Terror, Community, and Blood — Updated

Avatar

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

223 Responses

  1. For the record, it appears the gay blood ban has been temporarily lifted. At least, that’s what I’m reading. Which may even be true, in this case.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Gun Control.
    Immigration.
    Assimilation.
    Homophobia.
    Islamophobia.
    Donald Drumpf’s Intemporate Rhetoric.
    Pointing out that the shooter was not an immigrant but born on American soil.
    Pointing out that the shooter was not an immigrant but born on American soil.
    Religion.
    Culture.
    Pointing out that one’s opponents are politicizing this.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Jaybird says:

      I suppose I should be grateful it lasted for two comments.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Tod Kelly says:

        Wrong primal scream thread, I guess.Report

        • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Jaybird says:

          Oh. Man, I truly apologize. I totally misread that as a match.

          My bad. My only excuse is that I am exhausted and heartbroken.

          Again, i really do apologize.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Tod Kelly says:

            The sheer amount of kindling makes all of us notice things that look like matches.

            We’re going to notice a lot of things in the coming months.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

              The ties that bind are unraveling.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Stillwater says:

                What ties?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                I think we’re really, really, really going to miss the whole high trust/high collaboration society we used to have.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Jaybird says:

                “We”?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to veronica d says:

                Some might miss it less than others, of course.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Jaybird says:

                We may not have those ties but we’ll have a diverse population

                Afghanistan Migration Surging into America; 99% Support Sharia Law

                http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/12/afghanistan-migration-surging-america-99-support-sharia-law/Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to notme says:

                Sigh.

                Notme, the person who shot those people was not an immigrant.

                Complaining about immigrants when a non-immigrant commits a crime is stupid.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Jaybird says:

                Sigh.

                He was the child of immigrants and clearly didn’t assimilate. How many times have folks here said “don’t worry they will assimilate?”Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to notme says:

                If he’d assimilated, he’d have blown up an IRS building or something, like a real American.

                Or shot up a movie theater. Or found a clock tower to perch on.

                Shooting up gays? When in American history has any real American assaulted a gay man for anything? Or used a religious justification for it?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to notme says:

                Ahh, you’re referring to what’s known in the business as a “multi-generational threat matrix”, yeah?

                Awesome!

                There ARE some really clear examples of Americans being victims of a multi-generational threat matrix: blacks, hispanics and native Americans. I’m sure there are others.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Stillwater says:

                Clearly the answer is to import more Muslims.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to notme says:

                That’s one way to go with it, sure. I was thinking about it a little differently: that the biggest inter-generational threat matrix present in the US is comprised of European-descended Christian whites.

                Let’s just agree to disagree, shall we?Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Jaybird says:

                @jaybird — I really don’t want to fight today, but please don’t be deliberately daft. It is not a good look.

                Some of us were never welcome into your (so called) “high trust” society. Instead, we lived on the edges, with little “trust” toward you, with damn good reason. We built our own society, such as it was, a subculture, a resistance culture. Some of us dreamed we might someday just be normal, and how nice that would be!

                After all, we watch the same TV shows you do, take in the same cultural myths, have the same image of the “good life.” Could we have that also? Do I get a day in the sun?

                This is complicated. Being kinda-halfway normal, sometimes, with some people, in some spaces, but not those other spaces, and you just don’t know when the facade comes down and I get reminded that I am (seen as) human trash.

                Seriously, fuck off with your “high trust” society. You’re not this stupid. So just don’t.

                We never had it. We could never trust. We still don’t. Right now we have a weird half-promise that maybe-kinda someday we’ll have it. But not really.

                And now 50 are dead, and people who yesterday preached their hatred of dykes, faggots, trannies, and queers as much as they hate Muslims will try to use our deaths for their hateful agenda. This guy was a maybe-Muslim who agreed with the right about us. What was bad in him is what he had in common with the American right.

                I repeat, what was bad in him is what he had in common with the American right. Obvious truth is obvious.

                Fuck hate. Fuck the haters. Fuck homophobes.

                Your “high trust” society lynched black people, it blackmailed gays, it drove trans folks to hopeless suicide —

                OF COURSE WE FUCKING DON’T TRUST YOU CUZ YOU HATE US.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to veronica d says:

                We never had it.

                No, we never had high trust/high collaboration. As a society, tho, we had some trust and some collaboration. Seems to me we have less now than before, and things are getting worse.Report

              • Avatar Will H. in reply to Stillwater says:

                Agreement and disagreement here.

                First, I came from a fairly small town, then moved to a major metro area. I made a gay friend there, and thought I was soooo metropolitan for having done so.
                Within months, I came to the realization that everyone in the city has gay friends, at least one of them. You can’t keep away from it and still socialize marginally.
                Plus, my landlord was gay, I later found out.

                So, yes, there has been long-standing connections, and feelings tending toward diaspora are precisely that– FEELINGS– and no more.

                Secondly, I don’t think we are any less connected these days, but more splintered in our connections.
                A tremendous difference between the two– qualitative vs. quantitative.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will H. says:

                I don’t think we are any less connected these days, but more splintered in our connections.
                A tremendous difference between the two– qualitative vs. quantitative.

                I’m pretty sure I don’t know what that means. 🙂

                Could you elaborate?Report

              • Avatar Will H. in reply to Stillwater says:

                Briefly, as I am pressed for time here.

                This is part of the digital revolution. We have more connections than ever, but fewer friends. Plenty of people on our FB walls, but few to hug us when we need it.
                Practically everyone carries a camera in their pocket these days on their phone. But any picture really worth taking remains a rarity, though Pinterest and Snapchat have plenty of utter crap to waste entire days wading through should one so wish.
                And it’s here to stay.
                Until the next big thing.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Will H. says:

                Maybe. And I mean that genuinely: I just don’t know. My own suspicions would be along the lines of demographic changes like The Big Sort, the hyper-partisan politicization of what used be non-political or non-controversial policies and practices, the heightened emotional intensity with which ideological beliefs are held by significant portions of the electorate on all sides, the belief that tearing down structures to leave your enemies in ruin is a legitimate political goal, the flame-fanning of discord to motivate electoral outcomes or eyeballs on news stories, etc etc. Of course, none of those things would matter if people didn’t feel that something fundamentally Important was at stake in every social issue or political outcome. It creates a dynamic in which The Other’s humanity is rendered secondary to their political identities, and combating the expression of that identity takes on an almost existential importance, further unraveling whatever common ground might remain or might otherwise exist.Report

              • Avatar Maribou in reply to veronica d says:

                Please don’t, Veronica.

                love, the bisexual spouse of the person you are yelling at, who knows he is, in his own way, saying that he is heartbroken and terrified, and who knows that he’s never hated us. any of us.

                and thinks this is an argument better left for another day.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Maribou says:

                Maribou just explained to me that I was treating something deeply personal to a lot of people as something academic and that was bad.

                I’ll try to simmer down.

                Sorry all.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Maribou says:

                This isn’t personal. But this is not the first time LGBTQ people have been killed in large numbers, nor for all it’s blunt tragedy, does this event stand out in the general narrative of LGBTQ oppression. We never had high trust. Fuck that. It’s a pernicious lie, where white middle-class folks look back longingly at a bogus myth, one I could never participate in.

                I still cannot, not fully. Open your eyes.

                This is what I meant when I asked “we?” WE are not losing high trust. THEY (meaning some of you) are, and only insofar as they agreed on a certain set of oppressive principles. “We trust each other,” the whitebread man says to his whitebread fellows, “as long as we’re the right sort of person and collectively reject the wrong sort of person.”

                They didn’t say this out loud. It was implicit. (Although from time to time it did get said out loud.)

                I never had this trust, in either direction. My brothers and sisters did not, however much they might have wished for it. We probably never will.

                Mourn the dead. To mourn the loss of “high trust” is fucking offensive.

                #####

                Tear down the illusions. If you want high trust, you must build it from something real. But to do that, you must understand, the tacit agreement of the “right sort of people” never went away. It is alive and well in a vast ocean of manifest and undeniable bigotry.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to veronica d says:

                I suppose it’s like the whole income inequality thing. The absolute levels is less important than the relative differences.

                We will be moving from a medium trust/medium collaboration society to a lower one.

                At least we will have the consolation that comes from other people losing more than we will have lost.Report

              • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to veronica d says:

                High trust/collaboration societies are based a lot on conformity in one way or another. This is why the most classic examples of a high trust society tend to be really homogenous places or based on conformity to a particular code of behavior. The Nordic countries and Japan are examples of the former and close-knit religious communities like the Amish or the Hasidim of the latter. High trust is basically knowing or being able to take a good guess on how people act and what they think.

                When you increase the amount of difference in society in anyway than you lower trust because people because you can’t guess how people would act. Months ago, Citylinks had an article on why the Japanese let their kids ride public transit alone at a very young age. It turns out its because they are surrounded by other Japanese people who think are reasonably reliable to help their kids if their kids get in trouble and not because they see their ten year olds as more mature than other ten year olds.Report

    • Avatar veronica d in reply to Jaybird says:

      Please don’t.Report

      • Avatar Will H. in reply to veronica d says:

        {This comment has been redacted by an administrator}
        Report

        • Avatar veronica d in reply to Will H. says:

          @will-h — [Redacted by BL. Suffice to say that Veronica is unimpressed with Will’s comment, so my suggestion is leave it at that.] Report

          • Avatar veronica d in reply to veronica d says:

            Clarification: Suggesting I am a “man who wears woman’s clothes” is way out of line. He might as well call me a “faggot.”

            That post should be removed. This is not okay. I have a right to be upset and will h is [evidencing transphobia – edit by BL]. He should apologize and then never speak to me again.

            My post was to Jaybird, who I sometimes tangle with, but who I basically respect. [Further comment redacted – BL]Report

            • Avatar veronica d in reply to veronica d says:

              If the moderators want me to leave, I will. But I won’t put up with this shit.Report

              • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to veronica d says:

                I don’t want you to leave, @veronica-d , I but I do want a minimal level of respect even if you vehemently disagree with what @will-h has to say. If you can’t muster that up, then I’d suggest taking a break to lower blood pressure.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Burt Likko says:

                His post was waaaaay out of line. I’m serious. I want him to apologize and then stop speaking to me or about me.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to veronica d says:

                You edit my post but not his?

                Seriously @burt-likko , this is not okay. Take his comment down.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to veronica d says:

                @burt-likko — Can I get a direct yes/no answer from a moderator. Is it okay for one of (I believe) the other moderators on this forum to suggest I am a “man who wears women’s clothes”? Please answer yes or no.

                (will h is a moderator, yes? For some reason I think he is. I mean, I know some of the hard right peanut gallery here have said nasty shit about me, and I don’t really care about them. But if the mods can just drop that shit on me, then honestly I’m leaving.)Report

              • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to veronica d says:

                @will-h is not an editor. The editors of the site are identified on our masthead.

                The comment to which you take offense is factually incorrect. A trans woman is not a man who wears women’s clothing. There may be and likely are actual men (cisgendered males) who wear women’s clothing for any number of reasons. But these are not the same as trans women.

                We do not edit comments for factual accuracy. If a commenter says something factually inaccurate, another commenter may and should correct that inaccuracy. Our aspirations for the site are for such corrections to take a constructive form and tone. We may fall short of that aspiration from time to time, but the comments I edited fell short of a lower tier of response, one which falls below that which is even minimally acceptable for the site.

                If @will-h is wrong, by all means say so. (As I did just now.) The direct insults that I edited, though, were not only not constructive, but fell below the standard of minimal acceptability for our forum’s exchanges.Report

              • Avatar veronica d in reply to Burt Likko says:

                @burt-likko — What he said about me compares to calling black people apes. It is way out of line. He complains of toxicity, and yet he can say that?

                It is false, but not merely false. It is fundamentally disrespectful and uncivil. To demand I be civil in return is unfair.

                In other words, what I said to him is commensurate with what he said to me. I was more efficient.

                His post was sanctimonious and insulting. It was deeply transphobic. It is not okay, particularly wrt this topic.

                If you want standards of civility, then you need to do more. There is no civil way to call me a man.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to veronica d says:

                Haven’t read all of this continuing conversation.
                Is this the first time he’s called you that?
                If not, you might ask him for an apology for continuing to be factually incorrect and ignorant of substantial differences in situation.Report

        • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Will H. says:

          And I’m fairly certain that’s why the men I know who love wearing women’s clothes

          Did you just conflate crossdressing and transgender?Report

          • Avatar Will H. in reply to Morat20 says:

            With the exception of this one comment, and Mr. Likko’s above, the rest of the responses to my comment are also definitionally toxic conflict.Report

            • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Will H. says:

              Yeah, I don’t care about that. But conflating “crossdresser” with “transgender” is…

              I don’t even have words. They’re not even remotely the same thing. They don’t face even remotely the same issues.

              To conflate the two, and then blame Veronica because she seems to have more problems than a crossdresser is…….

              I’m struggling to find an analogy here. It’s like seeing someone mix up a batch of cookies while someone else is working with highly corrosive chemicals, and complaining that the baker doesn’t seem to have to be nearly so careful and wear all that annoying protection gear, so clearly the chemist is doing something wrong.

              I didn’t get to the “toxic conflict” part because I was struggling to figure out if you really understood what you’d just said.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Will H. says:

              It’s usually better to talk about the other person’s argument than to talk about the other person.

              It’s always better to talk about the other person’s argument than to psychoanalyze the other person.Report

        • Avatar pillsy in reply to Will H. says:

          Will H.:
          From a guy who just scored a 345 out of a possible 350 in a graduate-level Conflict Management class, and having covered the constructive/destructive conflict material in a Negotiations class, as Case Competition Chair of my chapter of the Society of Human Resource Managers, I can say:

          If you paid money for any of that training, you shouldn’t be saying anything but, “I demand a refund.”

          Seriously, physician, it’s time to heal thyself:

          This is definitionally a toxic conflict.
          […]
          And I’m fairly certain that’s why the men I know who love wearing women’s clothes residing in Texas and Florida never had as much trouble as you do in Boston doing the same thing.

          Report

        • “I majored in Conflict Management, with a concentration in Being Patronizing and Dismissive. My career goal is to start World War III.”Report

  3. Avatar LeeEsq says:

    If you have a very well-defined way of looking at the universe through the lens of religion or ideology than those people who go against that well-defined way of looking at the universe are your enemies. A classic example would be how certain Marxists perceived anybody seen as bourgeois or how many White Americans did not like African-Americans perceived as trying to go beyond the space the White Americans felt appropriate for them. This might be an argument against having a very-well defined cosmology but many people do tend to see the world in this way.Report

    • Avatar Will H. in reply to LeeEsq says:

      I had a long reply written to this yesterday, but it was lost. (sniff!)

      Basically, no.
      Religion and ideology may make easy targets, but they have absolutely nothing to do with viewing persons as enemies.

      When’s the last time a Mennonite shot the bird at you?Report

      • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Will H. says:

        I wonder if minority status has an effect on radicalization and violence.

        I suspect there’s something of a tipping point — you need enough people to feel that you have ‘support’ outside of your tiny group. (This doesn’t have to be people in country — the existence of, say, ISIS the world away might be sufficient to decide there’s a lot of support). Too small a group, and you’re very aware that you’re massively outnumbered. Too big a group and, well, you’re the majority so why are you bothering with anything when you should own the ballot box?

        Like that Oregon situation — those guys really believed there was a mass movement that was going to join them. I don’t think they’d have said “boo” without that belief.

        I think this guy is a bit different — for all his claims of ISIS, he seems like a lone whacko that picked an ideology to validate his crazy. It doesn’t appear like ISIS trained him and sent him back to shoot up a random club, so much as he was a guy that wanted to shoot up a bunch of gay people and ISIS’ ideology gave him a framework to validate this. (Even most crazy people don’t want to think they’re evil, so they construct a story where they are the good guy).

        But on the other hand, I suspect the mere existence of ISIS and radicalized Islam gave him a feeling of belonging and the feel that there were others, supporting him. Making him part of a larger group.

        So…I don’t really know where I’m going with this, other than that it seems really small minorities don’t resort to violence because they know how it ends, unless they think they’re a much bigger group than they are. And that group pressure (whether real or imagined — as in “whether they’re really pressuring you to do this, or you firmly believe that doing this is part of being in the group even if the group has never heard of you”) is pretty potent stuff.Report

        • Avatar Will H. in reply to Morat20 says:

          It seems pretty crazy right off the bat that anyone claiming guidance from any branch of Islam would go on a shooting spree in the middle of Ramadan.
          To my knowledge, that is unprecedented.

          Personally, I think this catastrophe is pretty much the same as many others– that a very disturbed person lacked the capacity or resources to reach out to get the help they really needed at a critical time.

          I’m fairly certain that feelings of isolation have something to do with it.

          The notion of a broad wave of forthcoming support may have had something to do with it. I really haven’t thought it through on that point.Report

          • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Will H. says:

            I don’t think he really thought there was a broad wave of forthcoming support like the Oregon militia folks did, so much as he thought there would be a broad wave of support/praise/esteem for his actions by the group he was mentally associating with.

            Kind of like showing off to get the cool kids to respect you. Except instead of being 14, you’re a grown adult with assault weapons, serious mental issues, and you’ve decided ISIS is cool.Report

        • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Morat20 says:

          But on the other hand, I suspect the mere existence of ISIS and radicalized Islam gave him a feeling of belonging and the feel that there were others, supporting him. Making him part of a larger group.

          If he just needed ISIS to give him an excuse, then why make the call swearing allegiance. He needed to be the hero of his story, and that act is how he validated his heroics.Report

          • Avatar pillsy in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            Alternatively, he knew it would scare people more, as he would go from being a violent, hate-fueled individual asshole to a representative of broader movement. “You may kill me, but others out there are like me and they will insure this keeps happening.”Report

            • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to pillsy says:

              That is also a possibility. Hopefully as they take his life apart, we’ll get a clearer idea as to the why of that act. Although we may never know…Report

          • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            Well, I’m pretty sure he’s crazy, for one.

            I think also that there’s a pretty solid distinction between ISIS planning some attack (recruitment, picking targets, etc) and some random schmuck deciding he’s gonna shoot up those gays he hates in the name of ISIS. Possibly because they hate gays as much as he does.

            Because one is terror attack by an enemy organization, and the other is a standard mass shooting with the usual variable reasoning. Probably egged on by ISIS or ISIL or whatever., but something always pushes those people to act in the end.

            They require different responses, and it’d be nice to know which one rather than reaching for whatever’s political convenient.

            Well, to be blunt — a foreign group planning a strike on America merits a response (generally a bombing that, hopefully, is in vaguely the right country), whereas a random crazy utilizing whatever his magic-8 ball came up with as an excuse (ISIS! The IRS! Abortion! B*tches!) warrants no response but “prayers for the victims” but we’ve been over that.Report

            • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Morat20 says:

              Crazy implies a lack of solid contact with reality. I think psychopath/sociopath is more apt.

              Also, did I say something that gives folks the impression that I, Oscar Gordon, want drastic action to be taken?

              Me? A paragon of “Whoa now, are you sure you want to be doing that? Have you thought this through?”Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                I didn’t think you wanted drastic action, but there’s a pretty big wing of Americans who are happy to bomb someone else until the problem is solved.

                As to mental illness, there’s a big range of “mentally ill” that isn’t sociopath. Mass shooters are actually an interesting sub-set, because they do have a lot of commonality. It’s unknown whether this guy fits the mass-shooter role or the terrorist role or what.

                Mass shooters generally have a long-simmering set of grievances that eventually boil over, combined with an urge to make their mark — to make people know and understand and recognize them. Call it a weird mix of rage mixed with kind of low-ego — they should be known and respected, and feel they aren’t. So they’re going to MAKE people respect them and know them.

                Terrorists generally have a goal beyond terror — by and large, they’re using terror as a weapon not a goal in of itself. Asymmetrical warfare, as it were, whether the war is over land, ideology, or whatever.

                Given America’s proclivity to producing mass shooters, I wouldn’t be surprised to find terrorists seeking out potential ones and egging them on towards a juicy target. Enabling them, as it were.

                In the end, it’s a big old mess. Was he a mass shooter with religious justifications we associate with “terrorism” (Islam. We don’t tend to associate Christian mass shooters with terrorists, even those who shoot abortion doctors precisely to terrify others out of the work, which is a pretty textbook definition)? Was he a terrorist that shot up a club to make people afraid in service of a religious goal? Was he just egged on by terrorists who saw a disposable weapon?

                Heck if I know. Offhand, we get a lot more crazy mass shooters than actual terrorists though. Like…a lot more.Report

  4. Avatar Brandon Berg says:

    Would it be better to give blood in like six weeks, since there’s likely to be a flood of donors right now who won’t be able to donate for another two months?Report

    • Avatar nevermoor in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      I suspect the advice would be to give now anyway (on the bird-in-hand theory). And, if you give double-red you’re knocked out for 4 months but you’ve made a solid upfront contribution.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Brandon Berg says:

      If this is your thought, probably better to donate plasma. It’s not like they won’t need that too and you’ll be able to donate again on Wednesday or Thursday.Report

    • After the Aurora theater shooting here in Colorado, lots of people wanted to donate. The local blood bank got all they needed/could store in the first couple of days. After that, they were asking people to make appointments for anything from three to six weeks out.

      The Denver Broncos organize what has become an enormous blood drive early in October each year (started in the 1990s when one of the popular players had a daughter with a rare condition that required regular transfusions). The blood bank sometimes asks regular donors whose appointment would fall in the couple of weeks following that to delay while the blood bank works through the surplus.

      What they’d really like you to do is show up every eight weeks and make lots of donations. Tod’s ahead of me — I’ll get my ten-gallon pin either late this year or early next year. (Technically I’ve given more than ten already, but when I moved in 1988 my East Coast donation records didn’t transfer.)Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Michael Cain says:

        Oh, right. I guess it makes sense that the people managing the blood banks actually know what they’re doing.Report

        • I should add that this is a good time of year to donate — whether once, or starting a habit — because summer is tough for the blood banks. Donations drop off what with people taking vacations and such.Report

          • And to be a complete wet blanket, blood donations don’t work the way most people who come out after a tragedy think. Almost all of the blood that will be used for the victims has already been used — out of existing supplies. OneBlood, the local blood bank in Orlando, has (according to my local blood bank’s web site) put out a national call for loans of blood products so they can continue to meet regular demand for the rest of the week/month. Donations made in Orlando today or later this week will go through the standard clearing process, and will be available for use in about two weeks. Much of that surge in supply will go to repay the loans.

            The chance that any donation made in response to the shooting will go to one of the surviving victims is minuscule. It’s still a good thing to do — a great thing to do — but donors should be aware that their blood will go to someone injured in a car crash, or a kid with leukemia, not one of the shooting victims. It’s an amazing system that, down at the bottom, depends almost entirely on people’s individual generosity. Give today, or next week, or next month — so the system can keep working for both the large-scale tragedies, and the small.Report

  5. Avatar Stillwater says:

    Waaay off thread, but I’ve been reading Trump’s tweets about the massacre in Miami and it reminds me of a theory I’ve been working on. Namely, that a person who attains social or economic success despite ranking high on the Dunning-Kruger scale will garner support from other high-ranking D-Ks. Throw in a chunk of sociopathy, a heavy dose of narcissistic personality disorder, and some populist appeals, and you’ve got yourself a nominee for the Presidency!Report

  6. Avatar Dand says:

    So every Sunday at 7:00 the Lt. Governor of Texas tweets a bible verse some past examples:

    https://twitter.com/DanPatrick/status/736889906207690752
    https://twitter.com/DanPatrick/status/734353187801436160
    https://twitter.com/DanPatrick/status/731816514240675840
    https://twitter.com/DanPatrick/status/729279772686090241

    His political opponents took today’s quote out of context and spun it as an endorsement of the shooting. The attacks on Patrick are clearly nothing more than cheep smears by people look for political gain.Report

    • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

      He took down the tweet (good thinking) but there’s plenty of screenshots and I’m struck by something.

      That one is lacking the “Have a Blessed Sunday” that all the others have. Secondly, the quote in question doesn’t fit his usual theme. Galatians 6:7 is not inspirational. The ones you posted, for instance, are all inspirational. But the one in question is…not. It’s an admonition and a warning unto God’s enemies.

      Weird he’d switch format and tone today of all days. And end up with an appropriate quote for events, if from a rather…unpleasant…perspective.Report

      • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

        So you think he photoshopped the new image between 3 and 7 am on a Sunday then had it posted at the same time as his other quotes? Most people aren’t even awake between 3 and 7.Report

        • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

          You mean the quote that went up two hours later than the others? (All of yours went up at 5:00 AM, This one went up at 7:00). I will say that it takes approximately 30 seconds to add words to an image, so if it took more than 15 minutes — including picking out the quote — I’d be shocked.

          Honestly, I expect a staffer did it. It’s not like the quote — even the unpleasant interpretation — doesn’t fit the Lt. Governor’s own views quite well.Report

          • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Morat20 says:

            Not that it matters. The quote was in terribly bad taste, whether deliberate or inadvertent, and has been removed.

            There’s enough hinkiness to make a case that it was deliberately done, but it’s not like anyone expected better out of our Lt. Governor. (I don’t think you’re Texan, so it’s not like you care whether his political fortunes rise or fall)Report

            • Avatar notme in reply to Morat20 says:

              The quote was in terribly bad taste, whether deliberate or inadvertent, and has been removed.

              So it really doesn’t matter b/c Christianity is in bad taste even if it was inadvertent?Report

            • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

              I don’t think you’re Texan, so it’s not like you care whether his political fortunes rise or fall

              In other words he have a preexisting grudge against him and you see this as a chance to take inflict damage to him.Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

                Not really. I’m just familiar with his platform, which is anti-gay. That quote is entirely in character for him and the way he campaigns.

                What I don’t get is why YOU brought it up in the first place, when he’s not a politician that represents you AND there’s enough weirdness in what happened to make claims of “liberal conspiracy” null and void.

                He DID, after all, post it two hours late, under a different heading and with an entirely different tone — the latter should have especially raised your eyebrows, if you’d at all familiar with how people choose Bible quotes for public consumption. Especially public figures, like politicians or pastors.

                They stick with inspirational quotes and quotes about behavior, and don’t use the condemnatory stuff without a specific issue in mind. “God is not mocked” is not a normal quote to put up on Sunday matinee, or your weekly Bible quotes tweet. (Unless it’s literally “Random bible verse of the day, chosen by algorithm”).

                It’s very uncharacteristic of Christians in general for a quote like that to be a generic, weekly Bible quote, and since we have a nice history of his quotes — it’s very uncharacteristic of him too.Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

                What I don’t get is why YOU brought it up in the first place, when he’s not a politician that represents you AND there’s enough weirdness in what happened to make claims of “liberal conspiracy” null and void.

                So I’m only allowed to comment on politicians that represent me? That’s a new one, people here comment on people who don’t represent them all the time. It seems like there’s one set of rules for everyone else and another one for me.

                He DID, after all, post it two hours late

                No he posted it at the same as he always does, twitter does not automatically detect time zones you need to go into your account and set your time zone, if your account is set to central time all the tweets are at the same time see these screenshots:

                http://postimg.org/image/zaz0ej4aj/
                http://postimg.org/image/xdbopsfp7/Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Morat20 says:

            Ya know, this debate most likely doesn’t have a resolution short of the Rep admitting intent. But it’s also sorta irrelevant. We already know – all of us that are paying attention – that lots of Christians not only believe that being gay is a sin (one with cooties) but also that social acceptance of gays brings down the Wrath of Gawd on Everyone. (Tho interestingly the target appears restricted to coastal regions.)Report

          • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

            You mean the quote that went up two hours later than the others? (All of yours went up at 5:00 AM, This one went up at 7:00).

            They all say 7:00, are you logged into a twitter account that is set to central time?

            Honestly, I expect a staffer did it. It’s not like the quote — even the unpleasant interpretation — doesn’t fit the Lt. Governor’s own views quite well.

            You think that a staffer was in the office between 3 and 7 AM on a Sunday?Report

            • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

              Yes, because like the Lit. Governor, I live in Texas. Which is — shocking — Central Time. The screenshot in the article I linked to was from a Texas newspaper, also located in…Central time.

              Again, you’re continuing to ignore the uncharacteristic nature of the quote and the lack of his usual “Blessed Sunday” header. Have you seen any other condemnations among his weekly Bible Quotes or ones missing the header?

              You seem wedded to the notion that it’s some liberal conspiracy to slur his good name, rather than open to the possibility that a highly conservative politician in Texas, who pushes rather radical anti-gay policies (frequently invoking his Christianity as he does) might post such a thing. I mean you ARE aware of politicians and other prominent figures doing things like ascribing hurricanes, tornadoes, and other disasters to the hand of an angry god — and on the very topic of gays too.

              (And yes, I suspect a staffer was up early this morning, as was the Lt. Governor. Unlike our Governor, the Lt. Governor actually runs things. If anyone was woken up over a shooting in Florida, it would have been him or his staff. Again, Texas is a bit unusual in vesting the real power in the Lt. Governor’s office).Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

                Yes, because like the Lit. Governor, I live in Texas. Which is — shocking — Central Time. The screenshot in the article I linked to was from a Texas newspaper, also located in…Central time.

                If your twitter account was set on Central Time you his tweet would all display 7:00 AM.

                Again, you’re continuing to ignore the uncharacteristic nature of the quote and the lack of his usual “Blessed Sunday” header. Have you seen any other condemnations among his weekly Bible Quotes or ones missing the header?

                How is it any different than his Quote from Isiah? They are both about actions having effects.

                (And yes, I suspect a staffer was up early this morning, as was the Lt. Governor. Unlike our Governor, the Lt. Governor actually runs things. If anyone was woken up over a shooting in Florida, it would have been him or his staff. Again, Texas is a bit unusual in vesting the real power in the Lt. Governor’s office).

                And then he arranged to post it at the exact same time that his bible quotes have posted in other weeks? Then he denied two hours later?Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

                Once’s inspirational, the other condemnatory. If you can’t tell the difference, there’s not much I can do except marvel you can access the internet at all.

                But please, continue to believe what you wish. Why you find it difficult to believe an anti-gay politician would follow in the footsteps of many others and claim deaths were God’s vengeance on sinners is beyond me. Maybe you just haven’t paid attention to American politics for the last 40 years or so.Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

                Once’s inspirational, the other condemnatory. If you can’t tell the difference, there’s not much I can do except marvel you can access the internet at all.

                I believe that there is disagreement among theologians about the meaning of you reap what you sow.

                But please, continue to believe what you wish. Why you find it difficult to believe an anti-gay politician would follow in the footsteps of many others and claim deaths were God’s vengeance on sinners is beyond me. Maybe you just haven’t paid attention to American politics for the last 40 years or so.

                What I find hard to believe is that an elected official would photoshop an image together between 3 and 7 AM on Sunday then post it at the same time as he has posted bible verses in the past. If it had just been text tweet I’d have found his story less believable. I hadn’t heard of the guy before today and don’t know anything about him, it’s clear you have a preexisting vendetta against him.Report

    • Avatar pillsy in reply to Dand says:

      Thanks for reminding us who the real victim is, @dand .Report

    • Avatar dragonfrog in reply to Dand says:

      Please don’t.Report

  7. Avatar Murali says:

    Shit, I didn’t know this happened. I’ve got no other words right now.Report

  8. Avatar Maribou says:

    I wish I could give blood. (I’m literally “not even worth trying for plasma”, the one or two times I tried back when I had to do math to figure out if I was allowed to try or if I’d been kissing the wrong kind of people too recently.)

    I wish I was a US citizen so lawmakers would at least pretend to give a good goddamn about my opinion about others giving blood.

    I wish I wasn’t *afraid* of becoming a US citizen and the myriad ways that might fuck up my life ten years from now. And afraid of not becoming one, same potential outcomes. I wish I had the courage to shrug off my fears and make a decision that doesn’t take them into account, or the common sense to not wish for said courage.

    So I guess I’m going to just turtle up for a few days or weeks until we know what happened.

    Thinking of all those people, and their loved ones, and their community. Thinking of all the QUILTBAG people in other countries who’ve been shot or tortured or just had to deal with bumper stickers celebrating the tragic deaths of their loved ones, over the years.

    Trying not to feel hopeless.Report

  9. Avatar Zane says:

    Growing up as a gay kid in the 70s and 80s in places like Texas and Oklahoma, I incorporated thoughts that I sometimes still have trouble shaking: “They want us silenced. They want us dead.”

    I’m not hearing voices, of course, and I never thought everyone hated queers. But many did, and you could never be sure.

    Much of the world has changed in ways I never would have anticipated. I’ve been openly gay in my life, and I’ve been reasonably free of the radioactive haven of the closet. My friendship community is largely straight and incredibly supportive, if sometimes unaware of their own freedom to navigate without a history of fear. I got to marry the man I’ve been with for 30 years. It meant the world to me that my family and friends came to my wedding to celebrate and recognize.

    Still, I occasionally think as I travel through the world, “they’d kill us if they could.” And sometimes they do.Report

  10. Avatar DensityDuck says:

    “all donated blood is tested for HIV and other blood borne pathogens.”

    The tests aren’t 100% accurate. If you want to be absolutely certain that you aren’t going to transit AIDS into the donated-blood supply from a male who’s had a same-sex encounter, then you don’t accept blood from those people. Isaac Asimov can tell you why that matters (or maybe his widow can.)

    And, presumably, we want the government organizations responsible for keeping us safe to, y’know, keep us safe.

    There are all kinds of reasons why you might not be eligible to donate blood. I’m pretty sure that there’s no anti-midget sentiment, or prejudice against people who’ve had brain surgery. They don’t allow blood donations from people who lived in the UK during the 1980s, but that isn’t because of Britophobia; it’s because of Mad Cow Disease.

    Now, it’s not like homophobia isn’t a part of this deal. Presumably someone could know for sure if they had AIDS by getting multiple tests done on their own time–but social pressure against HIV-positive persons (and homosexuals in general) make that a more fraught proposition than it might otherwise be. Social stigma encourages failure to test and underreporting.

    Which, incidentally, is why there’s that bit in the donation-intake process where they say “we’ll give you two stickers, one means Do Use My Blood and the other means Don’t Use My Blood” and then the nurse leaves the room while you put the sticker on the sheet. It’s because there might be social pressure to go donate–sorta like there is now–and the Red Cross recognizes that someone might not be willing to stand up and say “nah, I might be HIV-positive so I better not donate”.

    Talking about “bans on gays donating blood” like it’s some kind of homophobic fuckery is an attitude borne of ignorance. Continuing to do it is a libel against an organization of dedicated persons who are solving a hard problem the best way they can figure.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to DensityDuck says:

      Talking about “bans on gays donating blood” like it’s some kind of homophobic fuckery is an attitude borne of ignorance. Continuing to do it is a libel against an organization of dedicated persons who are solving a hard problem the best way they can figure.

      I gotta come clean DD. When I read the above, knowing it was written by YOU, I busted out laughing.Report

    • Avatar Zane in reply to DensityDuck says:

      “Midget”?

      “Little People of America, the world’s oldest and largest dwarfism support organization and an international, membership-based organization for people with dwarfism and their families, advocates to abolish the use of the word “midget”. The word “midget” was never coined as the official term to identify people with dwarfism, but was created as a label used to refer to people of short stature who were on public display for curiosity and sport. Today, the word “midget” is considered a derogatory slur. The dwarfism community has voiced that they prefer to be referred to as dwarfs, little people, people of short stature or having dwarfism, or simply, and most preferably, by their given name.”

      http://www.lpaonline.org/the-m-wordReport

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to DensityDuck says:

      “The tests aren’t 100% accurate. If you want to be absolutely certain that you aren’t going to transit AIDS into the donated-blood supply from a male who’s had an opposite-sex encounter, then you don’t accept blood from those people.”
      “The tests aren’t 100% accurate. If you want to be absolutely certain that you aren’t going to transit AIDS into the donated-blood supply from a female who’s had a same-sex encounter, then you don’t accept blood from those people.”
      “The tests aren’t 100% accurate. If you want to be absolutely certain that you aren’t going to transit AIDS into the donated-blood supply from a female who’s had an opposite-sex encounter, then you don’t accept blood from those people.”

      I guess we just shouldn’t accept blood from anyone who is sexually active.Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Kazzy says:

        Of course, that would be ridiculous, because a) it would reduce the blood supply to a fraction of what it currently is, and b) those other demographics are at orders of magnitude lower risk for sexually contracting HIV than men who have sex with men.

        Excluding men who have sex with men—who are a small percentage of the population with highly elevated HIV risk—has a much better risk-reward trade-off than excluding people who exclusively participate in other types of sexual relationships. Is is still justified, with current screening technology? I don’t know. But the analogies you’re making miss the point entirely.Report

    • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to DensityDuck says:

      I’ve always assumed that the continued ban on donations by gay men is at least in part about the next HIV. Gay men and IV drug users are likely to be at a much higher risk than the general population for any new STD that might come up. We don’t want a repeat of what happened with HIV.Report

      • Avatar Alan Scott in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        See, I was going to comment on the post you wrote above, to agree with your assessment and point out that I think the one-year celibacy period is the best way to meet public health needs while maintaining the dignity of men who have sex with men. While it’s a bright line that excludes more potential donors than it needs to, HIV rates among MSM populations are high enough that some kind of line is required, and any other line will almost certainly involve asking a slew of privacy-violating questions to any gay donors.

        And then I read this. Brandon, this is a crap. It’s ignorant of the actual reality of how STDs spread and it’s disrespectful to gay men. Brandon, I like your presence on this site because you call Liberals on our shit when we’re talking out our asses. But this time, you’re the one who needs to be called out.Report

        • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Alan Scott says:

          I’m not sure what it is about this comment that you find objectionable, but I think you must have taken something I said other than the way I intended it. I’m not saying gay men are like IV drug users in any way other than having an elevated risk for certain diseases.

          I’m also not saying gay men are inherently more promiscuous than straight men, although it does seem to be easier in practice for a gay man to have more sexual partners due to the fact that men in general are much easier than women.

          Regardless of the reasons, though, MSM are at a dramatically elevated risk for a wide variety of STDs, not just HIV. And this is on an uptrend, presumably due to advances in HIV therapy leading to some people, gay and straight, letting their guard down. And it stands to reason that if another new systemic STD should arise, MSM and IV drug users are likely to be at higher risk than the general population.

          I’m not making any kind of normative judgment. I really think that that is was part of the reason for the continued ban. If not, it’s not at all clear to me why it’s not considered a real risk.

          If you still want to call me out, you’re welcome to, but it will be more effective if you tell me why.Report

  11. Avatar Chip Daniels says:

    After one of last mass shootings- no, not that one, the other one. Not that one either, but the other one, before than, but after the other other one. Yeah, that one.

    After that one, our pastor talked about how empty the “thoughts and prayers” line was. He mentioned that prayers without action are empty words.
    But he also pointed out that action without prayer is equally empty.

    Because the point of terror is to terrorize, to cause us to flee in a blind panic and let loose our darkest selves.

    I think if nothing else good comes out of this, maybe we can decide that trying to pin one cause or motivation is absurd.
    This shooting involved Islam, and homophobia.
    The other one involved White Supremacy.
    The other one involved mental illness.
    The other one involved abortion.
    The other one involved women.
    And on and on .

    Its like when someone gives a long litany of their abusive and deranged exes, but never stops to consider what the common thread linking them all was.Report

    • Avatar Zane in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Setting aside the issue of prayer, which I could go on and on about, I’m uncertain if your last sentence is what you meant to communicate. The implication is that if you have a string of terrible relationships, the common denominator is you. So if your community is the target of violence again and again, perhaps the cause is within your community? Are you actually meaning to say that the reason that LGBT people are victimized is because of something LGBT people are doing?Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Zane says:

        The common denominator in all these attacks is America.
        We have seen mass shootings of black people, women, children, gays, abortion providers, and random citizens.
        We have seen killers who are Muslim, Christian, and secular.

        The common thread that connects mass shootings is America. Other nations have mixed ethnicities, mixed religions, tensions between all sorts of groups.
        But mass shootings are routine only in America.Report

  12. Avatar Dand says:

    Both sides seem to be using this attack to go after people they hate. Yuppie liberals are pushing for gun control motivated by their hatred of working class and rural whites. Conservative are pushing for a ban on Muslims.Report

    • Avatar greginak in reply to Dand says:

      Yes people are using this to bash people they hate.Report

    • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

      Yuppie liberals are pushing for gun control motivated by their hatred of working class and rural whites.

      They only support gun control because of a hatred for working class and rural rights? That’s their reason.

      I’m not sure you’re a good judge of motivations here.Report

      • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

        I have yet to meet a gun control advocate who isn’t a cultural snob.Report

        • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

          How am I a cultural snob? Bear in mind I’ve gone hunting and fishing with my father-in-law, and enjoyed target shooting with him multiple times.

          Please explain my hatred of working class and rural whites. I’m ALL ears. And also explain how I’m a cultural snob. I’m looking forward to this.Report

          • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

            I don’t know you personally I can’t comment on you I can only go by people that I know personally but look at mayor Bloomberg who in addition to being America’s leading gun control advocate also waged a war on the food the working class people like.Report

            • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

              Ask away. I’m all for gun control. I can even list you exactly what. And I’ll even admit it — I happily exempt most hunting guns, though I do have more stringent transport rules for them. (Rules that, forty years ago, might have been called “Common freaking sense”).

              Feel free to get to know a gun control advocate, instead of people you’ve never met.

              Strangely, Bloomberg does not dictate my thoughts. (Nor would I consider him a leading advocate of anything but promoting Bloomberg).Report

              • Avatar Damon in reply to Morat20 says:

                You DO realize that “hunting rifle” is just a “sniper rifle” by another name don’t you?

                You do realize that a hunting shotgun is just an “assault shotgun:” when a pistol grip and tactical sight is put on it don’t you?

                You do realize that a semi auto varmint rifle is an “assault rifle” when it’s painted black and has adjustable stock don’t you?Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Damon says:

                You mean to tell me that my father had a “sniper rifle” in our house when I was growing up? That’s inconceivable. It’s a wonder no one was hurt.Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Damon says:

                What’s any of that got to do with the price of tea in China?

                It’s like you randomly assigned my gun control beliefs based on whatever was convenient to argue against. Weird.Report

              • Avatar Damon in reply to Morat20 says:

                Here’s what you said: “I’m all for gun control. I can even list you exactly what. And I’ll even admit it — I happily exempt most hunting guns, though I do have more stringent transport rules for them. (Rules that, forty years ago, might have been called “Common freaking sense”).”

                So you’re willing to exempt most hunting guns from these more stringent rules. OK, but what’s a hunting gun? One man’s hunting rifle is another man’s sniper rifle. Are you talking 30-06? used to hunt deer? Can be used as a sniper rifle. .308? Ditto.

                That was my point. What you may define as a hunting weapon can be easily classified as something else–AND HAS BEEN. So you saying hunting doesn’t really mean anything except to you.Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Damon says:

                You seem to be assuming I’m against “sniper rifles” because I’m weirdly incapable of realizing any hunting rifle is used to….shoot living things at a distance. Like I somehow think there exist a class of guns that can kill any creature but humans.

                Long guns exist to shoot things…further away than handguns. What’s weird is you acting like I don’t know how that works. I have, you know, fired handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

                I use of “hunting” as shorthand to refer to the calibers, magazine capacity, and firing rates traditionally used. While I have fired a shotgun that can hold a surprising number of rounds, I can’t legally hunt with it, for instance. Where I king of America, I’d make very few changes to people’s ability to own and use the weapons most Americans use for…actually hunting. Honestly, it’d be registration and insurance requirements, for the most part.

                I don’t have to define it further because (1) I am not writing legislation and (2) we’re not having a discussion over legislation and specific regulations, so I can get away with saying “You know the rifles most people use to hunt with? And shotguns? I got no problem with people owning those” which should be sufficient for a casual conversation with anyone who isn’t trying to be highly uncharitable.Report

              • Avatar Damon in reply to Morat20 says:

                My point M, what that what YOU may consider a “hunting rifle” isn’t what other people do. We saw this with the AWB where semi auto varmint rifles were re-defined as assault weapons because they were “scary black” and had stupid things like bayonet lugs on them. That was it.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Damon says:

                This is a variant of the argument that there is no difference between say, a Bushmaster and a regular hunting rifle.

                Which is correct, but irrelevant.
                For the makers of Bushmasters, and the buyers of Bushmasters, there is a world of difference.
                The Bushmaster and its affiliated “scary looking” rifles are designed and marketed as guns for working out masculinity issues.
                They aren’t marketed as being for hunting deer, or shooting paper targets.

                Young men don’t buy them and pose for Facebook pictures because they are ready to go out and kill a 10 point buck.

                Yes, there exists a group of sober responsible hunters.

                There also exists a group of gun nuts who should not enjoy the protective embrace of the first group.Report

              • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Ya know, if the good life for these young men is to buy their favorite weapon and go post it on facebook, I am kinda of the opinion that you should go pound sand.Report

              • Avatar Damon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “This is a variant of the argument that there is no difference between say, a Bushmaster and a regular hunting rifle.”

                Funny ’cause there are differences, especially caliber. That’s why I call .223 caliber rifles varmint rifles. That’s about all they are good for. A good solid deer rifle is a .308 or 30-06.

                “masculinity issues.” Why don’t you just use the pejorative “ammosexual” or “gun filth”?Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Damon says:

                You don’t think the gun nuts buying Bushmasters and posing with guns are having masculinity issues?

                This is where I take aim at the “responsible” gun owners, when they defend these guys.

                There is something wrong, very deeply wrong with these guys and their relationship with guns.

                Why can’t it be said and confronted honestly?Report

              • Avatar Damon in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I’m not a social scientist. I can’t speak to the “posing” Nobody that I know, or who they know, does this. (As an aside, posting on social media your gun is stupid-so is posting on social media anyway.)

                If we’re going to talk about semi auto .223 rifles, let’s use a generic term. Bushmaster is a brand, and isn’t the only manuf. I do understand that guys CAN get wrapped up in the “taticool” aspects, but then I’ve known folks to get wrapped up in having their side by side shottie barrels engraved from breach to tip. I’ve also seen guys so wrapped up in changing chokes for each stand at the sporting clay course, so there’s all kinds.

                What my discriminator is this: are they showing proper muzzle/trigger control? Good range courtesy/safety/behavior? Everything else is largely irrelevant.Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

                I could ask you a bunch of questions but they would seem superficial. I don’t get my opinions on the snobbery of gun control advocates from people I don’t know; I get them from people a deal with in person.Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

                So how long have you known Mayor Bloomberg then?Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

                Bloomberg is a former elected official so there is lots of information about him that is available.Report

          • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

            If support for gun control weren’t motivated by seething hatred for the people who own guns you wouldn’t see all the comments about how gun owners have small penises.Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dand says:

              I didn’t know Trump was a gun owner. 🙂Report

            • Avatar Patrick in reply to Dand says:

              “I have yet to meet a gun control advocate who isn’t a cultural snob.”

              I think this speaks more to either the people you think of when you think of “gun control advocates” or the people you think of when you think of “cultural snobs” than it speaks to the issue of gun regulation and who does or doesn’t support it.

              “If support for gun control weren’t motivated by seething hatred for the people who own guns you wouldn’t see all the comments about how gun owners have small penises.”

              Generally speaking support for gun regulation comes from fear… like most regulation does. Whether or not the fear is justifiable or not is a different question, of course.

              Specifically speaking some support for gun regulation comes from tribal identification and/or cultural snobbery… and those folks are often associated with comments about how gun owners have small penises.

              But of course a lot of the pro-gun arguments, offered by those who flatly reject any sort of gun regulation, are also highly associated with tribal identification and/or cultural snobbery.

              Put another way:

              I have yet to see two folks on opposite sides of gun regulation who are willing to actually honestly discuss the issue sit down and start talking to each other about penis size.

              Whereas I very often see someone who is on one side of the gun regulation question decide that they don’t have to engage with anyone on the other side using excuses like this.

              Put a third way:

              I really doubt you are willing to discuss the pros and cons of gun regulation on their merits.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Patrick says:

                I have yet to see two folks on opposite sides of gun regulation who are willing to actually honestly discuss the issue sit down and start talking to each other about penis size.

                So, @morat20, how’s it hanging, dude?

                (Sorry, @patrick, just wanted to try and fill that experiential gap for ya…)Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dand says:

          This is getting tiresome, Dand. Even if gun control advocates are cultural snobs, their arguments deserve a response on the merits. If you can’t see that, then you’re even more guilty than the folks you’re pissed off at.

          And apologies for getting snippy about it, but 50 people are dead, 53 wounded, and your attempts to reduce those folks’ responses to this horror to expressions of cultural snobbery is an instance of exactly what you’re accusing them of: using this tragedy to score political points.

          Edit: not even political. Personal.Report

          • Avatar Dand in reply to Stillwater says:

            This is getting tiresome, Dand. Even if gun control advocates are cultural snobs, their arguments deserve a response on the merits.

            Do you favor giving the same consideration to people who want ban Muslims from entering the country are throw them into interment camps? The Second Amendment is just as valid as the first.

            And apologies for getting snippy about it, but 50 people are dead, 53 wounded, and your attempts to reduce those folks’ responses to this horror to expressions of cultural snobbery is an instance of exactly what you’re accusing them of: using this tragedy to score political points.

            Do you feel the same way about the people condemning Islamophobic responses to the attacks or do you think hatred of working class whites or more acceptable than hatred of Muslims?Report

            • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dand says:

              Man, this isn’t the thread, dude.

              {{Seems to me your grievance is best explained by psychology rather than politics and policy…}}Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Stillwater says:

                There you dismissing my concerns. Nothing prompts more anger from people on this site than saying that high SES liberals are condescending jerks. I’ve worked retail where my customers were working class whites and similar jobs where my customers were high SES liberals and the high liberal and the high SES liberals treated me worse. I have to put up with these people every day I’m sick of it. Yet people are incredibly dismissive of complaints that high SES liberals treat me poorly. So yes it’s personal.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dand says:

                I’m not dismissing that you feel really strongly about your concerns.

                I’m just saying that your criticisms of others are indistinguishable from what you criticize them for.

                If you wanna play to a stalemate, have at it. But realize that that’s what you’re doing.Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Stillwater says:

                Do you also feel that the people decrying Islamophobia are doing the same thing as the Islamophobes? You seem to be saying that opposing bias is just as bad as being biased, at least when it’s class/cultural bias.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Dand says:

                Well, if the only relevant metric by which we value an ideological commitment is the emotional intensity in which it is held, then you have a point. And I concede. Which more or less makes my earlier point, which was that a grievance is an emotional response, and the extent to which that emotion drives a person’s view of the world, and the correlated politics and policy, it reduces their view (at least in the cases under discussion (ie., hatred of the working class and all that)) to the exact same thing they’re psychologically responding too.

                So it’s a stalemate, no? The debate, insofar as their is one, takes place at the level subjectivity. And therefore powah!Report

              • Avatar Dave in reply to Stillwater says:

                @stillwater

                You said this was getting tiresome and he(?) still continued to harp on the subject.

                You’re a better man than I. I would ripped him a new asshole long before this. In fact, I better bolt out of here before I do just that.

                This is fucking despicable. 50 people are dead.Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Dave says:

                So wrote a post condemning people for using the shooting to vilify people who they were already inclined to hate. If I had only criticized the Islamophobes I wouldn’t have received any pushback but since I also criticized yuppies I’m somehow the bad guy. No one ever tells Veronica the here complaints are tiresome but whenever I say anything about how the yuppie liberals treat people tell me I’m being too sensitive. I think my comments hit too close to home. You people can dish it out but you can’t take it. Both political parties have been at war with working whites for the past 40 years; Republicans by advancing economic policies that favor the wealthy and Democrats by finding some way to vilify anything that working class whites get enjoyment out of.Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Dand says:

                I find it amusing that when faced with someone you claim is a yuppie liberal (me!) on a topic you claim we look down on you for (guns!) you refused to talk like two civilized people, explaining you only got your daily dose of hateful disdain from yuppies you know personally, or Bloomberg.

                Of course, there’s the fact that while I disagree with you on gun control, I don’t look down on you (or rural whites) or feel a snobbish sense of superiority, which is admittedly a spike in the “they only hate guns because they hate me” thesis.

                How many face-to-face gun control social liberal yuppie snobs who look down on you do you actually know, anyways? And why on earth do you hang out with them? I try to avoid people who look down on me. I certainly don’t discuss politics with them in person.Report

              • Avatar Dand in reply to Morat20 says:

                When did i refuse to talk like a civilized person with you or call you a yuppie? I said it would be hard to tell if you were a yuppie only by conversation here; it’s something that’s much easier to tell if know a person first hand.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Dave says:

                This is fucking despicable. 50 people are dead.

                What is despicable is that liberals are already calling for gun control.Report

              • Avatar Damon in reply to notme says:

                That’s SOP.
                “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”- Rahm EmanuelReport

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Damon says:

                Rahm’s not one of the chaos crowd.
                They’re more like to cause a crisis, have multiple plays to solve the crisis, and a way to make a profit out of most of them.Report

              • Avatar Patrick in reply to notme says:

                Are you capable of expressing an opinion on any public policy issue that does not contain some dismissive assessment of your ideological opponents in it?

                I’m just curious. I’m almost inclined to go through the comment database and see what percentage of threads you participate in *don’t* contain a derogatory comment about “liberals”, “socialists”, or “leftists”.

                My expectation is that it’s a small minority, but I’m wondering if this is confirmation bias on my part.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Patrick says:

                My ballpark is somewhere between 1% and 10%.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to notme says:

                Would you be OK with gun control imposed on Muslim’s still in the country after the Muslim ban takes effect?Report

            • Avatar Catchling in reply to Dand says:

              Even if gun control advocates are cultural snobs, their arguments deserve a response on the merits.

              Do you favor giving the same consideration to people who want ban Muslims from entering the country are throw them into interment camps?

              Those ideas are discussed on their merits, it’s just that such discussion is hard to disentagle from issues of bigotry. I mean, it would be weird to say “Trump’s proposal to keep Muslims out would be worthy of respect, if only Trump weren’t such an Islamophobe”, because of the inherent Islamophobia of the idea. Or to put it another way, if we have a conversation about prohibiting Muslim immigration, then for better or worse we’re having a converation about the merits of opposition to Islam, in itself.

              Whereas even if it is a fact that 99% of gun-control support is motivated by prejudice against rural whites, there exists an in-principle possibility of holding such a position without a view that “those people” are inherently dangerous to an unknown degree. Heck, this very incident wasn’t committed by one of “those people” but by the sort of person more on the radar of the right than the left. Yet gun-control proponents aren’t treating this as an exception to their principles, but as confirmation (whether rightly or wrongly).Report

            • Avatar Troublesome Frog in reply to Dand says:

              Do you favor giving the same consideration to people who want ban Muslims from entering the country are throw them into interment camps?

              I don’t know about anybody else, but yes, I do. If an idea is bad, it should be possible to articulate why it’s bad. If it’s not possible to argue the merits of an idea without dismissing the person who had it as a “cultural snob” or a “racist” I’m not sure how useful the concept of a “bad idea” is.

              Throwing Muslims into interment camps isn’t a bad idea because the guy suggesting it is a bad person. The guy suggesting it is a bad person because throwing people in interment camps is a monstrously bad idea.Report

  13. Avatar North says:

    Crud, I wasn’t sure if I felt like going out for Pride this year. Some years it’s just easier to skip the crowds and chill at home. Now I have to go out.

    The best, and I suspect only, way to get back at the mouth breather that committed this horrific act would be to continue on, as normal.Report

    • Avatar veronica d in reply to North says:

      Boston Pride was yesterday. It feels weird, from that to this.Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to North says:

      At the risk of speaking out of turn, it seems there is an opportunity here for those of us who abhor these acts and what they seemingly stand to respond in a way that is truly something to take pride in.

      I was considering taking my boys to the parade. Now I will. They need to see how communities can come together in support of their own and opposition to hate.Report

    • Avatar Morat20 in reply to North says:

      It might already have been mentioned, but tt looks like there was another person looking to violently disrupt a Pride event — this one in Santa Monica. He didn’t actually manage, but I believe they found explosives and some detailed ramblings. (He was not connected to the other shooter).

      I have yet to see Donald Trump tweet triumphantly about him.Report

  14. Avatar Burt Likko says:

    Having been under a rock all day and entertaining family from out of town, I had spent today on more personal and superficial things before noticing this. I’m heartsick to learn what happened. All of these people are someone’s parents, children siblings, colleagues, and friends. Taking their lives will accomplish nothing but causing those children, parents, siblings, colleagues, and fiends grief.

    I see online the usual arguments about weapons and religion are afoot and amazingly, everyone was right all along. It baffles me what this killing was supposed to do. Make people cry and mourn before their natural time to have done so, I guess.Report

    • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Burt Likko says:

      I’m sure, in his head, it made sense. But then, he was almost certainly mentally ill.

      It’s a bit of a tautology to say that sane people don’t shoot up clubs full of people, but….it’s been pretty well established that getting sane people to shoot back at people shooting at them (soldiers, basically) requires a great deal of conditioning. Most people shy away from taking a life.

      And fewer still can bring themselves to a planned massacre, as opposed to momentary rage and a sudden, hot-blooded response.

      So whatever reasons he gives, in the end….he was crazy. And we don’t deal well with crazy in America. We don’t have much of a system for spotting it, treating it, or keeping them from being a danger to themselves or others.

      Of course that’s also a predictable response: It’s not about guns, it’s about mental illness pops up every time. Except, of course, nobody does anything about mental illness. The other usual response (“Good guy with a gun”) is pants-on-head stupid, but also predictable.

      And of course, the worst part is that this will be used by quite a few people to whip up Islamaphobia on the corpses of dead LBGT folks.

      And nothing will happen, until the next massacre when we wring our hands and mouth the familiar words, and act like it’s the random striking of lightning. An act of God that cannot be altered, prevented, addressed or mitigated — only mourned.Report

      • Avatar Joe Sal in reply to Morat20 says:

        “The other usual response (“Good guy with a gun”) is pants-on-head stupid, but also predictable.”

        I sure am glad no one here indulged their agenda around this event. Classy Morat, never change.Report

      • Avatar Catchling in reply to Morat20 says:

        I have to disagree about mental illness necessarily being part of this. Yes, humans are tremendously reluctant to kill, but at the same time, do you believe that all the ISIS killers are mentally ill? What about soldiers from around the world? I’m not even quite saying “blame the ideology”, just that we can’t be confident about mental illness having a role here.Report

        • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Catchling says:

          Most soldiers have to be conditioned to fire at an enemy. Ours included. (Our combat training goes back to WWI in conditioning soldiers to fire on enemies. As I said, most humans shy away from killing another, even in the heat of the moment).

          People who don’t need conditioning are….extreme outliers. Maybe not mentally ill, but certainly not mentally normal.

          Things like ISIS — religion can be used to condition people, including to kill. But ISIS is a bit of a sampling problem, wouldn’t you say? You could add up all the Muslim terrorists into one lump and you’d have a negligible percentage of Muslims. (Same as with, say, sampling Christianity by taking the worst of Africa).

          I’m not sure you could avoid things like self-selecting samples, as groups like ISIS would concentrate the people already eager to kill, as well as those most easily radicalized into killing.Report

        • Avatar notme in reply to Catchling says:

          Labeling the shooter mentally I’ll allows liberals to ignore the fact that he is a Isis supporting muslim.Report

  15. Avatar notme says:

    Looks like the Reddit mods are busy deleting anything that talks about the shooter being a muslim. I wonder what they are afraid of?

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/12/reddit-bans-users-deletes-comments-that-say-orlando-terrorist-was-muslim/Report

    • Avatar trizzlor in reply to notme says:

      I can’t believe they got user Boner_Parade on the record! Must credit DC.Report

    • Avatar greginak in reply to notme says:

      Details about his background are all over the place. I just read about him on Slate. We’ll be hearing a lot more about him. It’s almost like the daily caller is looking for someplace to scream about , as if the events of today aren’t bad enough. FWIW the dude was also a security guard and a likely domestic violence perpetrator.Report

      • Avatar notme in reply to greginak says:

        The details aren’t the issue. The issue is reditt’s heavy handed censoring to make sure no one mentions that he is a muslim.Report

        • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to notme says:

          Yeah, that makes sense. Because if there’s one thing Reddit is famous for, it’s not having any users that ever say anything racist. Or misogynistic, or anti-Semitic, or offensive in any way.

          Its like the old saying, “You can’t spell Reddit without PC.”Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Tod Kelly says:

            They’re officially acknowledging that “mistakes were made“.

            The top stickied comment is worth reading.Report

            • The mistake being that, since every post about the shooting was turning into a Superfund site, they deleted all of them. I suppose it’s heartening to know that there are some things so disgusting that even Reddit notices.Report

              • Huh.

                So, for anyone wondering, “what would be worse that posting pics up underage girls skirts without their knowledge or permission,” I guess now we know.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                since every post about the shooting was turning into a Superfund site

                An apt description.Report

              • That is the official narrative, yes.

                There is a competing narrative that says something to the effect of “they deleted all of them to the point where people who were visiting /r/news during a particular window had no idea that anything had happened which translated to /r/The_Donald being a better place to get the news about the most violent mass shooting in US History, after Wounded Knee anyway”.

                The truth, of course, is probably somewhere in between.Report

              • To dig into this further, I’d have to learn more about how reddit is organized, which means I’d have to give at least a microcrap.Report

          • Avatar notme in reply to Tod Kelly says:

            Is that your way of admitting that Reddit was wrong without having to admit that Reddit was wrong?Report

            • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to notme says:

              No, it’s my way of saying that if you believe Reddit deletes comments that don’t adhere to PC culture, you have never once been on Reddit.

              Since you clearly don’t know, Reddit is a place where (among other things) white supremacists gather to chat about issues. Also: MRAs, anti-Semites, people who advocate women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, people who argue rape should be legal, people who argue we should nuke Muslim countries, and — because why not? — pedophiles.

              So when you say some version of, “Reddit censors viewpoints that aren’t PC,” it tells me that — in this one particular instance — you are passing on something you heard on talk radio or Twitter or some such, about which you do not know what you are talking about.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to notme says:

      The linked piece doesn’t say that Reddit was deleting anything that talks about the shooter being a muslim; it says that Reddit was deleting anything about the shooting, period.

      (By the way, the site owes me a couple hundred bucks for reading all the way through a Daily Caller article. I’ll take it in drinks at Leaguefest.)Report

  16. Avatar Oscar Gordon says:

    I’m still processing all of this, but I have one thought and one observation:

    Thought: Given the attacks in Europe, and the online tactics of Daesh, I knew this was coming, and I wasn’t alone. Given that the shooter was a natural born citizen, and not an import, the ability to identify and stop one committed to such reckless hate is damn hard, if they choose not to make themselves known. Daesh is starting to be a bit too effective in finding ways to unhinge people from a distance.

    Observation: I’m starting to wonder if reporters have a some kind of cognitive impairment. During the FBI press briefing I listened to this morning, the FBI admitted that the shooter had come to their attention twice in the past few years, had been contacted and interviewed both times, and the investigations failed to turn up any actionable evidence, so they were closed. The reporters at the briefing seemed almost incensed at this revelation, and were demanding to know how the guy was able to legally buy a gun, and they did not seem interested in the explanation that there was no crime, hence he was not listed as a prohibited person.

    The ease with which people forget about how rights and due process are supposed to work scares me at times.Report

    • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      The ease with which people forget about how rights and due process are supposed to work scares me at times.

      Isn’t that ease accounted for by your Thought? Seems to me the Thought and the Observation exist in a pretty pronounced tension.Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to Stillwater says:

        Admittedly, they are. Especially in the handful of hours after the shooting, when emotions are running high.

        I hope that as time wears on and heads cool, the idea that civil liberties should be restricted just because a person comes to the attention of law enforcement will be seen as the bad idea that it is.Report

    • There’s another question of why anyone, felon or not, is legally able to own easily carried weapons that can kill or wound over a hundred people in only a few minutes. I’m seeing the costs of that very clearly, but not really the benefits.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      I am dubious that Daesh did much of anything at all beyond their normal marketing. They’ve just become the flavor of the week for deranged Islamic themed wackos. If Daesh didn’t exist I assume this douchebag would have pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden’s corpse or something similar instead.Report

      • Avatar veronica d in reply to North says:

        I mean, we don’t know much yet, just some news organizations pumping stories about what (maybe his) dad said, and what (maybe his) ex-wife said, and these are big papers who assume fact check, except they probably “fact check” (or whatever). I dunno.

        Angry men are angry men. They hate. They cannot bond with women. They fetishize violence. They’re “into guns,” not the way me and my old roommate were, where we had black powder rifles and cast our own bullets from lead, where I loved to fire my old bolt action Springfield 03a3 at steel silhouettes, cuz sitting at the range on a Saturday afternoon, just “plinking,” was relaxing and fun. Mostly I fired my heavy barrelled Remington .22 target rifle, cuz if you cannot group with a .22, you think you’re gonna group with a .30-06?

        These guys are different. They’re “paramilitary wannabes,” “cop wannabes,” “spec-ops wannabes.” They get jobs in security and dream of making Grand Theft Auto a reality in their empty lives.

        Basically, this guy is George Zimmerman. ‘Cept not. Cuz Islam.

        And homophobia. Plenty of that going around.

        Which leads to, the very people who hate us are using our tragedy to try to get people to hate them. Don’t fall for it. Hate the haters. Hate homophobia and racism and bitter angry shits. Hate them. They’re obvious.

        I’m no fan of Islam, any more than I’m a fan of any religion. However, I do not blame Muslims for this. I blame guys like that. Plenty are around. They come in every shade. Every religion, every creed, every race is gonna have some flavor of these guys, and together they will construct some ideology where they get to kill. On the other side, the same flavor of guys will construct some parallel ideology and kill back, but maybe they find the “soft targets,” which means the innocent. Round and round.

        Cut it out. It’s murderous.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to veronica d says:

          Sure, but the main thrust of my point is to try and depower the whole “ZOMG Daesh is infiltrating us through the interwebs and they’re winning!!11ONEONE!!” thing. I don’t think Daesh gets any credit/blame for this because this lowlife louse would have existed and done his thing with or without Daesh hanging around.

          Over all though I agree with your point. It’s dudes like that who are to blame, not the ism’s they try use as a flag to wrap about their naked pathetic barbarity.Report

          • Avatar Morat20 in reply to North says:

            I’m pretty sure they egged him on, because…why not? They both hated gays, and this schmuck was likely to go out and kill some if he could. All it cost was a few electrons and about as much effort as a 14-year-old uses on Xbox Live to come up with clever insults. (If you’ve not experienced the thrills of listening to teenagers talk on Xbox life, the amount of effort is “none”. The homophobia, bigotry, racism, and sexism is ludicrously high. But that’s attempting to gain social capital through shock value and violating social norms, which is a common — if incredibly annoying — stage of social development)Report

      • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to North says:

        @north

        Possibly, but I think you can agree the US has enough people running about with loose hinges. We don’t need an outside ideology working to not only unhinge those folks, but to also provide them with information as to how best to cause carnage.

        Daesh likes soft targets where the ability for victims to scatter or find cover is minimal. A night club is ideal to that ideology and goal on so many levels. The targets of the Paris attacks were not random. Large open spaces, packed with people, and with numerous choke points and limited exits. And almost everyone there guilty of some imagined sin or another. I would not be surprised, as they take this guys life apart, to find that he was getting ideas from Daesh marketing.

        I’m not blaming Islam, or Muslims. I have no illusion that Daesh represents Muslims at large. If they did, we would not be having a massive refugee crisis. But Daesh is having more success at recruiting people in the Western world to do their bidding than Al Qaeda or the Taliban ever has, and that is troubling.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          Yeah @oscar-gordon and if Daesh wasn’t out there this fruit loop would be getting the ideas from TV or from the anarchists cookbook or whatever. If our reaction to this filths’ deranged violent spasms is a cringing rush to try and turn all public spaces into little fortresses or some similar ill advised policy change then this vermin and his camel humping fellow travelers will have accomplished some modicum of success in their miserable cause. I’d rather they didn’t. Terrorism isn’t, wasn’t and never has been an existential threat.Report

          • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to North says:

            Pretty sure I suggested no such thing. Recognizing that terror organizations have found a new vector by which to cause harm isn’t the same as saying that we should take some kind of drastic action.Report

            • Avatar North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

              Yes, what I’m quibbling with is the idea that much to any “credit” for this rests with Daesh. I haven’t seen any indication that they actively coached or groomed our dipshit shooter of the season. They just are the Mcguffin of the decade floating out there for the nut bags to brand themselves with.Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to North says:

                That’s the distinction I’ve been groping towards.Report

              • Avatar Oscar Gordon in reply to North says:

                I guess that depends on how much value you put on Marketing. Elsewhere in these threads, someone commented about the marketing of rifle manufacturers having some responsibility toward bad ends.

                Daesh may not have actively coached, but if this guy was consuming their marketing, should we shrug it off as some kind of tangential fact?Report

    • Avatar Damon in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Let’s assume they investigated the guy and had the spooks keep tabs on him electronically or some such, which is certainly possible. You think they’d own up to it? Nope. It’s classified. And if someone who was supposed to be watching him “in the black” fubar-ed it up, well, it’s still classified.Report

  17. Avatar Morat20 says:

    I’m gonna be honest — I’ve started to become pretty numb to this stuff. Because next week there’ll be another mass shooting. Another guy (it’s almost always just a guy. one guy even), with a different reason. He’ll be just as furiously angry, he’ll shoot up another group. A random family, or a Starbucks, or his workplace.

    Depends on whatever reasoning the roulette wheel settled on, I suppose.

    And we’ll all mourn the latest dead, because mass shootings have become more common than plane crashes in America. It’s like reading about kids dying of cancer. It’s sad, but it happens. Or flash floods killing people. Also sad, but it happens. In America, someone will randomly shoot a whole bunch of people every week or two. Sad, but it happens.

    And it’s getting harder and harder to feel anything but apathy and despair. It’s not like it’s going to change, or anyone will do anything about it. We’ll all pray for the families, give blood and maybe a little money, and then drop the subject for a week.

    Mass shootings are just a unique natural disaster in America.Report