Another mass shooting

[Pakuni]

Chico’s, wonder what you think about this thread about your “city”:

https://mobile.twitter.com/eveewing/status/1018506163128856578

That thread:

[WarriorDad]

Interesting. When talking about Chicago shootings, you point toward a problem with the citizens, indicating people outside Chicago are "better".

Yet when it comes to the Jacksonville shooter, you immediately talk about mental illness.

Now what is the difference between those shooters in Chicago and the Jacksonville shooter? Why do you immediately attack the character of one group and try to show compassion and deflect to a psychological problem for the other?

Things that make you go hmm...

The mayor and superintendent of police of my city have pleaded for our help.  In my view they want to put criminals away, make the city safer.  There are a number of ways to do this, but as law enforcement they have to use the laws, they cannot create them.  They have asked for the help of citizens on the news, in the last few weeks.  I do not understand why our leaders are somehow wicked men for wanting to improve the lives of the people in their city's care and to make it safer? Nor do I understand why anyone that supports that position of safety would be questioned either.

The shooter in Baltimore according to the news was hospitalized multiple times.  I repeated both items as facts as reported by the news.  If they are no longer facts, then I will change what I read or saw.

In one sense I disagree.  You are right that it does nothing directly; however, letting Chicos racist arguments go unchallenged only makes things worse.  Blacks and other PoC who shoot each other in gang violence are horrible people, but the white mass murderer is just suffering from lack of mental health care? 

What is racist about Mr. Emanuel or Mr. Johnson's pleas to the public, or their frustration with the public's lack of cooperation.  If you think they are racist, we disagree.  What is racist about the shooter in Baltimore having been institutionalized several times and on medication most of his life.  How was he allowed to purchase a gun? It is appalling.   

[jesmu84]

The mayor and superintendent of police of my city have pleaded for our help.  In my view they want to put criminals away, make the city safer.  There are a number of ways to do this, but as law enforcement they have to use the laws, they cannot create them.  They have asked for the help of citizens on the news, in the last few weeks.  I do not understand why our leaders are somehow wicked men for wanting to improve the lives of the people in their city's care and to make it safer? Nor do I understand why anyone that supports that position of safety would be questioned either.

The shooter in Baltimore according to the news was hospitalized multiple times.  I repeated both items as facts as reported by the news.  If they are no longer facts, then I will change what I read or saw.

What is racist about Mr. Emanuel or Mr. Johnson's pleas to the public, or their frustration with the public's lack of cooperation.  If you think they are racist, we disagree.  What is racist about the shooter in Baltimore having been institutionalized several times and on medication most of his life.  How was he allowed to purchase a gun? It is appalling.

Um. You are not at all reading what anyone is posting. No one has said any of Chicago's leaders or police are "wicked". Go back and re-read things. You're completely missing the point, unintentionally or otherwise.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

What is racist about Mr. Emanuel or Mr. Johnson's pleas to the public, or their frustration with the public's lack of cooperation.  If you think they are racist, we disagree. 

No Chico, it's YOU that we all know is a racist.  Maybe you want to try pretending that you are a black person again?

[JWags85]

The mayor and superintendent of police of my city have pleaded for our help.  In my view they want to put criminals away, make the city safer.  There are a number of ways to do this, but as law enforcement they have to use the laws, they cannot create them.  They have asked for the help of citizens on the news, in the last few weeks.  I do not understand why our leaders are somehow wicked men for wanting to improve the lives of the people in their city's care and to make it safer? Nor do I understand why anyone that supports that position of safety would be questioned either.

You're really going to criticize the affected citizens for not willfully running to the police with information when Laquan McDonald and Quintonio LeGrier are very much top of mind, beyond the potential ramifications of gang violence towards them?

Nobody called Emanuel or other leaders wicked, but thwarting this upon the people trying to survive in a living hell is pretty damn callous.

[Benny B]

He is an easy target, as he has a long history, granted.  And we all know about the positions and the demagoguing of issues.    But it is time for all of us to realize that demonizing 'the other' isn't working.    It is easy, it makes us feel better in the short term, but it isn't the answer.   

This Tower guy isn't just a pretty face, ladies and gentlemen.

[Lennys Tap]

Interesting. When talking about Chicago shootings, you point toward a problem with the citizens, indicating people outside Chicago are "better".

Yet when it comes to the Jacksonville shooter, you immediately talk about mental illness.

Now what is the difference between those shooters in Chicago and the Jacksonville shooter? Why do you immediately attack the character of one group and try to show compassion and deflect to a psychological problem for the other?

Things that make you go hmm...

I ache for young people who grow up in these war zones. And I understand the allure of the gang as a way out. But most don't make that bad/wrong choice. I don't think the mentally ill have a choice. That's the difference IMO.

[brewcity77]

I ache for young people who grow up in these war zones. And I understand the allure of the gang as a way out. But most don't make that bad/wrong choice. I don't think the mentally ill have a choice. That's the difference IMO.

Nope. The difference is that "mental illness" is a racist dogwhistle that is applied to white mass shooters to indicate an individual problem while the inferior character applied to black shooters indicates there is a problem with all black people.

It's racism, plain and simple.

[Lennys Tap]

Nope. The difference is that "mental illness" is a racist dogwhistle that is applied to white mass shooters to indicate an individual problem while the inferior character applied to black shooters indicates there is a problem with all black people.

It's racism, plain and simple.

So if I think that mental illness can be a mitigating circumstance in a murder case I'm a racist, pure and simple?

[MU82]

I blame black men for all of this.

If there were more black males doing mass shootings, we could call them mentally ill, too. I can't believe they just sit there and let white males have all the fun.

[Jockey]

So if I think that mental illness can be a mitigating circumstance in a murder case I'm a racist, pure and simple?

I don't think that is what he is saying, Lenny. Of course, mental illness can be a major factor whether the shooter was black or white or somewhere in-between.

Rather he was talking about a prevailing attitude within this country where men of different races are judged differently for committing the same act.

When the general population looks at gov't programs, be it public housing, head start, food stamps, medicaid, or welfare, they see these as programs for blacks even though more whites use each of them. When asked about Unemployment insurance, or social security, people think more whites get these benefits. Why? Because to get either benefit, you had to be working. That is the institutional racism in this country.

These same attitudes show up when judging criminals - which I think goes back to his point.

[MU82]

I don't think that is what he is saying, Lenny. Of course, mental illness can be a major factor whether the shooter was black or white or somewhere in-between.

Rather he was talking about a prevailing attitude within this country where men of different races are judged differently for committing the same act.

When the general population looks at gov't programs, be it public housing, head start, food stamps, medicaid, or welfare, they see these as programs for blacks even though more whites use each of them. When asked about Unemployment insurance, or social security, people think more whites get these benefits. Why? Because to get either benefit, you had to be working. That is the institutional racism in this country.

These same attitudes show up when judging criminals - which I think goes back to his point.

Superbly articulated.

[WarriorDad]

Nope. The difference is that "mental illness" is a racist dogwhistle that is applied to white mass shooters to indicate an individual problem while the inferior character applied to black shooters indicates there is a problem with all black people.

It's racism, plain and simple.

Can you explain to me the Washington Post article about this?  Is the Washington Post a racist newspaper because they are using a dog whistle?  Plain and simple question.  I mentioned mental illness because I found it appalling that this man was able to purchase guns with his mental background. That has to change.  Why are you bringing race into this?  It could be that many of the murders in this town are also the result of mental illness, but I haven't seen as a causation by any experts or the media.  However, mental illness is the reason for this mass shooting.  Race has nothing to do with it and why you are bringing into this discussion is also appalling.

Note the headline of the Post, tell me where this has anything to do with race.  This is a mental illness question - Plain and Simple.

[MU82]

I don't think that is what he is saying, Lenny. Of course, mental illness can be a major factor whether the shooter was black or white or somewhere in-between.

Rather he was talking about a prevailing attitude within this country where men of different races are judged differently for committing the same act.

When the general population looks at gov't programs, be it public housing, head start, food stamps, medicaid, or welfare, they see these as programs for blacks even though more whites use each of them. When asked about Unemployment insurance, or social security, people think more whites get these benefits. Why? Because to get either benefit, you had to be working. That is the institutional racism in this country.

Just look at the Florida gubernatorial campaign, which started in earnest after this week's primaries produced two surprise candidates: a white Republican personally chosen by the president and very liberal black Democrat endorsed by Bernie.

In his very first comments about his opponent, the white guy said: "You know, he is an articulate spokesman for those far-left views and he's a charismatic candidate. The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state."

So, in his very first comment, he managed to get in "articulate" and "monkey."

When called on it, naturally he and his people feigned ignorance: How could people even think that? "Articulate" is a compliment! He wasn't calling his opponent a "monkey"! It's "absurd" that anybody could possibly think the white guy was using dog-whistle terms when talking about the black guy!

[WarriorDad]

When called on it, naturally he and his people feigned ignorance: How could people even think that? "Articulate" is a compliment!

And when Joe Biden said Obama was articulate, clean and bright that was what exactly?  http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

I don't think Biden is racist, and he took gruff for his comments and later apologized.  If there is evidence that this politician in Florida has a history of this, then maybe the case, but have not seen that come out yet.

Some people go looking to put racism labels on topics or people for which they disagree. There is real racism out there that cannot be denied, but that doesn't mean overstating or labeling someone for political gain in my view.

[brewcity77]

Why are you bringing race into this?

You brought it in with your distinctions of better people. And the Post is far from perfect.

Jockey articulated my point well, but it goes further than that. While the criticisms of character are applied generally to blacks & mental illness applied generally to whites, using mental illness as a general scapegoat stigmatizes the tens of millions of Americans that struggle with real mental illness every year.

Both the media and populace create an image of the mentally ill as deranged killers. This does undue harm to people suffering with anxiety, depression, addiction, bi-polar disorder, and countless other conditions that don't want to hurt anyone.

Words are important. Whether it's on a message board or the Washington Post or everyday conversation, it's important to use the correct words. It's often unintentional, but we should all work to do better.

[jesmu84]

Can you explain to me the Washington Post article about this?  Is the Washington Post a racist newspaper because they are using a dog whistle?  Plain and simple question.  I mentioned mental illness because I found it appalling that this man was able to purchase guns with his mental background. That has to change.  Why are you bringing race into this?  It could be that many of the murders in this town are also the result of mental illness, but I haven't seen as a causation by any experts or the media.  However, mental illness is the reason for this mass shooting.  Race has nothing to do with it and why you are bringing into this discussion is also appalling.

Note the headline of the Post, tell me where this has anything to do with race.  This is a mental illness question - Plain and Simple.

Constant appeal to authority. Someone else used to do this all the time

[MU82]

And when Joe Biden said Obama was articulate, clean and bright that was what exactly?  http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/31/biden.obama/

I don't think Biden is racist, and he took gruff for his comments and later apologized.  If there is evidence that this politician in Florida has a history of this, then maybe the case, but have not seen that come out yet.

Some people go looking to put racism labels on topics or people for which they disagree. There is real racism out there that cannot be denied, but that doesn't mean overstating or labeling someone for political gain in my view.

Biden was stupid for saying that. He was called on it and he apologized. Both before that and long after that, through his words and deeds, he seemed to prove he's not a racist. He put himself in a position where he had to prove himself, and he apparently did.

Let's see what DeSantis does. He opened this can of worms himself. HE did it. I didn't do it, you didn't do it, the media didn't do it.

But really, if you believe that saying "monkey" was an accident, he has some swampland in Florida to sell you, too.

This is Spanky's America. You don't have to wear a hood anymore to carry torches and chant "blood and soil." The leader of the country says those who do that are "some very fine people."

And hey, if blacks object to the way DeSantis used "monkey," whites are there to advise them to just chill.

[Lennys Tap]

You brought it in with your distinctions of better people. And the Post is far from perfect.

Jockey articulated my point well, but it goes further than that. While the criticisms of character are applied generally to blacks & mental illness applied generally to whites, using mental illness as a general scapegoat stigmatizes the tens of millions of Americans that struggle with real mental illness every year.

Both the media and populace create an image of the mentally ill as deranged killers. This does undue harm to people suffering with anxiety, depression, addiction, bi-polar disorder, and countless other conditions that don't want to hurt anyone.

Words are important. Whether it's on a message board or the Washington Post or everyday conversation, it's important to use the correct words. It's often unintentional, but we should all work to do better.

I don't know, Brew. I was on the Board of Directors of a not for profit whose expressed purpose was to destigmatize mental illness and promote healing. In all the time I worked with them I never heard anyone (doctors, clinicians, patients) have a problem with the concept that mental illness was a (the?) major factor in these mass shootings. That doesn't mean, of course, that the handful of mentally ill mass shooters are synonymous with millions of people struggling with mental illness.You're actually the only person I've ever encountered who feels that anyone (let alone the "media and the populace") actually feels that way.

As regards "words have meanings" I couldn't agree more. But you're not interested in their meanings. Your only interested in ascribing meanings based on your own biased perceptions (not just picking on you, we all have biased perceptions). For example "articulate" means intelligent and well spoken - unless a white republican says it in reference to a black man. Then (and only then) it's a "dog whistle", racist, etc. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, a'ina?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I could be wrong,  but I can't recall a white politician ever being called articulate. I'm sure it has happened in the course of American history but it's something that you hear said specifically said about black politicians (and black people in general). The problem with only referring to black people as articulate is that it sends the message that it is a pleasant surprise when a black person is articulate but an expectation when a white person is.

I don't think this is a biased perspective,  as pointed out earlier,  democrat Joe  Biden was criticized for this. It's not just republicans.

This article explains it well.

https://www.theroot.com/he-s-so-articulate-what-that-really-means-1790874985

[Lennys Tap]

I could be wrong,  but I can't recall a white politician ever being called articulate. I'm sure it has happened in the course of American history but it's something that you hear said specifically said about black politicians (and black people in general). The problem with only referring to black people as articulate is that it sends the message that it is a pleasant surprise when a black person is articulate but an expectation when a white person is.

I don't think this is a biased perspective,  as pointed out earlier,  democrat Joe  Biden was criticized for this. It's not just republicans.

This article explains it well.

https://www.theroot.com/he-s-so-articulate-what-that-really-means-1790874985

The first person I ever remember considering "articulate" was William F Buckley, jr. - you don't get any "whiter" than him. Other I've used the "a" word to describe have included Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Christopher Hitchens, my college roommate (from Ecuador) and Barack Obama. I didn't take the white guy's articulation for granted nor did I find the brown and black guy's articulation surprising. It was a compliment, a nod to erudition - nothing less, nothing more.

As regards Joe Biden, he was "criticized" very gently. I don't recall anyone pointing a finger, hearing dog whistles and saying he was a racist. That sort of appellation is reserved for pols with an "R" after their names.

[Pakuni]

As regards Joe Biden, he was "criticized" very gently. I don't recall anyone pointing a finger, hearing dog whistles and saying he was a racist. That sort of appellation is reserved for pols with an "R" after their names.

Is being called a "moron racist"gentle?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The first person I ever remember considering "articulate" was William F Buckley, jr. - you don't get any "whiter" than him. Other I've used the "a" word to describe have included Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Christopher Hitchens, my college roommate (from Ecuador) and Barack Obama. I didn't take the white guy's articulation for granted nor did I find the brown and black guy's articulation surprising. It was a compliment, a nod to erudition - nothing less, nothing more.

As regards Joe Biden, he was "criticized" very gently. I don't recall anyone pointing a finger, hearing dog whistles and saying he was a racist. That sort of appellation is reserved for pols with an "R" after their names.

The second paragraph is where your bias (like you correctly point out everyone has) is coming out. Biden was criticized and called a racist. The difference is he apologized for it so the media moved on.

[Lennys Tap]

The second paragraph is where your bias (like you correctly point out everyone has) is coming out. Biden was criticized and called a racist. The difference is he apologized for it so the media moved on.

Then candidate Obama and Jesse Jackson almost immediately gave Joe a pass and the controversy was over quickly. If, say, Ted Cruz had said the same thing he's still be paying the price.

By the way, just as I think Joe Biden was inarticulate but not not a racist, I likewise feel that way about the Republican candidate for governor of Florida.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Then candidate Obama and Jesse Jackson almost immediately gave Joe a pass and the controversy was over quickly. If, say, Ted Cruz had said the same thing he's still be paying the price.

By the way, just as I think Joe Biden was inarticulate but not not a racist, I likewise feel that way about the Republican candidate for governor of Florida.

I'd say Obama gave him a pass.