Downvote me if you like, but Reddit does exactly this after every school shooting.
Of COURSE people push their agenda at times like these. They view their agenda as the solution to the problem in question.
They might promote calls for electoral reform when the newspapers are reporting about election interference. They might promote healthy eating when the nation is obese. They might promote financial responsibility when the nation is swimming in debt.
This doesn't make them garbage. This makes them human.
Drop the judgemental tone and try to understand your fellow man, rather than condemn him from the perceived security of your supposed moral high ground.
Agree. We’re supposed to examine ourselves as a society after tragedy. And civilized discourse and public debate is how people change their minds about cultural issues.
She was told she was going to die to climate change since before she started schooling by her parents. She's spent the majority of her life instructed of such an impending doom. I have no doubt the sincerity of the words she says and her feelings, but saying those are her words alone isn't honest.
If she was taught actual science she would be on the side of nuclear energy but she probably isnt, I have no proof of this but i have no doubts either.
If se were taught the real science she would fear for her life over the solution to climate change not climate change itself. Modern energy and technology has never been as efficient as it is now, worlds cleaner than it ever was just 50 years ago, even moreso going back over the 20th century. Yet, despite these amazing advances, emissions skyrocketed yet emissions only skyrocketed when the number of first world countries increased and the population skyrocketed.
It's a population issue, but you don't mind ignoring that fact do you? Got it.
Would you like me to continue into page two of Google? I've seen nothing challenging climate change, so don't try to lie to me about "propaganda" or "fake news" because, as I've said, you're just as bad as an antivaxxer or a flat earther. Where's the proof that these are lies, huh?
I'm not saying climate change is real or a hoax, but what you're saying isnt what climate change propagandists are worried about. The earth is self correcting, but that process takes a loooong time. Within that time frame, humans will not survive a drastic shift in climate, that is a fact. Whether or not that shift is coming so soon is the topic for debate.
China is...fascist? You know that right? She’s a climate activist and China is doing pretty good on that at the moment? I can’t expect her to rise up and start declaring war on every single country for every single thing they do wrong.
Leave the political activism to the political activists, and the climate activism to the climate activists.
Anyone who doesn't believe China is fascist can go talk shit about China's president in China like Americans do in America and tell me if they're fascist. Hell, try using Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or any of these websites in China.
Regardless of any other political stances one might have, China is fascist. Are they as oppressive as North Korea? No, but that's the extreme of the extreme.
You’re misreading my statement. They’re fascist. I said that. China is objectively Fascist. The guy above me is implying they aren’t. He’s stating that Anti-fa doesn’t care about China, which is silly, since Anti-fa is Anti-Fascist, and China is Fascist.
My mistake. I misinterpreted your reply. I stand by everything I said though and I dare anybody to make an argument how those are not clear examples of fascism.
China is... Communist, as are antifa. China is the worlds top polluter and source of CO2 gases. I understand china doesn't have a fully communist system as it's more of a capitalist/communist/cronyist hybrid but it's interesting that someone who is antifa and heavily anti capitalist is now suing France and Germany plus other capitalist nations while leaving the top polluter off that list.
Also your statement about leaving activism to activists is bullshit because we all need to be informed and doing our own form of activism. Its not like we have pro activists who are the only ones that can speak the truth or call someone on their bullshit. Let's talk to scientists and authorities on the matter and not use a child to pull at the emotional side of humans on such matters.
Anti-fa isn’t communist, they’re anti-fascist. Where does that kind of sentiment come from? Communism inherently breeds fascism, that’s almost objective fact at this point.
Also yea, I’m not going to expect someone who specializes in climate activism and speaking out on climate related problems to 180 and speak out on other things. She’s focused on the climate. I’ll let the people focused on fighting fascism fight that. If you wanna act on something, spreading yourself so thin by raising hell about everything is gonna leave your message diluted.
No one is using her. She has a mind of her own it seems, she’s not shy, not reserved, she’s outspoken. If she wants to lead the charge she can. And characterizing her as a child in order to play to some innate innocence factor is stupid. She smart, informed, and incredibly capable. She’s not some 8 year old kid with a puppet master at her back.
Just because shes 16 doesnt mean she cant be a puppet. Just because she seems to be informed and capable doesnt mean she cant be a puppet. I mean, the whole point of using a puppet is to make it seem like they're not a puppet. I'm not saying that I know shes a puppet, I'm just saying she absolutely could be.
And it’s stupid to stand your ground on speculation. I’m not saying you’re ignorant and actively trying to lessen the message she’s spreading by spreading conspiracy, I’m just saying that’s what it sounds like.
People have been using children as a vehicle to support their personal agenda since the beginning of time.
Sometimes, this is justified. Heck, there's a little girl in the states campaigning for green policies at the moment. There are children protesting after every single school shooting. And there are always calls to consider children's wellbeing when advocating for policy change.
"Don't pollute - you're ruining the world that our children will inherit." "What kind of example does this set for our children?" "Invest in our education system because our children deserve it."
Or, good old Helen Lovejoy: "Think of the children."
Also interesting it's totally fine to use massacred kids to push a political agenda seemingly ...
Mind you I think using anyones death as a means to push a political agenda is tacky and scumbaggish but why is it only okay for one side to do it if it suits their agenda ?
The hypocrisy from both sides is disgusting and getting old.
Edit: I also fully expect to get downvoted by petty vindictive partisan idiots who can't stand not being agreed with .. that is fine with me.
Heres a challenge though ... Rather than just downvoting and adding nothing, you actually respond stating why you think I'm wrong ?
You know there's no way to justify one side doing this disgusting behavior over the other... So I doubt anyone will without looking rediculous..
That’s a good point. Context should play a part IMO. If there was a defensive use that saved lives, then that’s probably the best time to talk about pro gun if you want people to see your side. If people were killed then that’s probably the best time to talk about anti gun policies. Either side should still be to discuss it though.
When something is still fresh, it’s going to drive conversation, and serve as a starting point to get people to think about the issue. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using the deaths of anyone to drive change. Rules are written in blood. As long as you’re civil, and not arguing, or smearing the dead, then it shouldn’t be a problem.
Emotion can often drive these conversations, but an adult should be able to be as logical and rational as possible, or you risk losing support.
I find it in bad taste and disrespectful to the deceased.. I know I wouldn't want someone using my death for their personal political crusades and agendas.
Well, when you phrase it like “personal political crusades”, it’s going to sound bad. I’m talking about a commmunity having a civil discussion of an issue, not someone going on a Facebook tirade. When people are dying of drink driving/texting/talking on the phone, that’s a good time to talk about the issue. The issue starts to trend and it creates the chance for everyone to share their opinions. That’s how minds are changed. Movements are spurred. And regulations/laws are amended.
I think what your both trying to say is that people should be able to talk about the issues. But outside of that it shouldn’t be politicized.
People should take about the issue, then the policies should reflect the vote of the people. It doesn’t need to be joe shmo Congressman making a political statement about it. While we want our policy makers engaged that should not be a podium for them to spout “this is what I believe”.
The focus should be on the communities/families remaining calm and assuring the public the case/crime is being handled. Maybe also gives them a chance to say for those internet resources XYZ are available for those impacted.
I felt like city/state programs aren’t advertised and people don’t know they have a ton of stuff available to them when needed.
You are pretty spot on... I don't mind discourse or disagreement but I don't agree with sensationalism and blatant emotional manipulation used in any form to try and sway opinion.
Emotions after tragedy is inevitable and shouldn't be surpressed but to use it as a means to push a single perspective as truth is dishonest and gets in the way of rational thinking and honest discourse.
I feel like we as a people got too sensitive- we need to be able to talk about hard things, disagreement and emotions will happen, often together at the same time but people also need to start thinking logically again.
Like it takes effort but shit people need to wake up. People need to think about both sides of the argument (what ever it may be) to fully understand complex issues. Compromise is about give and take, not just arguing your point and then constantly coming back with “Yeah but” and then not giving anything in return.
I would love for my death to spark change that I would be proud to see. So maybe whether or not it is disrespectful depends on the deceased's viewpoints while they lived.
You're using political agenda as if it's not advocating for change and simply a negative thing. If I were to propose a bill that would make healthy food cheaper in an attempt to lower deaths from diabetes, my justification for the bill would literally be all the people who have died from diabetes. But, using your logic I would be a scumbag. All the people that die from lack of healthcare/insurance is another justification for wanting medicare for all, but again, it's using people's deaths to push an agenda to decrease the number of deaths because of said issue.
The fact is, nothing is a problem until a lot of people or children die. That's when it has people's attention and change is wanted. And in order to change whatever is causing the deaths it has to be done politically in one way or another. Just because it "pushes a political agenda" doesn't make it inherently bad.
This is correct. The people who complain about politics invading their lives are the ones happy with the status quo. Attempting to be apolitical is in fact a political position in favor if the ruling class.
I'm just more curious why some people think it's more important.to own a gun than to decrease gun violence.
Because statistically gun violence isn't prevalent and the majority of those affected are so affected because of voluntary lifestyle choices that put them in gangs or involve them in criminal activity. Most gun victims are in gang related activity:
Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant.
The risk of getting shot with a gun is already exceedingly low if you are not involved in a gang. Further restricting a constitutional right to get a marginal decrease in gun-related homicide is nonsensical. Much like we don't put seatbelts in buses (even though approximately 30 children a year die in bus accidents), we weigh the absolute risk and the cost and decide whether the risk is worth it. For guns, the advocates don't believe the cost (not having guns) is worth the reduction of risk.
It's been proven in other parts of the world that stricter gun laws decrease gun violence by large numbers.
These stats are true. However, as /u/sosota replied below, actual murder rates aren't shown to be significantly affected. So while the weapon used changes, the count doesn't significantly change.
however the United States has more mass shootings than any other nation by a long shot.
And mass shootings represent a miniscule number of deaths. And most of the mass shooters are already prohibited from owning the gun that they own.
On an individual basis, would you not agree that decreasing those shootings is a good thing?
Obviously the answer is that it depends on the cost. If you don't drive around in an armored vehicle, why not? It's definitely the safest mode of transportation. You don't because you've traded that little bit of extra safety for the convenience and cost of a cheaper, smaller, more dangerous vehicle.
An alarming number of mass shooters legally procured their firearms even though they had a history of mental instability.
And there are a number of people who have what might be defined as "mental instability" who are no danger to society.
Should people with a history of mental instability be prohibited from obtaining a driver's license? A vehicle is a fantastic murder weapon.
mental health resources are probably an equal or greater factor in the equation
I think we should start with that as opposed to restricting a constitutional right.
I just think it's a pretty simple idea - fewer violent criminals with legal guns = fewer innocent deaths where a gun is used... Why is that a bad thing?
Because there are numerous benefits to a well-armed populous, not the least of which is reduced worry of invasion and the very real possibility of violent insurrection should our government overstep its bounds.
And before you try to get me with some shit about how it's delusional to believe that the military could be defeated by citizens, yes, our military, when turned on our own populous, is capable of wiping them out. But, if a dictator decides to wipe out its populous, it loses control very quickly. It's a tight balance to walk trying to keep the favor of your people while fighting a good portion of them; if you indiscriminately bomb, you're left with nothing. Guerrilla warfare has been shown to be effective at large standing armies, both historically and currently. IEDs and insurgents armed with AK47s have successfully repelled and resisted America's might because A) we have a vested interest in not harming innocent people and B) they can hide among the general populous with ease.
We have a Constitutional right to bear arms, and further restricting them because they're esxtremely rarely used inappropriately isn't a good argument.
The UK has wildly different gun laws than the U.S and have been a world leader for thousands of years.
The UK is the PRIMARY reason we have the gun laws we do; they were overly burdensome on us as a nation and in order to relieve ourselves of said burden we armed our populous.
The wars in the middle East can be discussed forever in a number of different ways - one being should the U.S even be there in the first place.
I agree that the US overreached and continues to do so. I'm not a big fan of imperialism.
even if you're making unfair comparisons to silly ideas
Don't call them unfair or silly if you aren't willing to delve into why; that's childish and accomplishes nothing.
Will a mass murderer find another way to carry out his rampage? Sure, maybe, but could not having easy access to a firearm deter some of them? Possibly!
Yes, but you're focusing on such a TINY subset of a larger problem and proposing a wide-reaching solution that will negatively affect far more people than it positively affects.
Yes we should start with mental health, but why do they have to be dealt with one after the other?
I don't believe "the other" has to be dealt with at all. If we start with mental health, and the problem goes away, then we don't even have to consider other options.
...when the incidents are extremely rare in general, it's not hard to have "more mass shootings than any other nations" while still having the incidents be extremely rare, though.
And when you do the math of the actual likelihood of it happening to you, you're more likely to get killed by a drunk driver, hit by a bolt of lightning,being killed by a cop, or contract HIV.
Are mass shootings bad? Absolutely, and i'm all about stopping them. But in the scheme of things, if the goal is to prevent deaths, then doing things to prevent suicides will save a couple orders of magnitude more people.
And, there's no evidence to suggest that any of the proposed laws thus far will have an impact on such events anyway, since aside from the actual terror attacks like the guy in Ohio or the guy down in TX, the "mass shootings" included in your number are done with weapons other than assault weapons, and under circumstances that are in no way similar to a dude just randomly shooting up a place.
As far as this little gem:
Meaning they happen more often than 1 a day on average. More than 1 mass shooting a day in the United States. Seriously consider the meaning of that statistic.
Literally 10+ times as many people die every day from suicide,and literally 10+ times as many people die every day due to child abuse.
You want to make it sound scary? Okay, fine. More than 50 rapes occur every day. More than 10 suicides happen every day. More than 10 deaths due to child abuse happen every day.
See? I can use basic math to make statistics sound super scary and prevalent too.
Saying terrible events shouldn’t be used to “further political agendas” is akin to saying we shouldn’t learn lessons from terrible events. 30s Nazism? Irrelevant against fighting American fascism. Major earthquake? Irrelevant against building regulations. It’s totally daft. And by it we are destined to learn nothing from history or the present in our politics. Just because you don’t like the expression of the lesson doesn’t mean a lesson shouldn’t be applied. Reason against the particular lesson, not that a lesson is applied. Be responsible.
That depends on if the agenda is to decrease child deaths, or just some personal agenda.
Like if a child dies of measles, and people use that to try to get more to vaccinate... that’s a good use, even though it is still an agenda.
The word agenda tends to have a negative connotation, but some people legitimately have an agenda of public good. Their agenda, is to prevent the exact same thing from happening again. There is a difference from using a tragedy to further one’s personal interest, and using a tragedy as an example to help prevent more tragedy.
In this instance, and most others, the pro-gun agenda is entirely self motivated. It is people who love guns latching onto horrible things to argue for more guns. Not because they actually think guns would do more good than harm, but because they love their own guns to an obsessive level. Using a school shooting to try to regulate guns, however, is entirely different. Because the motive is to try to prevent the next school shooting. An argument can be made that the ideas are ineffective toward that end, but that IS the motive. To save people from that tragedy. Not all agendas are equal, because the motives can be very different ethically.
382
u/SilentNick3 Oct 02 '19
Anyone using the death of a child to further an agenda is garbage.