Mass Shootings and Discussions

This is something that I've been thinking about for a while and has happened time and time again.

There seems to be a continuous basis where a mass shooting happens somewhere in the world, a thread is created and for the first .. two pages, say .. things are discussion about the shooting itself. Then, especially if the incident occurs in America, the discussion gets completely derailed by two or three posters, who essentially turn it into a conversation amongst themselves; generally about the gun laws in America, comparisons between it and Ireland, the NRA, and then it gets to a point where it is no longer a discussion about the incident itself, but just bickering among them.

The most recent occurrence of this is the thread on the Washington Shootings.

Surely it's getting to the point where it needs to be looked at? Yes, it's a discussion forum, but the topic will never end. People just use it as America bashing, forgetting that families somewhere have lost loved ones. To me, it just seems insensitive and cruel.

I'm not here alone, am I?

humanji

You're definitely not alone, and it's as annoying as f*ck. I've only finished reading through that now and left a warning for people to get back on topic. The problem is, there will always be threads that go off topic. The only thing that can really be done is for mods to warn people to get back on topic, and if users notice it, to report the post to let the mods know.

Sadly, there's no real way to completely stamp it out. You'll always get certain topics being derailed to bitch about something else, be it the US, the Church or Ryan Tubridy.

LuckyLloyd

Just open a containment thread for the topic, move posts there when appropriate and point those interested in such discussion there. Problem solved. They can use new incidents to supplant their ongoing discussion as they happen.

MadsL

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Just open a containment thread for the topic, move posts there when appropriate and point those interested in such discussion there. Problem solved. They can use new incidents to supplant their ongoing discussion as they happen.

As a worst offender....:o

We had "another shooting thread"...but it got confusing as hell, because it would pop up after two weeks and people would think, 'oh, another shooting'.

The problem is just as in abortion or traveller threads, the same ignorance and insults pop up. Gun-owners are called "nutjobs" and people throw insults at all Americans.

There must be 5-6 posts of "'Merica" in that thread alone.
(Can we not ban that please, it is seriously annoying at this stage)

I would support a containment thread; And I apologise if other poster get annoyed, but I do feel that if people keep posting nonsense that has been discussed to death in other threads, then I have to respond to the absolute myths that circulate over and over again.

Failing that, ban discussion of events in other countries and move the thread to the US forums. Perhaps there there would be less tolerance of the level of "yank" bashing that goes on in AH.

Overheal

MadsL wrote: »

As a worst offender....:o

Piece of advice: it is not necessary to respond to every inane and idiotic post that crops up on those threads. Some people are there just to spout opinions they really know not a damn thing about, others are there just to try and whore some thanks with a bit of old fashioned yank-bashing and this new fangled wave of 'Murica meme like so many other memes that have come before, like yore ma, or the america-centric "fck yeah!" meme.

Rather than personally respond to all individual posts, you can say a lot more, with a lot more potency, by righting a more broad post that discusses the same topic while addressing a larger audience (all participants of a thread versus a single user). It prevents the whole thing boiling down to 2 or 3 users just sniping at each other for 300 posts like we've seen before.

---

As for the most recent discussion I almost thought about starting a feedback thread up before I saw Moderator involvement on the thread: thank you.

Mostly at the start it was the thread-spoiler that bothered me, but he was asked to leave the thread and did.

For the rest, I've always disliked 'yank-bashing', and debated with about 3 generations of AH mods now about the quote unquote "racism" toward Americans. Though now that I'm not a teenager and have a better grasp of the English language why don't we just call it Bigotry. That is a lot more accurate. I reported a post in the last few minutes I found particularly objectionable.

In general though its clearly difficult to get it across to the reading population on AH that the US is not full of "gun nuts" and rednecks and bigots and that they ironically portray a lot of prejudices towards the United States in willful ignorance. Disappointing mostly because while the US is a really bizarre cultural melting pot it is also possibly the most diverse country in the world. There are 196 countries iirc, and the US has at least one citizen from each of them. Its also one of the most (if not the most) religiously diverse nations on the planet.

As always, I advise the AH mods consider a harder line on bigotry, and possibly add a line to the charter about thread-spoiling. I suggest the definition of bigotry be added to the racism/ethnicity section of the charter (post #6, by Dr. Bollocko)

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with fear, distrust, hatred, contempt, or intolerance on the basis of a person's ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

Sparks

To be honest, you're probably not very likely to find a satisfactory solution to this (other than the one the Shooting forum uses, or the other one the Shooting forum uses, which is really just the first one but with different reasons behind it and a single, very narrow filter to cater for the very few cases where we need to talk about something). The "debate" on the whole RKBA topic in the US and the "debate" on it here are identical in several respects, in that both consist of two polarised camps shouting dogma at one another, while any middle ground position is attacked by both camps and none of the published evidence is accepted by the camp whose position is not supported by it (and most, if not all of that evidence is not accepted as reliable by any third party you can find, like the National Academy of Sciences in the US); and the shouting has a short playlist set on infinite loop so that the same unsupported positions are repeatedly set forth and the same arguments are repeatedly debunked and nobody ever listens.

Of course, when we do that here, we don't even have the excuse that it's our country - it comes down to people arguing that a soverign nation shouldn't be allowed to have the constitution it wants to have...

Honestly, at this point I just try to bite one hand while using the other to hit Ctrl-W to make the thread go away - it's less painful that way.

And given that even moderators get dragged into the polarisation, I just don't think we have the ability to have an informed debate on this.

Femme_Fatale

It's acting the dick and the anti U.S. stuff is seriously boring and teenage.

"Only in America", apart from being inaccurate, is one of those tedious After Hours phrases that involve no thought and bring nothing to the discussion.

El Guapo!

Tbh, it's kinda weird that the anti US sentiment is allowed to slide in AH when it would be stamped out pretty quickly if it was against any other nation.
However, I do understand how difficult it is to have a conversation about gun crime, without having the pro and anti sides give their 2c. It'd be difficult to have a debate without it and would probably a nightmare to moderate appropriately.

Aswell as that, the whole "Murica" thing should be banned like "yore Ma" and "blast with piss". It's really irritating.

Overheal

Adding bigotry to the charter also covers the traveling community and threads which devolve into people bickering between people in the public sector vs people collecting dole, etc etc

MadsL

El Guapo! wrote: »

Tbh, it's kinda weird that the anti US sentiment is allowed to slide in AH when it would be stamped out pretty quickly if it was against any other nation.

Yep, I have expressed my concerns to the mods and was very surprised when post I had reported in a serious thread "Typical yanks, bunch of ****ing weirdos!" was deemed 'joking' and not in breach of the charter after discussion between all the mods.

Baffled really.

Miss Lockhart

MadsL wrote: »

There must be 5-6 posts of "'Merica" in that thread alone.
(Can we not ban that please, it is seriously annoying at this stage).

Yes. Including your "ironic" use of in completely unrelated threads.

I hate the anti-US crap that gets posted but it's a separate issue that should be dealt with under the charter and I hate the thread hijacking by the pro-gun lobby just as much.

And just to note that Ireland bashing crap is let slide just as much.

MadsL

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Yes. Including your "ironic" use of in completely unrelated threads.

I'll happily trade if I never have to see it posted again.

returnNull

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

and I hate the thread hijacking by the pro-gun lobby just as much.

In fairness I've only seen madsl and manic moran post in reply to people that post links to studies with disputable conclusions or indeed pointing out facts about american gun law.Those threads have already been hijacked by the anti-gun crowd.

Miss Lockhart

returnNull wrote: »

In fairness I've only seen madsl and manic moran post in reply to people that post links to studies with disputable conclusions or indeed pointing out facts about american gun law.Those threads have already been hijacked by the anti-gun crowd.

I'm not referring to those two posters in particular.

But they and others seem eager to engage in debate on the topic, not to simply correct or challenge inaccuracies. And while I understand the need to refute incorrect posts and especially to challenge anti-US statements, it is still hijacking.

I don't think general dismay at guns or expression of a desire for tighter gun control is at all surprising in a thread about a mass shooting though.

Again, actual debate about the pros and cons and suporting research of gun policy really belongs in a different dedicated thread.

Sparks

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I don't think general dismay at guns or expression of a desire for tighter gun control is at all surprising in a thread about a mass shooting though.

You don't need to be surprised by them, but that doesn't mean you should permit those expressions in those threads either. Especially since they're what always start the row off. Someone saying "can't we just ban guns?" (and that's about the mildest form those comments take) tend to tick off those who own firearms and those who'd rather see real solutions to problems (and those are two, if overlapping groups), because that comment is the line between discussing a tragedy and suggesting social policy changes. And about ten posts later, you're neck deep in the same old shouting match, no matter how much it looked for those first ten posts as though you were really going to see a debate this time...

Sparks

returnNull wrote: »

In fairness I've only seen madsl and manic moran post in reply to people that post links to studies with disputable conclusions or indeed pointing out facts about american gun law.Those threads have already been hijacked by the anti-gun crowd.

And I don't think you'll see them contributing indefinitely either. I know I've stopped, after one particularly long bout in both the atheist forum (an odd location, I'll grant you) and AH, when it became obvious that (a) it was just feeding the shouting match and (b) boards has already picked a side, even if subconsciously because - and I'm saying this with twenty years of experience of hitting it on a daily basis - Irish people as a culture have already pretty much picked a side in this shouting match and boards necessarily reflects that. So really, we're better off just banning the shouting match completely.

Femme_Fatale

With regards to the anti American stuff: it's like an epidemic in the last few days. Any excuse for people to say "Only in America" is snared. It's idiotic, childish stuff - maybe best for YouTube.

clairefontaine

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

With regards to the anti American stuff: it's like an epidemic in the last few days. Any excuse for people to say "Only in America" is snared. It's idiotic, childish stuff - maybe best for YouTube.

I find the anti American stuff tedious at this stage, but given the ripeness for weird and adhoc constrictions on what you can say and can't say, and the upcoming EU legislation discusses in TGC I can deal with it if it means less prohibitive criticisms of groups in general.

What I don't like is name calling, like "yanks." Especially if its pointed directly at another poster. It's juvenile and and something I won't tolerate. If someone gets personal wih me, automatic relegation to ignore.

The shooting threads end up in a technical discussion about guns. They always end up like that. It gets nowhere because no one wants to talk seriously about violence. Both sides have their irrationalities and its impossible to get through them.

Sparks

clairefontaine wrote: »

The shooting threads end up in a technical discussion about guns. They always end up like that.

Well, yes. In the same way that discussions of road safety tend to end up in a technical discussion about cars, or that discussions of drug policy end up in technical discussions of human biology and pharmaceuticals, or that discussions of the global financial meltdown tend to end up in a technical discussion of banking and global finance.

It's a pretty standard progression too in pretty much all three - someone says "This is bad, we should ban X", someone else says "What kind of X?", it turns out that X actually has beneficial applications we all rely on and you can't ban X outright and then you have to make exceptions and rules and suddenly you find you're right back where we are now, only using a set of exceptions that aren't tried and tested and are formulated by someone running high on righteous outrage and filled with the certainty of a simple solution; but running low on experience and information. And as most people in most areas could probably tell you about their areas, that's pretty awful way to draft good laws. And then you almost always find that those opposed to new laws know this and that's why they want enforcement of existing laws or small incremental changes to those laws, not a clean slate rewrite.

clairefontaine

Sparks wrote: »

Well, yes. In the same way that discussions of road safety tend to end up in a technical discussion about cars, or that discussions of drug policy end up in technical discussions of human biology and pharmaceuticals, or that discussions of the global financial meltdown tend to end up in a technical discussion of banking and global finance.

It's a pretty standard progression too in pretty much all three - someone says "This is bad, we should ban X", someone else says "What kind of X?", it turns out that X actually has beneficial applications we all rely on and you can't ban X outright and then you have to make exceptions and rules and suddenly you find you're right back where we are now, only using a set of exceptions that aren't tried and tested and are formulated by someone running high on righteous outrage and filled with the certainty of a simple solution; but running low on experience and information. And as most people in most areas could probably tell you about their areas, that's pretty awful way to draft good laws. And then you almost always find that those opposed to new laws know this and that's why they want enforcement of existing laws or small incremental changes to those laws, not a clean slate rewrite.

And for me that's when they get really boring. Because its not actually about X, but who is using X.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

boneyarsebogman wrote: »

This is something that I've been thinking about for a while and has happened time and time again.

There seems to be a continuous basis where a mass shooting happens somewhere in the world, a thread is created and for the first .. two pages, say .. things are discussion about the shooting itself. Then, especially if the incident occurs in America, the discussion gets completely derailed by two or three posters, who essentially turn it into a conversation amongst themselves; generally about the gun laws in America, comparisons between it and Ireland, the NRA, and then it gets to a point where it is no longer a discussion about the incident itself, but just bickering among them.

The most recent occurrence of this is the thread on the Washington Shootings.

Surely it's getting to the point where it needs to be looked at? Yes, it's a discussion forum, but the topic will never end. People just use it as America bashing, forgetting that families somewhere have lost loved ones. To me, it just seems insensitive and cruel.

I'm not here alone, am I?

Obviously when there's a mass shooting or anything at all relating to firearms then many people are going to talk about gun laws. It literally couldn't be more on topic.

I've never posted in a thread about this topic nor do I intend to but if I did click into one I would be surprised if people didn't question laws surrounding guns, or policy surrounding guns, or the culture of guns. If I clicked into a thread about a shooting and saw a lovely recipe for apple sauce I would think it strange and would say to myself that that thread went off topic a fair bit.

Talking about guns in a thread about a shooting seems painfully obvious to me.

If all you could do was talk directly about the actual shooting itself the thread would go.

Really sad.

RIP.

Terrible.

How did it happen?

Shooter was probably mentally ill.

Oh that's sad.

Yeah, it's terrible.

RIP.

...and on in this vein where people can talk about the incident but can't mention or discuss guns on a discussion website forum.

Sparks

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Talking about guns in a thread about a shooting seems painfully obvious to me.

Except that it's usually painfully obviously nothing to do with the problem. And the solutions are usually not intuitive. And the people talking haven't spent twenty years looking at the reality and so:

1. don't know what they're talking about,
2. don't know what's obviously wrong and what isn't, and
3. don't know what's been tried and studied before.

That's just how it is, it's not a moral judgement, it's stating that someone with no experience knows less than someone with decades of experience, but we're human so nobody likes to hear that the view they've stated publicly is uninformed; so they solve that issue by not listening and saying that anyone who says "actually, that's been studied for decades and what you're saying has been proven to be wrong" is pro-gun, elitist, closed-minded, and of course, the most obvious thing, they all have tiny penises. Tiny, tiny penises.

Isn't it shocking that people with experience don't really feel like participating in discussions like that and that those who do feel like they have to defend their position energetically?

clairefontaine

Thing is on these random shootings in the US, it must appear absolutely nuts to the outside world, and you know what, it is nuts. So I cut some slack on someof the Americans are mad bastards comments.

But it has very little to do with the gun laws or the technicalities of the weapons. Switzerland and Mexico would be two stark opposing examples.

It's US. There is a Wild West mentality. And it's gotten worse as anger escalates, as medication escalates, etc. So I think some Americans are mad bastards comments are to be expected. Gun laws are neither he nor there really. People will get them if they need to get them. A whacko determined enough will obtain one.

It's not that the technicalities are OT, but they are missing the point. To use one of Sparks examples, road safety. Take the autobahn. Very safe road. And my guess its because its Germans doing the driving. It would never work in a place like Caracas or NYC for example, would be an absolute disaster.

So the technicalities are a partof it, but they tend to dominate the entire discussion.

P_1

To be honest most Irish commentary on the US gun issue tends to be as informed and rational as US commentary on the situation in the North. Basically as outsiders looking in, both parties haven't really got the slightest notion about what is going on and generally the debate just goes around in a never ending circle of nonsense.