Since when do conservatives care about mass shootings?
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
414 points (90.1% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35927 readers
971 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I never heard of one shooting up a school church or whatever.
First off, one must be very careful of generalizing to an entire group from the actions of a small sample [1]. Using the metric of whether there have been trans people who have engaged in mass shootings is quite reductionist, and is a faulty generalization — if I am to interpret what you said to mean that "conservatives" are "against" all trans people because they think that they are all responsible for "shooting up" schools and churches. Second, to address your belief, to my knowledge, there has been at least one instance of a school shooter being trans [2].
References
- "Faulty Generalization". Wikipedia. Published: 2024-03-25T17:50Z. Accessed: 2024-11-23T02:49Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
- "2023 Nashville school shooting". Wikipedia. Published: 2024-10-28T23:08Z. Accessed: 2024-11-23T02:51Z. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/31/no-evidence-growing-trend-trans-radicalization-or/
A white cis het boy/man shoots up a school how often?
Hell of a ratio, I guarantee it.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/mar/31/no-evidence-growing-trend-trans-radicalization-or/
Thank you for the source! One critique that I have of it is that, while it does state that trans people are 4 times more likely than cis people to be victims of violent crime [1], it doesn't appear to answer the question of rates of perpetrating violent crime between trans and cis people — well, aside from conjecture [2][3].
References
-
According to the Williams Institute, a public policy research group on sexual orientation and gender identity issues at the University of California, Los Angeles, transgender people are four times more likely to be a victim of violent crime. In 2022, the institute found that LGBTQ+ people are nine times more likely to be a victim of violent hate crimes. [§"Victims of violence. ¶2.]
-
"When you have this kind of coordinated, concerted campaign against a community, the community becomes insular, their vulnerabilities spike, and that's not when they turn to violence," she added. "The violence is going to be against them. It’s very unlikely the violence will be perpetrated by them." [§"What the evidence shows". ¶3.]
-
"That doesn't mean that trans people can't be violent or extremist — anyone can," Asal said. "But, as far as I'm aware, there is no higher uptick among transgender people than anybody else. Could there be growing anger? Yes, certainly. Do I think they are going to be radicalized and turn to violence? Maybe a couple, but I haven’t seen any evidence of an overall trend." [§"What the evidence shows". ¶6.]
FYI
They're people, just like the rest of us. Some are great, some are not.
yeah, was going to say - there have been trans mass shooters, lol
Another notable case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_nightclub_shooting
Aldrich's attorneys have said in court documents that their client identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, preferring to be addressed as Mx. Aldrich. Neighbors allege Aldrich to have made hateful comments towards the LGBT community in the past, including frequent usage of homophobic slurs. Aldrich never mentioned being non-binary prior to the shooting and was referred to with masculine pronouns by family members. Police testified they found rainbow-colored shooting targets in Aldrich's home. Experts in online extremism have voiced the possibility that Aldrich's proclaimed self-identification could be disingenuous, while the Center for Countering Digital Hate acknowledges the suspect's past actions and impact on the LGBT community.
I am personally inclined to agree that the self-identification is likely disingenuous, a stunt for the courtroom (maybe to make it harder to argue he committed hate crimes).
Fear, control, indoctrination, tribalism, double standards, poor mortal character, hypocrisy, and because it 'makes them feel icky' and so they have to be loud and obvious about it so that they're community sides with them and doesn't suspect that they're (allegedly) total closet cases.
I'm going to be an apologist for conservatives for a sec, just for the sake of giving out my theory of mind of these people.
I think this all happens mostly due to the stress trans people are inadvertently causing their parents. When your kid comes out of the closet, this will happen to a parent regardless of how liberal-minded they are. Even if you have no problem with the concept, your kid being trans brings about new kinds of threat scenarios you never had to think about before. If you're a sensible, smart and handsome person like I truly fucking am, you can process it in a few years and come out as not being a 100% asshole towards the issue.
But if your reference group is republican church goers, there's a high probability that such a person just simply does not have the mental or social toolset to process it in any sensible way. They will construct a toxic viewpoint for this issue, strengthen it from outside sources and then start to spread that toxicity.
I think this all happens mostly due to the stress trans people are inadvertently causing their parents. When your kid comes out of the closet, this will happen to a parent regardless of how liberal-minded they are. Even if you have no problem with the concept, your kid being trans brings about new kinds of threat scenarios you never had to think about before. If you’re a sensible, smart and handsome person like I truly fucking am, you can process it in a few years and come out as not being a 100% asshole towards the issue.
I feel like it's more the opposite problem. For the parents, trans people are a vague boogeyman. They've never meant a trans person personally, and they're constantly told that trans people are just waiting to jump them in the bathroom, or at sports, or all sorts of other things, so they've never had to contend with someone they know being trans.
If it was simply stress or threat to the kid, it wouldn't really explain the reaction to disowning them, since most of those aren't about the treatment that their kids would receive for being trans.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
I don't encounter a lot of ads but I was just listening to the Economist talk about this one which the trump campaign played over and over again and it struck me as a small window of an answer to your question.
The ad strikes me as cruel but the thrust (and I imagine there's a blend of fact and fiction) is that Harris used tax money to pay for a woman's sex change after being convicted of first degree murder and serving life in prison. They also have Harris saying she was using her power to "push forward the movement and the agenda."
Even for supporters of trans rights, I imagine not everyone loves having to defend using tax money to pay for expensive gender surgery, especially on criminals.
So I could see people, who might otherwise be supportive of trans folks in their own lives, being "against trans people" on an issue framed like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BXYjoAzq0&ab_channel=TheJimHeathChannel