Yeah, I addressed that briefly in my first comment. This definition of "mass shooting" is much, much broader and very different from what most people are thinking of when people talk about mass shootings. Like, I'm fully aware of how serious the gun violence problem in the US is, but I'm not thinking of a domestic violence situation where multiple people got injured, or a gang related shooting at a club where some bystanders are killed when I hear the term "mass shooting". Don't get me wrong, those situations are tragic, and the availability of guns in the US makes them so much worse, but I understand the psychology of them pretty well, I think. It's not a mystery to me why they are happening. But the kind of situation where a person goes to a place and just starts indiscriminately shooting people is what I don't understand, and it's what I tend to think of when people talk about "mass shootings". Maybe this is just me being wrong, or maybe it's a problem of imprecise terminology.
Hi Tomato - a lot of what you're saying here has already been addressed elsewhere in the thread. The OP isn't just addressing Lemmy, but other Fediverse services like Mastodon as well. He also notes in the article several people who been addressing ways in which Fediverse culture has been toxic to black users. These aren't imagined problems, they exist in a lot of places off of and on Lemmy, and providing suggestions to make these sites better for black users is a good thing, not something to get defensive about. This post isn't accusing you personally of anything, but if you feel challenged by it then it might be a good opportunity for you to interrogate those feelings.
Also, others have addressed your comments about not seeing other's race online, etc, but I think it's worth taking a step back and pausing. If people of color say they experience racism online, even though you don't notice what race other people are, do you think it's possible that there may be systemic problems or unconscious biases that might cause those folks to experience racism even when it is unintended? Those are the kinds of problems that aren't solved by saying "I don't say racist things to people and I don't see color". They're problems that are built into our society just by the fact that we were all born and raised in an imperfect culture.
Nobody is accusing anyone of anything here, and nobody is trying to make anyone feel ashamed of who they are. But we can all benefit from stopping, thinking about the ways that we interact with others, and taking the time to try and be sure that we aren't acting in ways that harm others even if that isn't our intent or we weren't aware of the harm in the first place.
Thanks, I definitely skimmed the article, so missing that is on me.
It's interesting that the profile they mention doesn't really fit what I have in my mind for mass shooters, which would be younger men, not middle-aged. I guess the ones that really stick out to me, like the Columbine, Christchurch, and Uvalde shooters all fit this stereotype that I have, but apparently that doesn't map to reality.
I hope no one takes this to mean that I am trying to stigmatize mental illness or people with mental illnesses, but it seems to me that if there are people who want to be famous or notorious so badly that they kill large numbers of people, that doesn't seem to be the result of a healthy or well ordered mind. Am I misunderstanding how the phrase "mental illness" is being used here? I recognize that the headline is referring specifically to disorders involving psychosis, but they even state that only 25% of mass shooters are associated with non-psychotic mental illnesses. Are emotional/behavioral disorders not being considered here? Or is the mass shooting database they are using one of those that includes any shooting with more than a certain number of people involved, even if that includes events that the typical person would not consider part of the phenomenon of the types of shootings that most people are thinking of when they talk about mass shootings?
Seriously, I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes or saying something that will be taken as hurtful, because that's genuinely not how I mean it. But I really feel like if someone is in a state that they decide the best course of action for them is to kill a bunch of people they don't know, how could that be the result of a healthy mental and emotional state?
I completely agree. Thank you for this comment. This is one of the reasons that in many cases we try first to just talk to users. Lots of folks have bad days, or just have certain issues that they really struggle with staying calm and being kind about.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, but please remember:
- Be Nice. You might think your cranky comment isn't a big deal, but when there are dozens of them it can get pretty overwhelming. The dogpile is real.
- [email protected] is not a "free speech zone". I think Beehaw admins have been pretty clear on this, but our overriding concern is community building and creating a corner of the internet where people are good to one another, not creating yet another site where people can say whatever they like regardless of the harm it might cause others. I understand this might clash with what some see as a fundamental philosophy of the fediverse, but we disagree. This isn't the place to re-litigate those disagreements.
It's practically a guarantee that this Sharon's dog is the most obnoxious, poorly trained little shit to ever walk the earth on four legs, too. Nobody wants your fucking dog, Sharon, it's an unholy terror.
I was reminded of the trend of Milkshaking a few years ago. That wikipedia article includes a quote from a Vice Article on the trend that refers back to Serbian resistance as well.
But there's a method to all this dairy-based madness. Milkshaking can be seen within a tradition of nonviolent civil disobedience known as "dilemma action". A term coined by Serbian activists in the 1990s, dilemma action creates a lose-lose situation for the opposition. It’s a genius move reserved for some of the absolute worst people in our society, because there’s no good way to respond to a milkshaking: do nothing and you look like a twat, or fight back and look like you're overreacting. Plus, a milkshake will really mess up your suit. Still, that's not to say you should go out and do it, unless you want to risk arrest: the guy who milkshaked Farage has since been charged with assault, after all.
It's a pretty incredible phrase.
Thanks! I almost skipped it when I saw it pop up this morning, because I've seen so many articles about this topic, but I'm glad I didn't.
I read that point as posting less when it comes to issues of race and racism specifically, but it's possible I'm reading that into it. If so, it could be a little clearer.
Right, and I was already aware of several lists of mass shooting using that or similar criteria to determine what fits. It's just a little strange to me to group so many disparate types of events into a list, and then do a study to say "most of these things don't involve mental illness" when most of those events are wildly different from each other.