[Politics] What matters more? My Sex or my Race? (Interesting MCU conversation explored)

[Agema]

The number of Knife Offenses in UK during 2018 [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089] (39,818) and the Firearm incidents in America [https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/gun-deaths-2018-america-mass-shootings-suicide/] (56,887). For a population that's 5 times larger than the UK, those numbers are really close.

They're different fundamentally definitions, though. A "knife offence" in the UK includes stuff as basic as bearing an illegal knife on one's person, or using a knife for robbery with no physical harm. The equivalent "firearm incident" statistics for the USA means some form of injury or fatality inflicted with a firearm.

Hospital admissions for knife injuries in the UK is about 3000-4000 a year, and there are about 200 murders: this is going to be substantially more equivalent to the ~57k "firearm incidents" in the USA than the "knife offences" total, by representing physical harm inflicted by the relevant weapon.

* * *

No one is pretending, I am a realist, the world does not owe you or I anything. No one is responsible to the way an individual feels and reacts except them. Our births are not a certainty into this world, it's only though knocking off other sperm that we live. The same with life in general we want control but that is an illusion, it does not exist.

The world doesn't owe us anything, no. But our fellow human beings are not the uncaring and non-sentient nature of the universe, and there are structures by which we expect things of each other. Like, for instance, obeying the law. And the idea that no-one is responsible for how others feel (and to a lesser extent) react is irrational and indefensible, unless you really want to claim no-one has ever done something to make you angry, happy, sad, etc.

We sometimes get a short stick but either you adapt or simply you don't. The problem with generalized is it based around a belief that a whole group is unable to do anything.

Since when does generalisation mean a group is unable to do anything themselves? I just don't get that.

You're German report also underlines a fundamental flaw in the way people understand information. It can be used to generalize all German men as bigots.

It can, but that would be a serious error: the report doesn't state that's what German men think, but what German workers think.

Secondly, it could be used to damn German workers as bigots and no doubt some people undoubtedly would do that. But what's the alternative? Not to have the information or discuss it at all because some people might intentionally or unintentionally misrepresent it?

Stats are not supposed to be the end all solution, working in a Ad Agency we know this. The man and women on the street does take everything at face value. They get a simplified generalized version of what we see because they don't have the time. They believe every bit of stat posted online or in the newspaper. Yet, besides getting a lopsided view of the world they do more harm than good.
That is why every time I post about a report I give you guys several links for people to read. Not expecting all but 0.01% to actually read them. It is also one reason why "fake News" anti vaccine or snake oil cures spread people don't research or read anything else. They generalize their thinking based upon what one group says, they don't think. Not even understanding the terminology of what Racism is which a perspective to Generalization of a whole GROUP.

Sure, stats are there to provide information, but proper use and analysis of those statistics can require appropriate skills.

But this seems to me to more about controlling information - "gatekeeping", if you like - to encourage effective transmission of information. This of course is nither very individualist or democratic. In fact, it suggests the Chinese or Russian models are the way forward.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

The number of Knife Offenses in UK during 2018 [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42749089] (39,818) and the Firearm incidents in America [https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/gun-deaths-2018-america-mass-shootings-suicide/] (56,887). For a population that's 5 times larger than the UK, those numbers are really close.

They're different fundamentally definitions, though. A "knife offence" in the UK includes stuff as basic as bearing an illegal knife on one's person, or using a knife for robbery with no physical harm. The equivalent "firearm incident" statistics for the USA means some form of injury or fatality inflicted with a firearm.

Hospital admissions for knife injuries in the UK is about 3000-4000 a year, and there are about 200 murders: this is going to be substantially more equivalent to the ~57k "firearm incidents" in the USA than the "knife offences" total, by representing physical harm inflicted by the relevant weapon.

I'm more speaking about general criminal activity with weapons. How people keep talking about how violent and bloodthirsty Americans due to their love affair with guns when other countries are walking around armed in their own way.

The thought being passed around is that if you get rid of guns, violence will go away. Gun violence will go away. People will just start carrying knives, batons, and what have you. The idealistic idea that if we banish guns, things will get better is only marginally correct. But it's something people love to bash on about while ignoring how other cultures are also gearing up, getting ready for a fight as well.

It's the people that need help, not the laws.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I mean, replacing every gun with a knife in the US *would* make it infinitely safer. There are no mass knifings

Infinitely safer is a relative term.

There are quite a few mass stabbings. I've commonly heard it associated with China. We just passed the one year anniversary of a tragic event where nine students lost their lives to a mass stabbing [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43921567] in Shaanxi.

Vehicle attacks are sadly a thing [https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/world/terrorist-attacks-by-vehicle-fast-facts/index.html], and an easy tool for anyone to make into a deadly terrorist move.

We had several bombers caught or who ended their lives in 2018 in the US. Mark Conditt [https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/us/austin-serial-bomber-video/index.html], Cesar Sayoc [https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/us/cesar-sayoc-letter-trump-rallies/index.html], Houston Willis [https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-man-arrested-in-connection-with-mysterious-loud-explosions-in-phoenix-police-say].

People who are unstable are going to find ways of expressing that damage to others unless they are found out. Focusing on the tool instead of the damaged person is just shifting the style of attack.

 

[gorfias]

Speaking to comic books and movies, race vs. gender:

Non-White Men:
Black Panther: Billion.
Aquaman: Billion

Women:
Captain Marvel: Billion (Though, Carol Danvers was Ms. Marvel in the late 1970s. Early 1980s, the first female Captain Marvel was a black woman. With a dull costume, but still!)

Wonder Woman: 800 Million. Still a lot.

When reading comic books, I tended to read comics with male heroes. Not a lot of non-white heroes. Heck, even with all these Jews writing, drawing etc. comics in the early years, most characters were not. Batman Catholic? Wayne?

I've liked a lot of females in comics, but typically as supporting characters, like Kitty Pryde... JEW, Finally a good one! Sabra sucked. But except for the George Perez Wonder Woman run, I can't think of collecting them specifically.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Your last paragraph is not wrong, but I do not believe you believe in what you just said. I do not think you want to solve the problem, I think you just want to criticize those who point the problem out.

In other words, you admit your only defense is ad hominem. Appeals to motive being a subset of that family of fallacies. See, here's the issue with this. This attitude and this specific strategy, as OP stated and a sentiment I reflected, is shockingly common. In fact, I'd even argue it's the norm and preferred means of argument in contemporary activist discourse.

That's not a sign of a healthy activist landscape, mental state, or functioning theoretical foundation. That's dogmatic zeal. A word I specifically, intentionally, employed back on page two of this thread.

Absolutely, my intent is to criticize people who point out problems...then proceed to take no substantive action, or worse, actively sabotage attempts by others to take substantive action. In the case of the latter, it's particularly despicable when a movement or group that champions a shared struggle is sabotaged, because individuals or a certain group are frustrated or envious the movement or group is not all about them. Substantive being the key word, because activism absent organization and direct action to influence policy is a waste of time, attention, and money.

I make no attempt to hide that. In fact, I was pretty damn straightforward about it. If you don't like that, that's not my problem. For my part as an ex-activist, I'm way past the point of allowing this shit to fly unhindered, and the left's tolerance -- nay, endorsement -- of this sort of solipsistic, cannibalistic behavior is completely unacceptable.

Not while social and policy elites of the "left" laugh all the way to the bank at the cost of a rapidly devolving civil rights and liberties landscape for everyone. Not just women, not just PoC's, not just LGBTQIA's, not just historically-disadvantaged religious groups, everyone.

 

[Saelune]

Your last paragraph is not wrong, but I do not believe you believe in what you just said. I do not think you want to solve the problem, I think you just want to criticize those who point the problem out.

In other words, you admit your only defense is ad hominem. Appeals to motive being a subset of that family of fallacies. See, here's the issue with this. This attitude and this specific strategy, as OP stated and a sentiment I reflected, is shockingly common. In fact, I'd even argue it's the norm and preferred means of argument in contemporary activist discourse.

That's not a sign of a healthy activist landscape, mental state, or functioning theoretical foundation. That's dogmatic zeal. A word I specifically, intentionally, employed back on page two of this thread.

Absolutely, my intent is to criticize people who point out problems...then proceed to take no substantive action, or worse, actively sabotage attempts by others to take substantive action. In the case of the latter, it's particularly despicable when a movement or group that champions a shared struggle is sabotaged, because individuals or a certain group are frustrated or envious the movement or group is not all about them. Substantive being the key word, because activism absent organization and direct action to influence policy is a waste of time, attention, and money.

I make no attempt to hide that. In fact, I was pretty damn straightforward about it. If you don't like that, that's not my problem. For my part as an ex-activist, I'm way past the point of allowing this shit to fly unhindered, and the left's tolerance -- nay, endorsement -- of this sort of solipsistic, cannibalistic behavior is completely unacceptable.

Not while social and policy elites of the "left" laugh all the way to the bank at the cost of a rapidly devolving civil rights and liberties landscape for everyone. Not just women, not just PoC's, not just LGBTQIA's, not just historically-disadvantaged religious groups, everyone.

You sure do like your big words.

Ok, so you're trying to claim you think civil rights organizations are working against themselves. Ok. So how does spiting them and the left benefit anyone then?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Your last paragraph is not wrong, but I do not believe you believe in what you just said. I do not think you want to solve the problem, I think you just want to criticize those who point the problem out.

In other words, you admit your only defense is ad hominem. Appeals to motive being a subset of that family of fallacies. See, here's the issue with this. This attitude and this specific strategy, as OP stated and a sentiment I reflected, is shockingly common. In fact, I'd even argue it's the norm and preferred means of argument in contemporary activist discourse.

That's not a sign of a healthy activist landscape, mental state, or functioning theoretical foundation. That's dogmatic zeal. A word I specifically, intentionally, employed back on page two of this thread.

Absolutely, my intent is to criticize people who point out problems...then proceed to take no substantive action, or worse, actively sabotage attempts by others to take substantive action. In the case of the latter, it's particularly despicable when a movement or group that champions a shared struggle is sabotaged, because individuals or a certain group are frustrated or envious the movement or group is not all about them. Substantive being the key word, because activism absent organization and direct action to influence policy is a waste of time, attention, and money.

I make no attempt to hide that. In fact, I was pretty damn straightforward about it. If you don't like that, that's not my problem. For my part as an ex-activist, I'm way past the point of allowing this shit to fly unhindered, and the left's tolerance -- nay, endorsement -- of this sort of solipsistic, cannibalistic behavior is completely unacceptable.

Not while social and policy elites of the "left" laugh all the way to the bank at the cost of a rapidly devolving civil rights and liberties landscape for everyone. Not just women, not just PoC's, not just LGBTQIA's, not just historically-disadvantaged religious groups, everyone.

Ok, so you're citing me a lot. So I'm going to clear a few things up.

One, you are reaching. I didn't have a conversation with Stock Feminist Number 3495. I had a conversation with my friend Sarah. I know her kids, her husband's a great guy, and her and I bonded over love of old 80's music. She is not an activist. I did not speak about activist. Due to a conversation I had with her, I'm genuinely asking if people think Race matters more to an individual's treatment, or does Sex matter more?

Two, I believe conversation is a substantive action. Breeding familiarity is more important for social change than all the facts in the world. Opinion taints facts. Samuel Morton did more harm to giant groups of people than any act of war. Craniometry was used to prove that whites were genetically smarter than all the other races, and blacks were at the bottom. Of course everyone loves hearing that they are superior, so people jumped on it and used it to Champion Slavery. Hell, it's almost a humanitarian effort to keep the Negroes in line. The absolute White Man's burden.

In the end, Science didn't change people's minds. It rarely does. We have recordings and proof of collapsing polar ice caps, rising water, year after year of hottest temperatures ever recorded... and we still can't come to a consensus of if Global Warming is a thing.

In the end, Laws didn't change people's minds. People raged that they were forced to deal with those they found beneath them. And a lot of the time, the police let them because they held the same beliefs.

What actually changes minds? Usually talking. Usually just showing that we are the same. A marriage to a new wife who brought in new ideas and who brought black people over for dinner took United States District Judge Julius Waties Waring [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Waties_Waring] from Son of an actual Confederate soldier to the man who penned a letter that was the basis for Brown v The Board of Education.

One of the reasons why I feel so betrayed about what Bill Cosby has done is that he soiled what he was. He was America's Dad at a time. He exemplified values in what seemed to be a wholesome manner. And he just so happened to be black. He's been making white audiences like him, and therefore change their opinions about the black people they had no real interaction with for decades. By talking, by showing we all are the same no matter what our background is.

To sum up... I asked a question about if I'm more my race or more my sex.

 

[Thaluikhain]

People who are unstable are going to find ways of expressing that damage to others unless they are found out. Focusing on the tool instead of the damaged person is just shifting the style of attack.

Shifting it to one much less dangerous. People in the US tend to use guns to kill people because they are better at killing people.

Absolutely, you won't solve violent crime by tighter gun laws. You'll just prevent a lot of death and injuries.

But if brought up, I feel most people would want to make it a conversation about the evils of guns instead of looking at the own backyard and thinking "... Yeah, might want to get on that before it gets out of hand...".

That's certainly a thing.

If we are talking online though, the US is the largest demographic here, one we are all familiar with. More people on this forum know about the US gun laws than any other country you can point at.

Additionally, I disagree that people in the US are exempt from that sort of thing. Lot of attention in the US (and the rest of the West) about gang-rape in India a few years back, rather overshadowing the gang-rapes in western high schools going to trial at about the same time.

 

[Agema]

I'm more speaking about general criminal activity with weapons. How people keep talking about how violent and bloodthirsty Americans due to their love affair with guns when other countries are walking around armed in their own way.

The thought being passed around is that if you get rid of guns, violence will go away. Gun violence will go away. People will just start carrying knives, batons, and what have you. The idealistic idea that if we banish guns, things will get better is only marginally correct. But it's something people love to bash on about while ignoring how other cultures are also gearing up, getting ready for a fight as well.

It's the people that need help, not the laws.

People carry weapons to a large extent because they are afraid. But then, other people carrying weapons makes people more likely to be afraid. The other general problem with guns is the relatively easy lethality. If the UK has approximately 20 knife injuries for every fatality, and the equivalent in the USA is four gun injuries for every fatality... that's a fivefold reduction in mortality.

Non-White Men:
Aquaman: Billion

Technically true, but on the other hand, Jason Momoa could pass as white readily enough that some people might not notice he's mixed race without it being pointed out to them.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Shifting it to one much less dangerous. People in the US tend to use guns to kill people because they are better at killing people.

Absolutely, you won't solve violent crime by tighter gun laws. You'll just prevent a lot of death and injuries.

I'm so in favor of tighter gun laws, it's unbelievable. I think the bare minimum that should happen is a Yearly renewal of a Gun License. I think that yearly renewal can only come from A.) Proof of Firearm Compatible Safe and B.) Successful Competition of two separate classes, one of which has to deal with Firearm Discipline and Safety.

And that's just to be able to test to see if you can get the license renewed. I think there should be a minimum eye test along with a firearm test. It would be nice if everyone could get bull's eyes... but realistically, they should be at least able to get their shot at the target consistently.

Not to mention background checks. But I think I should mention my most extreme idea that in order to test for renewal, you should have your medications and be seen by a professional at least three times per year prior to give a rudimentary assessment on how you're doing mentally.

I don't think this is just a smart idea to make sure that the populace is better equipped to exercise their rights they constantly espouse, but it's a damn sure great way to add jobs and money to the community. The best estimates is that there's nearly 5 times amount of guns in the US.

Imagine if you had to do this test for. Each. Gun. I think that would limit how many guns some people would actually keep.

Money to the economy, A better mentality trained Population, Possibly less guns out there, AND people get to keep their Second Amendment Rights in tact. That feels like a win/win.

The (thankful) issue is that we don't have the data to see if Car attacks would match or supersede injuries if people were forced to only use them as weapons. We know that over 40,000 deaths happened in 2018 due to Traffic Fatalities [https://www.nsc.org/in-the-newsroom/2018-marks-third-straight-year-that-motor-vehicle-deaths-are-estimated-to-have-reached-40-000]. It's hard to compare that number accurately with Firearms, I realize, because we can never know how many of those deaths could include suicide by Auto accident. We have at least an approximate number of suicide by firearm.

For the most part, you have to TRY to kill someone with a Gun. You have to pick it up and aim it at someone. There's some effort involved, even in an accidental shooting for the most part. That's compared to 40,000 deaths, the majority of them by accident. The capability for violence is too massive to ignore, in all cases.

Don't misread me. I do not have any delusions that guns are anything but dangerous. They have two functions, hunting and warfare. And both of them come from the devices' ability to cause death. I really think they should be more tightly regulated. And I have no issue with that.

That's certainly a thing.

If we are talking online though, the US is the largest demographic here, one we are all familiar with. More people on this forum know about the US gun laws than any other country you can point at.

Additionally, I disagree that people in the US are exempt from that sort of thing. Lot of attention in the US (and the rest of the West) about gang-rape in India a few years back, rather overshadowing the gang-rapes in western high schools going to trial at about the same time.

Didn't we have a discussion about Steubenville, Ohio [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/teenagers-found-guilty-in-rape-in-steubenville-ohio.html]? I know we talked about Brock Turner [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/us/brock-turner-appeal.html] and the Du Pont Heir [https://www.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/delaware-du-pont-rape-case/index.html]. I think we've alluded to Savannah [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/teenagers-found-guilty-in-rape-in-steubenville-ohio.html].

Anyway, my original point was to Satinavian's comment about losing respect or opinion about America after reading about it here on the forums. The point is we call out our own mess, but I don't see other countries on this forum doing the same. I talked about the upswing in Hate Crimes in the UK, to which I reasonably assumed no one would talk about that because I think people are just used to it now. I used the Knife offense and Gun incident as an example of how if the situation ever came up, all other points would be lost as people would just focus on the guns. Because it's the biggest win that can shut down a conversation, and airing out American laundry seems to be a pass time.

Theorem not proven, but test yielded positive results.

 

[Agema]

I talked about the upswing in Hate Crimes in the UK, to which I reasonably assumed no one would talk about that because I think people are just used to it now.

Outside aspects of global interest, there isn't enough critical mass on the fourm to get people talking about most non-American topics. Start a thread on a topic like that, it dies in ~10 posts.

 

[Baffle]

Outside aspects of global interest, there isn't enough critical mass on the fourm to get people talking about most non-American topics. Start a thread on a topic like that, it dies in ~10 posts.

I was about to say something like this. I mean, just look at the number of posts you get here about Trump, someone who's going to be in office for up to 8 years, versus the Brexit thread, which is pretty much the biggest political event in UK history for aaaages. It's a very US-centric forum.

I notice no one offered thoughts and prayers for Freddie Starr.

 

[Trunkage]

I mean, replacing every gun with a knife in the US *would* make it infinitely safer. There are no mass knifings

Infinitely safer is a relative term.

There are quite a few mass stabbings. I've commonly heard it associated with China. We just passed the one year anniversary of a tragic event where nine students lost their lives to a mass stabbing [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43921567] in Shaanxi.

Vehicle attacks are sadly a thing [https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/world/terrorist-attacks-by-vehicle-fast-facts/index.html], and an easy tool for anyone to make into a deadly terrorist move.

We had several bombers caught or who ended their lives in 2018 in the US. Mark Conditt [https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/us/austin-serial-bomber-video/index.html], Cesar Sayoc [https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/us/cesar-sayoc-letter-trump-rallies/index.html], Houston Willis [https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-man-arrested-in-connection-with-mysterious-loud-explosions-in-phoenix-police-say].

People who are unstable are going to find ways of expressing that damage to others unless they are found out. Focusing on the tool instead of the damaged person is just shifting the style of attack.

Okay. Where does this idea come from? 'Getting rid of guns gets rid of all violence'. Clearly it's a strawman argument. Also, all your evidence about other types of violence doesnt negate a discussion around gun laws. It does point to violence being a multi-faceted issue.

This is the same as the argument that criminals will take over if you get rid of guns. How many countries has this happened in? So is the argument that gun laws get rid of all gun. This hasnt been true in any country. Mostly, they target rifles and making more stringent requirements for getting them

 

[Seanchaidh]

To put it in a non-asinine way, We're Rabble-rousers and we'll call out shit when we see it. Even if it's our own. Other countries don't really do that.

We'll certainly do such things so long as they are within the limited spectrum of debate that is allowed. We'll make a grand show of it. But please don't say anything about our murderous foreign policy until it's at least five years too late.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Any conversation I've seen where "marginalized" people discussed their concept of an "ally" they were talking about what some on the right would describe as a cucked white dude who is there to lend support because their whiteness lends credibility to their voices but someone who is not to be a leader or offer foundational contributions to the effort because that is by definition not his place. I don't know what else you call that but subservient.

Sure you could call it subservient. But imagine a corporation if you will, one that operates in a really sensitive market and under some serious constraints, say healthcare. Imagine that this corporation has to pick out a new board of directors, do you think they'd want to choose those guys with business degrees, a literature major and someone who focused on sports psychology or would they want doctors, nurses, healthcare administrators and other people who know the workings of healthcare?

The same applies to marginalized groups. Feminists generally don't want men to be their figureheads by the simple virtue that men don't quite understand the challenges facing women. Black people don't want white people to be the greatest proponents of BLM because white people can't get the particular kind of problems black people face, even if said white person is from the same socioeconomic strata.

You can call it subservience, if you want to be melodramatic. You probably should call it a desire to ensure that the best suited people get to be at the front. The best suited for social movements will always be those who suffer oppression, discrimination or injustice, not the people on the sidelines who might empathize but haven't suffered it themselves. That's not to say that white men (to be really typical) can't make important contributions to feminism or ending racism, but they shouldn't expect to be at the front of a movement that's not about them. To do so is, if you will allow me to be really Tumblrina SJW, a really good definition of White Male Privilege.

Yeah, that's just incorrect, and racist.

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery. I'm sure their empathy works just fine. I'm sure if someone is white they can still be the best for the job. I'm not fond of segregating people like that. I don't think meritocracy allows for such an approach.

I also understand why someone fine with being treated like that would be looked at derisively and called names, because as much as I'm willing to help someone, I won't be enthused at being seen as inherently less capable of being helpful due to my arbitrary characteristics. Especially when I could be better than other people at it. The best case scenario is that every single white ally is a really bad activist and just acknowledges that literally every other person in the organization is better at it than them, but I don't think that's very likely.

There's this unproven implied notion here that having first hand experience of a particular group's issues makes one more suitable to solving them. I seen absolutely no support for that argument. Knowing how bad someone has it doesn't make you capable of devising a plan to fix that issue, it just makes you more aware of one of the myriad of facets going into the problem. All the rest of them, they've nothing to do with the actual experience of the people and are more logistical or political.

Someone needs just be aware of those issues. You can listen to those people and take their experiences into account. You don't have to be one of them yourself in order to know how to most effectively utilize this information in a way that produces results best for the community.

This is the literal foundation of representative democracy. You have the one person who does things but there's advisors who collect data from all over and inform them about it. I see no reason why a black rights organization can't function under that system when the US government and most of the free world does.

Ultimately, this feels like an attempt at exercising power for power's sake. Also it may be some sort of test where you see if your allies are fine with being subservient to you and in so doing confirm their true intentions. It's still a bad way to run your organization, doubly so if you purport to be concerned with racism and dislike hypocrisy.

 

[Trunkage]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.

Go home Dreiko, you're drunk.

White people were the only ones able to do anything about slavery in America because minorities were marginalized, especially the slaves. The ideas from slave were NOT valued or even heard. You can tell their attitude though as they kept running away. The slaves thought slavery was terrible and wanted to abolish it but you will never hear about because who cares about beings who aren't 'actually people.' A black person 'couldn't' come up with the idea becuase they didn't have any power or voice.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.

Go home Dreiko, you're drunk.

White people were the only ones able to do anything about slavery in America because minorities were marginalized, especially the slaves. The ideas from slave were NOT valued or even heard. You can tell their attitude though as they kept running away. The slaves thought slavery was terrible and wanted to abolish it but you will never hear about because who cares about beings who aren't 'actually people.' A black person 'couldn't' come up with the idea becuase they didn't have any power or voice.

See, I disagree with that.


Sure, enslaved blacks escaped, they didn't want to BE slaves. Not wanting to be a slave yourself is not the same as slavery ending. Most everyone doesn't want to be the slave, even those who thought slavery is awesome and fought a civil war to retain it would have tried to escape if it came to be that they were slaves somehow. That's not enough to show that someone's against slavery, that's just showing they're against being the slave themselves.

Anti-slavery movements from people who weren't themselves slaves, from people against slavery as a thing and not merely against it being perpetrated on them, begun in the UK. Before that lots of peoples had both been enslaved and held/sold slaves but they never seemed to end slavery when it was within their capacity to be the owner and not the slave up until that point.

 

[Erttheking]

White people came up with the idea of ending slavery.

Do you think Fredrick Douglas is a fairy tale?

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I mean, replacing every gun with a knife in the US *would* make it infinitely safer. There are no mass knifings

Infinitely safer is a relative term.

There are quite a few mass stabbings. I've commonly heard it associated with China. We just passed the one year anniversary of a tragic event where nine students lost their lives to a mass stabbing [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43921567] in Shaanxi.

Vehicle attacks are sadly a thing [https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/world/terrorist-attacks-by-vehicle-fast-facts/index.html], and an easy tool for anyone to make into a deadly terrorist move.

We had several bombers caught or who ended their lives in 2018 in the US. Mark Conditt [https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/31/us/austin-serial-bomber-video/index.html], Cesar Sayoc [https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/us/cesar-sayoc-letter-trump-rallies/index.html], Houston Willis [https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-man-arrested-in-connection-with-mysterious-loud-explosions-in-phoenix-police-say].

People who are unstable are going to find ways of expressing that damage to others unless they are found out. Focusing on the tool instead of the damaged person is just shifting the style of attack.

Okay. Where does this idea come from? 'Getting rid of guns gets rid of all violence'. Clearly it's a strawman argument. Also, all your evidence about other types of violence doesnt negate a discussion around gun laws. It does point to violence being a multi-faceted issue.

This is the same as the argument that criminals will take over if you get rid of guns. How many countries has this happened in? So is the argument that gun laws get rid of all gun. This hasnt been true in any country. Mostly, they target rifles and making more stringent requirements for getting them

... Once you show me where I suggested anyone coming close to stating the notion of "Getting rid of guns gets rid of all violence", I'll respond.

As far as I've seen, I've only stated that removing the tools will still leave damaged people to try to do their acts.