mushboy said:

why did the gov of utah say he prayed the shooter was an outsider and/or immigrant?

i mean i know why i guess its just rhetorical.

---

FoolOfElysium said:

A couple of things.

First, I'm technically not limiting it to "the left" but anyone else is non-relevant in the argument because they represent such a negligable minority. You'd be hard pressed to find even one MAGA supporter that is happy about this.

I wanted to read the study today but I got tied up helping a family member clean out a storage unit and I don't want to read it past beer o' clock. I have nothing but time tomorrow, however.

I would like to say, however, I went back and peeked at the study and it's longer than I realized. Fortunately it interests me, but for the record I don't make a habit of offering up so much of my free time to people I debate with online unless they are willing to reciprocate. I gave you the courtesy the first time... I would expect to be able to buy 30 minutes of your time in the future as well (when it is relative to an argument) if I proceed tomorrow.

Be warned, I might ask you to watch 30 minutes of Charlie Kirk.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

FoolOfElysium said:

A couple of things.

First, I'm technically not limiting it to "the left" but anyone else is non-relevant in the argument because they represent such a negligable minority. You'd be hard pressed to find even one MAGA supporter that is happy about this.

I wanted to read the study today but I got tied up helping a family member clean out a storage unit and I don't want to read it past beer o' clock. I have nothing but time tomorrow, however.

I would like to say, however, I went back and peeked at the study and it's longer than I realized. Fortunately it interests me, but for the record I don't make a habit of offering up so much of my free time to people I debate with online unless they are willing to reciprocate. I gave you the courtesy the first time... I would expect to be able to buy 30 minutes of your time in the future as well (when it is relative to an argument) if I proceed tomorrow.

Be warned, I might ask you to watch 30 minutes of Charlie Kirk.

---

I'm not sure how 30 minutes of Charlie Kirk videos would be relevant to our discussion, but if you can make that case. It's not about sinking an equal amount of time, it's about putting in the effort needed to verify claims instead of just spouting off falsehoods. 

That study I linked is relevant to our discussion because you've been posting wild promises of retribution in response to the lefts decision to embrace political violence - based off the assumption that political violence is a problem unique to the ideological left. The study suggests that your assumption is incorrect - political violence is far more common among the ideological right.

In that case, the threats of retribution appear to be less the result of moral indignation towards the use of any political violence, and more so the desire to get revenge for political violence being directed at an important person. You might still be right about consequences to follow, but it certainly takes much of the righteous fervor from your sails

---

The Charlie Kirk comment was a bit of a joke, but you replied in incredibly good faith. Don't worry, I won't subject you to 30 minutes of him at a time. Even I couldn't stomach that, honestly.

What you are probably imagining as "retribution" and what I perceive is going to happen probably don't fully overlap, if at all. So it order to take the wind out of my sails, you'd first have to make sure you understand what I really think will happen. That's your first obligation before you can still my so-called inner seas.

If you can properly articulate my position and I give you the affirmation that you've got it right (steelmanning an argument), then and only then are you equipped to really get me. Otherwise I can just brush it off because you're arguing against a person (or an argument) that doesn't really exist.

Quote:

political violence is far more common among the ideological right.

---

pre-emptively enlighten me any way you want. Based on what categories? Guns? Murder? All physical violence across the board? Are we tracking trends over the last 20 years to see what is going up or down or simply relying on all the current data we have in the past and the present? I have more questions, and you can take these as rhetorical if you'd like. I'm really just making the point that depending on how a study is conducted, you can make anything fit your narrative. I tend to go off the pulse of the nation itself. I try to see what everyone is thinking and not get stuck in echo chambers. (Which is why I'm here, honestly.)

Your premise intrigues me, because on a non-political level I'd actually agree that the right is more violent simply because the right has more testosterone. The most violent offenders in our nation are far more often men than women for the same reason. It's testosterone, which I'm not demonizing here... we need it to protect our families, but it's just some men don't have it under control.

Though it's funny... almost all mass shooters are scrawny little punks that look like they belong in the democratic party. So I genuinely wonder if the study lumps many mass shooters into the party their family was affiliated with on the SURFACE, or if they take into consideration what that individual themselves believed in his personal writings and inner circle of friends.

Like our current shooter: Mormon roots, but ultimately it was something that has noooothing to do with republican thinking that led him to shooting Kirk.  No republican see Charlie Kirk as an enemy worthy of death, even if they don't like him (which is rare enough as-is.)


As far as "revenge" is concerned. The only "revenge" I want when it comes to the average person is to see people's jaw drop. It will give me a very, very long bout of laughter when it happens. That's enough for me. But you also know there's a few powerful people I want to see hung. That's reserved for those that have committed crimes against humanity.

gopher said:

Why are we saying testosterone runs higher in right wing people, is political affiliation genetic and correlated with testosterone production? Are all left people taking estrogen to transition?

---

gopher said:

Why are we saying testosterone runs higher in right wing people, is political affiliation genetic and correlated with testosterone production? Are all left people taking estrogen to transition?

---

I don't think it's "we" saying it, I think it's (for now at least) just me.

The left prioritizes collective reliability on their government more than independence. They've also spent decades demonizing testosterone, especially the last ten years. They despise guns. All of this combined has lead to a political party full of men that are laughable compared to MAGA's men. As I said in another thread, you'd have a to be a moron to even gamble on 10:1 odds of the left winning a straight up civil war man-to-man. It's an absolute joke, and anyone on the left fantasizing about it is doing just that: living in fantasy land.

FoolOfElysium said:

mushboy said:

why did the gov of utah say he prayed the shooter was an outsider and/or immigrant?

i mean i know why i guess its just rhetorical.

---

Cox stated: “For 33 hours, I was … I was praying that if this had to happen here, that it wouldn’t be one of us – that somebody drove from another state, somebody came from another country.” He added that the revelation it was a local suspect made it harder because “it would make it easier on us if we could just say ‘Hey, we don’t do that here.’”

Utah is considered essentially to be Mormonville. His "Us" is referring to the culture that Mormons create for the state.

- - -
- - - -
  - - - - -
  - - - - - -
    - - - - - - -

The Trump administration does have issues with their public image. Anytime a MAGAite does something really bad, they'll do everything they can to cover it up. This is especially true for their top brass' sexual perversions.

---

Quote:

pre-emptively enlighten me any way you want

---

Bruh, they linked the data already.  Absolutely wild that you're still out here like "enlighten me if you dare"

FoolOfElysium said:

‘Hey, we don’t do that here.’”

---

Baby_Hitler said:

Testosterone level is kinda meaningless. Testosterone sensitivity is just as big of a factor. Some people need more testosterone for the same effect.

---

mushboy said:

FoolOfElysium said:

‘Hey, we don’t do that here.’”

---

hence the HUGE effort to try to distance a homegrown ..'terrorist' and label them as anything but an outsider. one of THEM.

its aint working to well is it?

---

Quote:

So I genuinely wonder if the study lumps many mass shooters into the party their family was affiliated with on the SURFACE, or if they take into consideration what that individual themselves believed in his personal writings and inner circle of friends.

---

Hmm. Perhaps we can look at the developmental consequences that arise from being raised by MAGA retards regardless of where their thinking may or may not ultimately land. I bet it's worse than having your thinking land in the same place, but with the context being that you were not raised by conspiratorial, fallacy-mongers.

Who's to say?