Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

You forgot the second part of your statement. About how violent "their holy book" was.

You didn't just state all people clamoring over violence in the media. You were making a statement directly toward those who have a holy book, and one they'd be using as a moral foundation.

Context. Given the context of the conversation that was happening in this thread, the current push by some on the GOP to use video games and media as a scapegoat again, it's clear who the "people" you were referring to were. And it's dishonest to state now that well, you didn't say right or left, so you meant everyone.

No idea since I couldn't find a story for them objecting to a "badass" sign. Doesn't matter anyway since One Million Moms isn't the spearhead of the "blame video games for gun violence" thing anyway.

The primary anti-gaming groups at the meeting were the Parents Television Council and the Media Research Council.

Edited, Mar 9th 2018 7:58am by Jophiel

I saw this on Twitter, and knew that it would come in handy around here, so I present an image upload.

How is Riverdale not red?

Truly an excellent teacher. He taught us more about gun safety with that one stray bullet than all the boring classes everyone slept through. Hopefully the judge take into account his willingness to sacrifice his reputation and career in dedication to his class when deciding on punishment.

I hate when these incidents are minimized by calling them accidents.

This made me giggle



Followed it up with a little mbmbam about cats (Not related, just about cats, and funny)

https://twitter.com/everydaylouie/status/974094752160235520

I'm partial towards "incidental" and "negligent."

Also, this.

Edited, Mar 15th 2018 1:42pm by lolgaxe

Sure. What about the mention of such things in the bible makes you think that the bible is endorsing those behaviors, or that those who regularly read said book think they are "ok"? I mean, our legal code mentions all of those things too, but I don't find that fact offensive either, nor would I ever consider an argument of the form that "you obey the law, and the law mentions things like rape and murder, so how can you possibly be offended by <insert something else here>"?

That just seems like a wildly illogical argument to make.



In a political climate where one "side" is so broadly associated with religion (fairly or not), it's not unfair to assume that one is making that sort of political association. At the very least, you ought to consider the fact that many people will make this exact assumption when reading what you write. And while I suppose it's possible that you are just blithely unaware of how most people will interpret this in a political context, I (and I assume TirithRR) have seen enough examples of this kind of language to know that when most people use it, they are very clearly and very directly making the exact political association you claim you didn't mean to make.

Conservatives "cling to their guns and religion", right? It's not even thinly veiled code going on here. I've long since lost track of the number of times this sort of assumed association has been used just on this forum. That's not even starting on broader media.



The point is that you're using terminology that is broadly used, often in a dismissive and/or derogatory way, to refer to conservatives. You may not have intended that connection, but it's commonly enough used that it's not unreasonable for someone else to assume that was your intent. Most people who use that sort of language do exactly intend it to be an attack on conservatives by dismissing their political positions as mere religious fanaticism.


As a bit of an aside, I'm always fascinated how the assumption is that there is no possible non-religious moral/ethical reason one might make an association between violent images in media and violent actions in life. It's almost like the concept of secular humanism only exists when it's convenient, and is hidden from view or ignored when it is not. This is not so much a comment on your posts, but a question as to why the only targets for the whole "violent video games and entertainment causes violence" thing (in this forum at least, but I've seen it elsewhere) are religious. Specifically, Christian religious sources. As though they are the only ones who might think this. I'd assume that secular humanists would be *more* likely to ascribe to this, since it's a tangible source of input that one might naturally assume would influence behavior (as opposed to say evil spirits, or the work of the devil, or whatever).

Yet. No mention of secularists leading the charge to do away with violent images in our society as a means of curbing the rates of violent acts by teens and young adults. Odd, don't you think? Again, not that I don't think there are secular groups who believe this, and even support this, but that what we see in our social media (well, and in all forms of media) focuses on religious groups who believe this. Which, in turn, suggests this is more about influencing the public to oppose the group and not the idea.

Free ice cream cone from Dairy Queen today, which is nice when looking at half a foot of snow tonight.

Self driving Uber killed someone in Arizona, presumably because they didn't tip the automated waiters at the sushi restaurant.

And another school shooting, because it's Spring so why the hell not be the first?

Edited, Mar 20th 2018 10:21am by lolgaxe

Think this one is a much better representation of what gun violence in American schools mostly entails. One person bringing a gun to school and targeting someone they knew, not the mass shootings that seem to capture the public attention more.

Yeah. This sort of shooting falls outside the scope of the mass type I was speaking about earlier.