Fun fact, the 5 stages was developed as a general pattern for people with terminal illnesses coming to terms with their own death, not for people grieving the death of those close to them.
That’s true, but it became clear that others would experience similar emotions.
Also according to the Wikipedia, the author regretted writing them in a way that suggested they’re a linear progression of steps. I’ve only actually heard the steps used as a sitcom plot point (Monk, Scrubs).
Also, grief doesn’t happen in stages. Someone can have accepted something one day and are then upset over it the next. They haven’t gone backwards, that’s just how grief works.
I wanted to check out accounts of some journalists and organizations I used to follow, and that is a bit pain in the ass with restrictions that Twitter imposes for guests. But of course I didn’t solve 20 captchas just for that. I probably got this treatment because my browser was LibreWolf. It triggers extra anti-bot protections on some websites.
I mean the alternative is literally fascism. Not the silly internet “fascism” that’s just about someone that disagrees with you that you perceive is right of you on some silly made up political spectrum. Actual full blown fascism.
Fascism Lite: silly internet “fascism” that’s just about someone that disagrees with you that you perceive is right of you on some silly made up political spectrum.
I actually kind of love that AI art can’t even pretend to do hands right. But also I had an instructor who’s catch phrase was ‘‘if you let the computer do it, it’s gonna suck’’ so. Not really a surprise AI can only defeat art that’s placid and uninspired shit. and can’t even do anything on model or sequential… it’s just… it can be a placeholder and that’s about it.
“Ramos’ social media acquaintances said he openly abused and killed animals such as cats and would livestream the abuse on Yubo.[132] Other social media acquaintances said that he would also livestream himself on Yubo threatening to kidnap and rape girls who used the app, as well as threatening to commit a school shooting.[131] Ramos’ account was reported to Yubo, but no action was taken.[131][133]”
“The Florida Department of Children and Families investigated him in September 2016 for Snapchat posts in which he cut both his arms and said he planned to buy a gun. At this time, a school resource officer suggested[92] he undergo an involuntary psychiatric examination under the provisions of the Baker Act. Two guidance counselors agreed, but a mental institution did not.[93] State investigators reported he had depression, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, psychologist Frederick M. Kravitz later testified that Cruz was never diagnosed with autism.[94] In their assessment, they concluded he was “at low risk of harming himself or others”.[95] He had previously received mental health treatment, but had not received treatment in the year leading up to the shooting.[96]”
“In a 2013 interview, Peter Lanza (Adam’s father) said he suspected his son might have also had undiagnosed schizophrenia in addition to his other conditions. Lanza said that family members might have missed signs of the onset of schizophrenia and psychotic behavior during his son’s adolescence because they mistakenly attributed his odd behavior and increasing isolation to Asperger syndrome.[155][162][169][170][171] Because of concerns that published accounts of Lanza’s autism could result in a backlash against others with the condition, autism advocates campaigned to clarify that autism is a brain-related developmental disorder rather than a mental illness.[172] The violence Lanza demonstrated in the shooting is generally not seen in the autistic population[173] and none of the psychiatrists he saw detected troubling signs of violence in his disposition.[155]
Lanza appears to have had no contact with mental health providers after 2006. The report from the Office of the Child Advocate stated: “In the course of Lanza’s entire life, minimal mental health evaluation and treatment (in relation to his apparent need) was obtained. Of the couple of providers that saw him, only one—the Yale Child Study Center—seemed to appreciate the gravity of (his) presentation, his need for extensive mental health and special education supports, and the critical need for medication to ease his obsessive-compulsive symptoms.”[165]”
“In June 2021, Gendron had been investigated for threatening other students at his high school by the police in Broome County.[20][60][66] A teacher had asked him about his plans after the school year, to which Gendron responded, “I want to murder and commit suicide.”[67] He was referred to a hospital for mental health evaluation and counseling but was released after being held for a day and a half.[20][66][68]
Gendron told police that he was merely joking; however, Gendron later wrote online that this was actually a well-executed bluff.[65][69] He was not charged in connection with the incident since, according to investigators, he had not made a specific enough threat to warrant further action.[66][69] The New York State Police did not seek an order from a state court to remove guns from Gendron’s possession.[69][70] The mental health evaluation was not an involuntary commitment, which would have prohibited him from buying guns under federal law.[69]”
Then I ask this: School shootings simply never happened when I was a kid in the 70’s and 80’s. We had far less regulation*. Any asshole could buy a gun, get it delivered to their doorstep, and they were cheap. Yes, even AR-15s.
This shit all started with Columbine. Want to suicide and go out the most horrific way possible? Shoot up a school!
So no, it’s not the guns. Nothing has really changed on that front. So what happened?
One exception: Conceal carry laws were nothing like today, far more restrictive. I’m leaving that out because criminals and mass murderers hardly give a shit about carrying illegally. Would that stop you if you were intent on murder? Also, at the same time, the laws around transporting guns generally became more restrictive.
Yeah, it’s a social problem. Recognize that mass shooters are almost exclusively white males. The book Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel does a great job of profiling the person who does this sort of thing and why. There’s a lot that goes into it. Economics, masculinity, school culture, etc.
Violent crime has pretty consistently dropped for the past century in the US with a small blip in the 90s often attributed to the prevalence of leaded gasoline and the higher propensity for violence that people exposed to it often had.
School shootings still weren’t a big/common thing back then tho so I fail to see your point.
The point is that an all time peak in violent crime and violent gun crime would indicate you’re not disproving gun crime you’re just hiding it in dark numbers that you’re hoping we won’t think matter.
Also that peak is statistically referred to as happening between the 70s and 90s, specifically quadrupling vs rates prior in the 60s and 50s, before declining afterwards, so you were kinda right.
Sorry what context were we talking about? Oh yeah, school shootings. Also that’s still the point; it being a clear relationship. I don’t understand what your point is. You posed a whataboutism. They’re two different arguments.
If you want to talk about gun crime and reform broadly we can. First, in the case of things like mental health checks, how do we decide what makes someone fit to get a firearm? How do we decide who gets to make that decision? How are we going to regulate firearm sales? How do we make it possible for private sales to exist while enforcing background checks and without causing undue burden. Btw you know you already need to get a backhround check to get a firearm except in a few circumstances, right?The American pseudo-left is often frothing at the mouth for reform on this issue and has poorly formed (if any) ideas about what should actually go into place. It doesn’t help that most people are controlled by fear mongering more effectively than facts, especially those that don’t know much about guns.
Another pr9blem people have with gun control regulation is that it allows an authoritarian government to more easily defeat the populace. In every modern war, guerrillas, especially in urban areas, have the upper hand against modern militaries due to the need to project soft power and retain international support. If you think it’s never gonna happen here then you clearly haven’t been paying attention and if you’re gonna be one of those people that goes “bubut the military had bombs and jets” don’t even bother replying as you clearly haven’t been paying attention modern history and the successes across the world of resistance movements.
And it’s all great to say that the 20,000 people a year that die from guns (mostly suicide followed by active gang members engaged in gang violence, both activities prone to causing deaths regardless of accessibility to guns, but likely reduced) are a price that’s worth it to pay but there’s no realistic way that you’re disarming the American populace, only preventing new sales. This means that there will still be a huge amount of guns available for criminals, and as we’ve seen with drugs, banning something that people desire just causes a crime-ridden black market. Not to mention the immeasurable good that they could do against a tyrannical government.
On top of that, you can literally 3d print firearms now. It at least used to take some knowhow but now any scmuck can get into it with just a little bit of searching and a very minor investment. In that way, the cat’s out of the bag, and if the US gun market fails to supply criminals, especially organized crime, we know exactly what they’re going to do.
The key is building up social services in impoverished areas and removing the factors that push people towards crime. Improving our mental health infrastructure and social safety nets such that we have a violent crime rate that resembles other developed nations. Reducing the needless/baseless criminalization and overpolicing of poor and minority communities to reduce the trauma of communities growing up without fathers. Getting a handle on race relations, even between different poc groups, such that gangs become an unnecessary method of association. Not just zeroing in on the scary but useful tool that is the firearm, especially as it is the only true equalizer in society. “God created man but Samuel Colt made them equal”.
Not to mention how they allow women especially to stand up to violence they would otherwise have no chance against. Don’t give me the pepper spray and stun gun bs btw, I pity the person that thinks that will stop a large, angry man. If you’re truly interested in nonlethal means of self defense however, I believe the foaming/gel bear sprays would definitely stop an attacker, but they tend to be quite large and annoying to carry. Also, if you think armed self defense is unnecessary it’s only because you’ve never been in a situation where you wanted or tried to defend yourself but couldn’t. I don’t carry a weapon, but I’ve experienced things that make me feel like maybe I should’ve been and things would’ve gone differently.
Sorry for the long flow of consciousness style comment and I apologize if I attacked you at all I can sometimes get heated abt this subject.
School shootings are a miniscule issue though by the statistics. The problem is that we spectalize them with the 24 hour news cycle because it makes people angry and upset. This spectacle is also exactly the reward these murderers are seeking out. If the news was required to spend a proportionate amount of time on different subjects by how much they negatively impact your health on average (let’s say by how much they reduce the life expectancy of the average person), we should be banning cigarettes, alcohol, and added sugars long before guns. Why are we so focused on the guns? Why aren’t we focusing on reducing our ridiculous overweight and obesity rates? Because school shootings make you sad, like the WWF panda or the aspca commercial. Don’t get me wrong, they get me sad too, but our deeply damaged society is to blame, not guns.
I disagree that they should be considered as separated statistics, while school and mass shootings are an especially violent expression of gun violence, they are still acts of gun violence. As for how we decide, let’s start with “not on the domestic violence frequent fliers list” and work our way out from there. Ironically, by refusing so vehemently to participate in good faith, gun owners raise the odds that the discussion of what else should disqualify someone, it raises the odds of it becoming an overreach problem. Most gun owners agree not everyone should have a gun, talk to the rest of society about what makes you guys snatch a rifle out of someone’s hand at the gun shop or on the firing range.
You’re vastly overestimating the ability of the average American gun owner to participate in a guerilla war meaningfully, the vast majority of firearms are owned by super buyers that have made guns their entire identity the same way they’d probably insist queer americans do when you ask them why they’d need that many. Not to mention how even those people have the guerilla discipline of a daddy’s money safari shooting club that hasn’t noticed the hippo stalking them yet.
You talk about the effectiveness of guerilla warfare against the US military but let’s look more closely at those efforts, the Vietcong were a superpower funded and supplied professionally trained military specializing in guerrilla tactics specifically because that was what was most available to them, and they fought the US voluntarily tying a hand behind its back because trying for actual millitary objectives would mean invading the north, which would mean risking a repeat of the Korean war. This resulted in a strategy of killing vietcong faster than more could be born, raised, trained and armed, something the US realized it was failing to do after nearly 20 years of involvement in the conflict. As for the Taliban, again we have confirmation of conspicuous funding and training (no not the war against the Soviet Union, the US trained Mujihideen went on to become the Northern Alliance that the US proceeded to ally themselves with when they came a knocking themselves), first by Pakistan, a nuclear power all its own, then by fanatical Wahab oil billionaires and their failson kids (hiya Obama bin Got’his’ass), and finally by Russia, who turned out to have been paying bounties for American heads like fucking game wardens. On top of that, again, the US wouldn’t attack the actual problem, that being Pakistan being allowed to exist despite being the singular worst ally ever in all of human history, ancient countries got the Genghis treatment for far fewer transgressions than the US has tried to ignore for Pakistan’s benefit.
Why do I highlight the professionalism, the adversarial funding and training, and the inability and/or unwillingness to strike where the problem is by the US? Because none of those advantages would be present in a gun owner’s insurrection.
Professionalism, inside the sum total of the guys who’d want to be taking up arms and “fightin’ da tyrants!” right now, we could generously estimate that half have any degree of professional military training, and they got that training almost certainly either from that millitary they’ll be taking up arms against, or from someone who did, or even worse, from the police, which, yeah American police have all the actual military competence of that guy who executed the mongol trade ambassadors. You can bring out as many videos of white dudes in tacticool doing drill as you want, doesn’t change that the second they take up arms for serious for serious they will not have the training collectively to put a fight up.
Adversarial funding, the only reason I won’t discount this one entirely is because Putin genuinely seems like he’s dumb enough to believe he can get the same results by funding the proud boys in a second civil war that the US is getting by providing the actual military of Ukraine requested arms and funds. Also China might toss some spare yen in just for the amusement of poking the US with their own citizens, and also they actually have money they could hypothetically burn on being silly.
Inability/Unwillingness to strike, brother, the problem isn’t going to be the US soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coastguardsmen, and the countless more specialized auxiliaries they can call on getting bogged down and unwilling to strike at the heart of the enemy, the problem is going to be stopping all those folks from war criming the shit out of the rebels because whatever cause they might say they’re for those dudes necessarily started this fight by opening fire in even a tangential direction to the family and loved ones these people swore an oath to protect before shipping out overseas. These military personnel are going to be motivated, trained, and only held back from black flagging any insurrectionist cell that starts shit by higher officers not wanting to answer to a tribunal.
Disarming the American public: The only people who are arguing for that are grieving families who just saw their loved ones die because of this problem, and the most Dutchess Satine tier pie in the sky pacifists in American politics who despise firearms as a matter of principle, anyone with a brain is proposing opt in disarmament for legacy owners via a rolling buyback and subsidized display rendering program. This isn’t about taking anyone’s guns, it’s almost entirely about making ownership safer for everyone in the proximity of the gun, including the owners themselves, subsidized lockers are pretty good at stopping little timmy from finding out whoever had the gun last forgot to remove the still shelled rounds before putting it away.
3D printed firearms are to gun ownership what NFTs are for title ownership. Plastic made guns are a bomb that the user happens to spray shrapnel in the direction of where they were pointing before it finishes coating their entire front half in 3rd degree burns and shrapnel wounds if they got lucky. Ghost guns are another example of how the situation at hand doesn’t protect gun owners, it makes them feel secure in being unsafe.
I agree whole heartedly that poor social services lead to increased social strife, but other countries with better laws have those problems too, and one mass shooting is usually regarded as an unprecedented national tragedy in those places, rather than a weekly stat/yearly news media red meat event like they’ve become in the US.
I hate to burst the bubble here but procuring a firearm is actually one of the single most dangerous things a woman in harm’s way can do most of the time.
Most victims already know the person who will be attacking them, that person knows the gun is there and decided to go through with it anyways. Women who buy a gun for self defense more often end up specifically being killed by that gun specifically than successfully defending themselves against an attacker.
Also, in a street ambush scenario pulling a firearm is one of the worst moves you can make, it instantly raises the situation to life and death, and humans tend to choose the other person needs to die before they choose to back off. It’s the blowback effect only now that thug you were worried about is fearing for their life wrestling you for that gun to kill you before you get the chance to kill them.
Guns are not a personal defense equalizer, they are a “now you die” tool that should only come out when you are dead certain all other options are exhausted and are ready to immediately pull that trigger on whoever you’re pointing at. Any hesitation at all and you have failed the purpose of trying to defend yourself with a gun. You are either dead, traumatized for life having just killed someone in cold blood, or you just proved that you overreacted to the situation because nobody’s dead yet and de-escalation is now a REMOTE option for you to get out of this situation.
Look getting heated about this subject is natural, what’s important is you were concerned enough about it to call it out for yourself, and I’ll do the same here too, sorry if this is at all perceived as an attack. The fact that we can trade at least the intent to have a productive exchange means we’re on a good pathway to actually getting to do it.
I disagree with the sentiment intended by sating that the statistics say this is a small issue. The odds you’d get rat anus in your sausage were probably pretty low before Teddy started up the food and drug admin, but having the peace of mind that you will 100% not be dining on rat anus at this year’s independence day festivities is probably something you’re thankful to Upton Sinclair for making such a stink to help achieve anyways.
My point is that a problem doesn’t have to be statistically significant for it to be absolutely disgusting and worth addressing on those grounds alone. Just because it’s one tiny past good hard boiled egg that’s stinking up the joint doesn’t mean it’s a waste of time to toss the egg, and that’s what this problem is, a very stinky egg that has done a good job of convincing people that tossing it will destroy the fabric of our home, when really addressing it would involve about as change to the fabric of the home as someone having to push their chair out from the table to get up and toss the egg in the trash.
Edit: reformatting because I remembered markdown exists and can make an effortpost like this a lot more understandable
This discussion is about gun violence. Saying there weren’t a lot of school shootings back then is about as helpful to the root issue discussion as saying that cyberbullying wasn’t an issue before the 90s anyways.
No really, what makes them different, what’s the obvious difference between the kind of person you picture robbing a store and the kind you picture committing a mass shooting?
Be bold, tell everyone the difference. Explain to us this essential difference that makes it so important that we segregate mass shootings from all other forms of gun violence as somehow a special sort of case?
I’m aware of the basics of gun safety, and aware that having a gun elevates the charges on a crime like a robbery. Pointing a gun at anything does indeed make clear your willingness to kill.
But you dodged the point of my reply, the motive or intent of the crime.
A robbery is not terrorism, or terroristic in motive. A robbery has a cause and a goal outside of killing. I’m not saying an armed robbery isn’t an inherently violent act, and I never said that shit about “trynna scare them”. Not sure where you gathered that.
You’ve devolved to name calling, inserting thoughts for others, and dodging the point of what you’re replying to. Seems you’re about spent
My point is that involving the gun makes it terrorism by the same principle of escalation.
It’s not a robery, it’s a near death experience where money might change hands.
Gun violence is gun violence. It is all attempted murder and terrorism. Fact that some people want money out of it is irrelevant, it is still terrorism.
Words have definitions. Real life has different situations. Those situations have different motives and results, even if they share features. Edit you can’t just declare everything violent terroristic.
It’s silly to assume that the same actions would have the same impacts on two very different types of crime, despite both of those crimes having a gun.
For example: red flag laws where family or certain professionals can bring forward action to take guns away from someone or get them certain care. This is triggered by said folks detecting or acknowledging certain concerning behaviors in someone who might carry out a mass shooting.
This wouldn’t help with someone considering a robbery, as their pattern of behavior (edit and motivation) isn’t the same.
I am not advocating for red flag laws, or discounting them. That’s not the point.
Probably because most of those Canadians actually have a fucking good reason to be armed, IE for hunting, defending against dangerous wildlife, competitive shooting
My home country (Iceland) has the highest gun ownership in Europe. It’s not much compared to the US, but it’s interesting that we have almost no gun violence. The reason is that we have very strict gun control with thorough background checks, mandatory training and psych evaluations. In addition to that, we have a functioning healthcare system and low income inequality. All these things need to be adressed before the US sees a decrease in gun violence.
Yeah, that won’t ever be abused by malicious actors.
It really is easier to just regulate firearms (not take them away, mind you, just actually regulate and enforce said regulations), but politicians are too worried about pissing off the “but muh freedums” crowd.
From other countries that have regulations: prevent known criminals, known serious mentally ill people, known abusers, from having guns. Enforce gun lockers, and responsible ownership. Enforce education and training.
Most countries still have guns you know. Even just the gun lockers would prevent the us rampant murdering toddlers.
Nah, involuntary psych hold definitely needs lower standards to help address the mental health crisis.
We’ve got a plan for most homelessness via housing first plans, but for folks that are homeless because they just can’t function for themselves we do genuinely need improved involuntary hold infrastructure.
We also need vastly improved care facility infrastructure for people who are docile but for whatever reasons medically or mentally incapable of surviving on their own and who don’t have family capable of providing for them.
You know the system’s broken when a common threat to coerce or emotionally attack elders is to put them in an elder care facility.
My friend was wondering if you could would feel the same way if it was a man, you know, out of interest, and whether if it was, say, completely at random, a guy in his late twenties with curly black hair and a slight beer belly but he’d be willing to reciprocate so in some senses he’d be the best of both worlds, if that were of interest to you. He was wondering. My friend. Entirely hypothetically. Uhm…
Yes would choose her a thousand times. Starting with a nice one sided BJ and then we are taking turns riding each other. Nothing in the meme tells me i cant
Everyone shits on 6 but never actually gives a reason other than “5 iS bEtTeR!”. The mechanics in 6 are a massive improvement on 5; civics tree > social policies, city loyalty > happiness etc. It has a bigger and better roster of civs/leaders. Combat and religion are more fleshed out. I love both games but I can’t think of anything that 5 does better
6 has many mechanics dumbed down, trade is just completely bugged, and it came wrapped in a very cartoonish style including several world leaders who were straight up mythological figures.
Comparing the Civs steals the joy they bring for their various reasons.
Civ 1 was unlike anything else and so legendary it created the 4X genre.
Civ 2 had the best espionage until an expansion for 4. Civ2 also defined the scope for all future Civs.
Civ 3 was fine. Resources were a good addition and tile quirks, like Floodplains on top of another base tile like desert, helped bring tons strategy and gave the ability to grow Tall.
Civ 4 was probably peak Civ for many people, especially including DLCs.
Civ 5 removed unit stacking and made happiness a resource.
Civ 6 emphasized the city development aspect and brought back the climate stuff from 2, 3, and 4.
They are all good but they are not collectively suitable for every person. Civ6 is amazing but it took me literally 30 hours to finally have it click. I also have 550 hours in Civ 6 and over 1200 in Civ 5. CiV is also a high water mark but it overshadows the real value and fun in 6.
It’s a shame most folks will ignore us and say 6 was bad for being too game like.
Yeah I prefer 6 over 5 any day, but there are a few small things that 5 does do better imo. I do prefer the more serious art style of 5, and I noticed that there is a lot less actual dialogue in a civs respective language compared to 5. While I do like automatic road creation, I do also miss being able to build it manually to have more control over where units can go. Finally, I think the happiness system in Civ 6 is a bit too easy, as it can be mostly ignored and very easily fixed compared to 5. Keeping your citizens happy was much more of a challenge there.
Civ 6 was made much more to be a digital board game. The combination of little to no multiplicative bonuses and generally small adjacency bonuses means you have to micro manage city planning all the time. It bombards the player with so many individual decisions that each make little impact.
Civ 5 felt much more like an empire simulator. The biggest bonuses come from making “big” decisions, like which policy tree, who/when to war, which ideology. As the game progressed, there was typically no need to micromanage.
The combat in civ 6 is atrocious after they removed the ability to build roads offensively for war until you unlock military engies (way too late in the game). Civ 5’s road system took ages to get up and running, but the payoff was immense.
The civics tree system is better, but the policy card system is broken. It gives players too much flexibility, so everyone ends up running the same/similar set of cards every time. Tradition + Rationalism is a meme in Civ 5, but it did offer more esoteric strategies with different trees.
It’s the micromanagement. When earlier games became tedious, I could just pick a quicker game speed, and I would suddenly feel like I was playing with more momentum. But in VI, it actually kills momentum, as if driving the slightly faster route to work at the cost of particularly frustrating traffic, since the most tedious micro isn’t turn-based, but city-based. You only have to plan districts/improvements once per city, so I find I can still have fun with VI if I play suboptimally (i.e., tall) on tiny maps and with mods that let me cram more civilizations into the game. I’ve probably put in a few hundred hours this way.
I like playing tall and I’m not a huge fan of the micromanagement that comes with the sprawling empires. Civ 5 limits this through happiness. Civ 6 doesnt. Throw in an artstyle that i dont like and i just dont want to play it as much
I think most of us are less apathetic like Squidward and more just exhausted. We care about a lot of the things happening, but there’s so much going on we physically can’t keep track of, let alone care about, it all, so we don’t. We just don’t have the mental or emotional energy for it.
It’s not just Americans. As a Canadian we’re deeply affected by American situations (plus our own politics). Sometimes the only way to put up with the complex world we live in is a little Squidwardism
Well, let’s not pretend any of us even ‘need’ American influence to become shitty. The entirety of Europe has apparently decided that it’s been long enough since WW2 for us to give Fascism another try. Sure, the US influences the world, but we’re more than capable of fucking things up ourselves.
While maybe not as bad as the US yet, that image can be recycled for Europe in a short while.
There are few ‘viable solutions’ that readily present themselves to the concerned voter, so little gets resolved and issues continue to grow and morph. If you look at things through a state by state lens it becomes more cloudy because state laws will affect more immediate issues and can very likely differ. It’s hard to command fifty entities in one direction, all worried about various concerns in various directions. Having faith in this Rube Goldberg machine def makes for a bad time, so apathy and hope suffice. System working as intended, do not investigate.
Honestly, that’s why despite as much respect as I have for the Constitution and the founding fathers, I sincerely believe that a parliamentary, rather than federal system, would be far more efficient & effective. Sure, problems could effect faster, but so could solutions.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.