' any suffering so much as I'm morbidly curious about what is influencing these maniacs.

The book Columbine talks about this. Great book for anyone interested in the topic. You learn how a lot of the media narratives were wrong. But there is a chapter or two about how the parents have dealt with it. Has to be tough to mourn the loss of your child knowing he took so many innocent people with him.

[JPhillips]

deleted for inaccuracy

[Kodos]

The man clearly knows his stuff.

[Edward64]

Only got 1 hit on the quote (can't believe he would have said that). We sure that isn't fake news?

[RainMaker]

It's not a real quote, although he did blame video games for it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's not a real quote, although he did blame video games for it.

If that's true, I'll delete. I got it from a guy I trust.

Sorry.

[Groundhog]

I think Japan is a good example of what a difference strong gun laws can make. They have an abnormally high number of mass stabbings - imagine the difference in death tolls of these attacks if the attackers had access to firearms instead.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

what a difference strong gun laws can make.

Strong gun laws mean nothing when judges/society don't approve of strong punishments.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think the Senate should exist at all. It's an outdated system that gives immensely more power to some voters over others.

Also the House of Lords has very little power.

I cant argue with your personal opinion and preference, but just pointing out the obvious. You are saying you'd rather live in a Democaracy than a Democratic Republic, which is what this country is and has been since founding.

Even the name is 'the United States"...each state is a separate sovereign entity. They are united and bound together for the mutual benefit and protection alliance. That is the very flesh that our entire structure is founded upon.

Otherwise...we could just let New York and Chicago all vote to dump all their untreated waste into Wyoming. I mean no one needs to live there. Tell those cowboys to move into the city.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I cant argue with your personal opinion and preference, but just pointing out the obvious. You are saying you'd rather live in a Democaracy than a Democratic Republic, which is what this country is and has been since founding.

Even the name is 'the United States"...each state is a separate sovereign entity. They are united and bound together for the mutual benefit and protection alliance. That is the very flesh that our entire structure is founded upon.

Otherwise...we could just let New York and Chicago all vote to dump all their untreated waste into Wyoming. I mean no one needs to live there. Tell those cowboys to move into the city.

You may want to review how federal law supersedes state law. The scenario you posited is basically what happened with nuclear waste.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I cant argue with your personal opinion and preference, but just pointing out the obvious. You are saying you'd rather live in a Democaracy than a Democratic Republic, which is what this country is and has been since founding.

Even the name is 'the United States"...each state is a separate sovereign entity. They are united and bound together for the mutual benefit and protection alliance. That is the very flesh that our entire structure is founded upon.

Otherwise...we could just let New York and Chicago all vote to dump all their untreated waste into Wyoming. I mean no one needs to live there. Tell those cowboys to move into the city.

Agreed, as you point out, the reason why Congress is set up as it is, is to give each chamber a specific purpose. It also allows the larger states to dominate one, and the smaller states to dominate another.

The fact that the House was set up originally to draft bills gave the power of direction of legislation to the larger states, in theory, since they had more votes. The Senate had the power to slow things down to make sure the smaller states would not have issues shoved down their throat in the name of Utility (from Utilitarianism).

Another reason why I would never want to live in a pure Democracy, the minute people did not like you, or fear you, legislation could be drafted to strip you of everything you have, or even condemn you to death. It is the Republican form of government that slows things down and allows passions to cool rather than jumping from extreme to extreme.

[RainMaker]

The current system allows for a minority of the population to enforce rules on the majority. Don't see how that is better.

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Another reason why I would never want to live in a pure Democracy, the minute people did not like you, or fear you, legislation could be drafted to strip you of everything you have, or even condemn you to death. It is the Republican form of government that slows things down and allows passions to cool rather than jumping from extreme to extreme.

That's what the constitution is for. To protect that from happening.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The current system allows for a minority of the population to enforce rules on the majority. Don't see how that is better.



That's what the constitution is for. To protect that from happening.

Freedom is the basis of the country and true freedom is scary to a lot of folks. And that isnt a left or right viewpoint...

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Another reason why I would never want to live in a pure Democracy, the minute people did not like you, or fear you, legislation could be drafted to strip you of everything you have, or even condemn you to death. It is the Republican form of government that slows things down and allows passions to cool rather than jumping from extreme to extreme.

Yes, imagine a system where one race of people could literally be enslaved by another. Good thing we don't live in that system.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Freedom is the basis of the country and true freedom is scary to a lot of folks. And that isnt a left or right viewpoint...

Well, at least for white, property owning, men.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well, at least for white, property owning, men.

I'm sure that is relevan to the conversation at hand but Im not sure how.

[Butter]

I find that a lot of people want all the benefits of "freedom" in society without having to pay in for any of the drawbacks.

You want great roads, you don't want to pay for them.
You want safe streets, you don't want to pay for them.
You want to blame criminals for not behaving instead of being born of frustration for not being on the same playing field as the privileged. Hell, they're not even playing the same game.

"They should just work hard". Why? When the privileged get continually rewarded for already being on top, while what you get for trying to get ahead is a boot in the face. Benefits slashed. No upward wage mobility, so the jobs you do get as a low skilled worker are almost guaranteed to keep you in poverty. Why bother? Just because the privileged say you should? How long is this game going to go on?

Where is the freedom for those in the inner city? Do you really think that if the 15 million people in inner city poverty just all of a sudden decided to get rid of crime and get trained that there would suddenly be a job market for them? That they could even afford the training? No. There has to be a systematic lifting of those people. They have to do some work to be sure. There has to be a change in attitude. But there also has to be a change in attitude from the "free" that there shouldn't be a permanent underclass.

There has to be an end to the attitude of "they just want mine" that pervades the fortunate baby boomers especially but also much of the middle class.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'm sure that is relevan to the conversation at hand but Im not sure how.

If you're worried about the bad things that will come from a more democratic system, you need to acknowledge that many of those things have already occurred under our current system.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Butter

I find that a lot of people want all the benefits of "freedom" in society without having to pay in for any of the drawbacks.

You want great roads, you don't want to pay for them.
You want safe streets, you don't want to pay for them.
You want to blame criminals for not behaving instead of being born of frustration for not being on the same playing field as the privileged. Hell, they're not even playing the same game.

"They should just work hard". Why? When the privileged get continually rewarded for already being on top, while what you get for trying to get ahead is a boot in the face. Benefits slashed. No upward wage mobility, so the jobs you do get as a low skilled worker are almost guaranteed to keep you in poverty. Why bother? Just because the privileged say you should? How long is this game going to go on?

Where is the freedom for those in the inner city? Do you really think that if the 15 million people in inner city poverty just all of a sudden decided to get rid of crime and get trained that there would suddenly be a job market for them? That they could even afford the training? No. There has to be a systematic lifting of those people. They have to do some work to be sure. There has to be a change in attitude. But there also has to be a change in attitude from the "free" that there shouldn't be a permanent underclass.

There has to be an end to the attitude of "they just want mine" that pervades the fortunate baby boomers especially but also much of the middle class.

I haven't meant a person, baby boomer or otherwise, willing to forgo providing every advantage they can for their kids in the name of giving people in lower classes a chance to take their place.

In fact, I think it may be hypocritical to lament the absence of upward mobility and then pay for your kids' school, or leave them a nest egg. Because this isn't a tax fix. For someone to literally move from say, the bottom 20% to the top 40%, someone has to move down. And to do that, there must be a dynamic to push them down.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Another reason why I would never want to live in a pure Democracy, the minute people did not like you, or fear you, legislation could be drafted to strip you of everything you have, or even condemn you to death. It is the Republican form of government that slows things down and allows passions to cool rather than jumping from extreme to extreme.

The Senate was literally put in place to appease slave holding states. It's been the single biggest impediment for freedom and equal rights in this country since its inception. The idea that it is in place to protect freedoms runs contrary to the history of our nation.

The idea of a Senate is fine if the states actually had more sovereignty. For instance if this was set up like the EU. Or when it would take a month to travel to another state. But the federal government has grown so much that the difference in states is negligible. Most of our resources come from the federal government.

It's an undemocratic system that gives preference to certain voters over others. I get that people like it, but lets drop the preaching to the world about democracy and free elections.

[NobodyHere]

The Senate was literally put in place to appease slave holding states?

So why wasn't Virginia in favor of it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The Senate was literally put in place to appease slave holding states?

So why wasn't Virginia in favor of it?

They had the largest population and would have had immense control of the House.

If the Senate had nothing to do with protecting slavery, why was the Missouri Compromise necessary?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They had the largest population and would have had immense control of the House.

And yet the equal representation views were pushed mainly by the northern states. So perhaps there was more going on in the creation of the senate than to protect slavery?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

And yet the equal representation views were pushed mainly by the northern states. So perhaps there was more going on in the creation of the senate than to protect slavery?

The North didn't care much about slavery at the time. They were more concerned about forming the union and creating good deals on shipping and trade (which they got in return for the fugitive slave act). The South is the one that threatened to walk out anytime the topic of slavery being banned was brought up.

The Senate (along with the electoral collage) was the firewall to protecting slavery in this country. It's why there were threats of secession whenever talk of a new state being added as free was brought up. The idea that the Senate has anything to do with protecting rights of people is just flat wrong.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

And yet the equal representation views were pushed mainly by the northern states. So perhaps there was more going on in the creation of the senate than to protect slavery?

The majority of them were landlocked and were going to be limited in population as compared to Virginia, New York, Georgia, North Carolina, etc. I believe this was also resolved before the NW territory issue was.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The majority of them were landlocked and were going to be limited in population as compared to Virginia, New York, Georgia, North Carolina, etc. I believe this was also resolved before the NW territory issue was.

So perhaps the senate was created so that all the political power wouldn't be concentrated in the more populated states like Virginia? And still fulfills this function today?

Or was it created to created to protect slavery like RainMaker asserts?

[Atocep]

The makeup of senate is something that will likely have to be addressed at some point.current projectiona are that by 2040 2/3 of senate will oversee 30% of the population. The minority having an inherent and insurmountable advantage over the majority in government never ends well.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The North didn't care much about slavery at the time. They were more concerned about forming the union and creating good deals on shipping and trade (which they got in return for the fugitive slave act). The South is the one that threatened to walk out anytime the topic of slavery being banned was brought up.

The Senate (along with the electoral collage) was the firewall to protecting slavery in this country. It's why there were threats of secession whenever talk of a new state being added as free was brought up. The idea that the Senate has anything to do with protecting rights of people is just flat wrong.

This makes no sense. If the North didn't care about slavery at the time of the Constiutional Convention (and I agree, they didn't), who was gunning after slavery so hard that a compromise creating the Senate was required? The answer is no one. Slavery didn't have anything to do with the creation of the Senate, not in any foundational or causal way.

The North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and to an extent, Maryland, pretty much did whatever Virginia wanted. The Northern states, in particular, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts were their own kinda fiefdoms with their own goals. Virginia was claiming the entire Ohio Valley as its own, even the parts west of Pennsylvania (the northerly exrension of West Virginia, once part of Virginia, is a symptom of that claim). Virginia was home to many of the most powerful and wealthiest men in the colonies, had the largest population and claimed the most land.

So the Northern states objected to a Congress based entirely on population, which they saw as furthering Virginia's power (and that of Virginia's voting bloc). Slavery was primarily discussed when it came.to the representation, as Virginia wanted its slaves to count against the population (whoch resulted in the 3-5ths compromise).

Similarly, smaller states like Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Maryland were wary of all of more populous states like Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania and .Massachusetts for the same reasons, and also wanted rhe Senate for reasons even beyond just limiting Virginia's power.

That is how we ended up with a bicameral legislation. Slavery was at best peripheral to its inception and design.

[illinifan999]

Mass shootings to gun control to slavery. We are most definitely living in 2019.

[QuikSand]

I care rather little for what political deal got struck hundreds of years ago that built this particular system. It has outlived its usefulness, and should be abolished - both the electoral college and the structure of the Senate. All representation should be based on population, period.

[miami_fan]

The misdirection is amazing. Everything will be okay now.

Walmart mass shooting: Stores removing violent video game displays

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The misdirection is amazing. Everything will be okay now.

Walmart mass shooting: Stores removing violent video game displays

It is always about the money

[Johnny93g]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The misdirection is amazing. Everything will be okay now.

Walmart mass shooting: Stores removing violent video game displays

I wonder when the rest of the world will get serious about violent video games!!

I read this and i start thinking you guys get what you deserve. Now, obviously, I don't mean that, but fuck, the stupidity.

[Warhammer]

Why stop at only video games, what about movie displays?