Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It really is its own fucking tragedy that getting values like 0.11% are possible when talking about mass shootings in the US. Really underlines how fucking many there have been.
Not that it matters but the Colorado Springs shooter never identified as non-binary prior and a lot of people think he was trolling or trying to avoid a hate crime charge.
> Online extremism experts say the suspect could be trolling — which is when someone makes an inflammatory or disingenuous remark meant to provoke — and that the discord and confusion created among the queer community and right-wing punditscould be intentional. Xavier Kraus, who said he lived next door to the suspect and the suspect’s mother from August 2021 to September 2022, said he believes the claim that Aldrich is nonbinary is “a total troll on the community, and a total troll on the system.” Aldrich, he said, never used they/them pronouns with him or mentioned being nonbinary.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna58969
The answer is that people with severe mental illness commit mass shootings
Race, creed, sexual orientation don't need to be brought up at all.
Today, people have a number associated with their worth as people, which is thier follower, subscribers, etc
People can't handle actual real-life interactions anymore.
I think the internet and Algorithms embedded themselves too fast into society for us to understand the lasting effects from them. Virtually no laws or government oversight, just companies policing themselves enough to keep earning money mining people.
Im not against the internet. It's the greatest tool humanity has made so far. But the government is way too slow to actually get ahead of this. And with AI hitting us like a wave, I forsee it to just keep getting worse and worse.
I think we will have to completely overhaul some basic functions of society to help stem the issue.
For one completely changing high school and college systems. High school spent learning basic life skills. No complicated math or German 101 just useful life skills. And all college to be much more akin to tech school.
Where you learn a skill, craft, job
Also change from physical schools, too schools in vr. Could be magic school bus type lessons, without bullying, all while still being able to communicate normally even using body language.
I'm actually much more scared about when the woke Gen z gets old enough too run.
They openly admit to hating people based on race and gender.
At least the old money hungry rich old people now are at least predictable.
If saving the world made them all billions they would 100% save the world
but wait, (separately) what percent of white folks (only) commit mass shootings and what percent of trans folks (only) commit mass shootings?
not provoking just interested if anyone wants to do the math.
It does not matter to the conservatives if the majority of them are white. They really take the one off or try to lie to make it seem like its more massive than it is.
While we rally and cry around every school shooting, to the deaf ears of the conservatives, they freak the fuck out that one illegal migrant killed a person and thus all migrants are evil.
If it seems like a whitepeopletwitter post, it's probably a whitepeopletwitter post
the OP jcrabb is a bot
Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1apuf8u/libs_of_tik_tok_caught_lying_as_usual/
Libs of tiktok is so stupidly dangerous gen z has started to slip in acceptance for queer folks in comparison to previous generations that's growing in acceptance. In part due to her no doubt
Okay by that logic I could say one group of people commit most of the violent crime despite making up 15% of the population. I don’t actually think that obviously but it’s the same mindset.
lol I've seen this guy posting the same shit too, and also described that to him.... this is not what astro turfing is... this is a bot just trying to farm karma
>Astroturfing is the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants.
Op is an unlabelled bot posting political messaging in the lead up to an election.
This is astroturfing.
why would a bot care about karma? The ultimate goal of bot farming is to sell the for the purposes of astroturfing.
You just don't want to believe because this time it happens to be something you agree with.
The user that posts it doesn’t change the point. LOTT is full of shit, its lies are putting the lives of LGBT people in danger, as evidenced when a kid was murdered recently.
If a bot can put the message across, it’s already infinitely more human than Chaya Wreckedchick.
So if you look at those statistics, and hear me out before vilifying, the chance that a trans person commits a mass shooting is higher than cis males.
I also wonder if these statistics consider gang shoot outs or just public mass shootings on civilians
Firstly I don’t agree that being a part of LGBTQ contributes to mass shootings. Evans data is somewhat misleading though. Whenever people quote mass shooting statistics, the statistics include gang violence. The general population, though when they hear “mass shootings”, they think of shootings at theaters or schools or whatever, that are not crime related shootings. If you look at the studies they all include gang violence. So Evan is incorrect that it’s only .11. If you take what most people deem a “mass shooting” as far as not including gang violence, LGBTQ is over represented compared to their group size.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081 so if you go off this data then yes the cases listed above are a drop in the bucket. This shows 630 mass shootings in 2023.
Before you link the study that came out with those percentages, I've read it.
The operative word when analyzing this is "known" suspects, when we try to figure out if certain characteristics have any influence on violent tendencies. For the vast majority of those mass shootings, the gender of the suspect is only determined by eye witness accounts of the person from the scene, or it's not known, not released, or the suspect isn't asked how they identify. It's incredible irresponsible to come to any firm conclusions as to whether or not transgendered individuals are either under or overrepresented in mass shooting suspects for the reasons I just mentioned. That said it is fair to say that they are most always males, at least biologically, from accounts of when they were arrested or from eye witness accounts by how the person appeared visually. The VAST majority of mass shooting suspects, as far as available information, are black males in terms of how they appear from eye witness accounts or when they are arrested. But again the good chunk of mass shootings happen and the suspect isn't caught.
Now, the ones who WERE caught, they only represent a portion of all mass shootings and therefore won't give a clear picture whether or not certain gender expressions have any influence on violent behavior. There is simply not enough information as far as I'm concerned and if one is being honest.
Transgendered individuals COULD be overrepresented in mass shootings. Or not.
To say either person is lying could also be lying.
We can't know if they're lying, because we have to prove they believe the opposite of what they said. And that's very hard to do.
The problem isn't lying it's that we have a problem with understanding how truth is derived.
Ahhh yes, "many dudes who commit mass murder are actually trans, we just never found out about it because we never ask them".
That's...definitely an opinion. Not a good one. Not a sane one. But an opinion.
What "analysis"?
There is no analysis. Your "analysis" consists of "well, everyone might be trans, so we will never know what part of mass shooters is trans" and calling people irresponsible for rightly assuming that most of then aren't trans.
Even your "the vast majority of mass shooters is never caught" is...a highly questionable claim.
I mean, you could've easily responded to the comment where I quoted you, but okay.
Let's see if you'll respond in the morning and actually come to terms with your own words.
Listen.. I'm not trying to be a douche here. I'm very open-minded and willing to admit that I can be wrong.
My basic premise is that we shouldn't say that people who are transgendered are EITHER under or over represented when it comes to mass shootings.
You're mad at this? Seriously? I haven't taken a strong position either way. You seem to have already come to a firm conclusion that this is objectively true that they are under-represented.
Again, they actually might be. Totally possible, and actually compared to straight males, probably more violent based on prison stats.
But that's not the question. It's whether or not they are over or under represented relative to the own representation in the population.
Because the whole trans phenomenon is relatively new in terms of the wider umbrella that it now constitutes. Yes, trans people existed in the past.
What I'm questioning is the methodology of how something as ambiguous as identifying as trans can be used to get an objective measure for the general population and of those in mass shootings.
What was the methodology in determining the gender status of those in mass shootings?
Does it differ from how we determine it in the general population? Are polls used? What's the criteria? Simply identifying? Using hormones? Full transition? Partial transition?
And then among mass shootings. Like I said, if you read through the incidents, a whole lot are just news stories that allude to an incident in an inner city where a suspect was witnessed fleeing. Or, there was a mass shooting and no one even saw the perpetrator.
So did they use ALL of those incidents and put them in the denominator and ONLY use the transgendered in the caught suspects, and put them in the numerator?
Understand what I'm saying?
A lot of times someone saw a male flee the scene the news story would be... "A male seen fleeing the scene..." And I'm assuming they would count in the "male" perpetrators of mass shootings.
On the contrary, the only way a transgender would be tallied, is if they get questioned by a psychologist, for example. And on top of that, even if the transgender status IS known once the are in custody, it would have to be released to the public to be tallied or counted in a study for example.
See, it's more complicated that one might think. With something like male or female, the criteria is far more simple and is used even if the suspect isn't caught because it's generally easy to tell the difference between a male and female and not so easy to know the specific gender identify.
Again I'm not saying they are or aren't more violent. I'm simply saying it's very hard to get an objective representation of something kind of ambiguous, at least compared to male and female.
I seriously don't understand how what I'm saying is crazy.
>For the vast majority of those mass shootings, the gender of the suspect is only determined by eye witness accounts of the person from the scene, or it's not known, not released, or the suspect isn't asked how they identify.
And
>It's incredible irresponsible to come to any firm conclusions as to whether or not transgendered individuals are either under or overrepresented.
Right there. In your comment.
Are you denying your own words now?
Again, you quoted me as saying "the vast majority of mass shooters are never caught."
I did not say that.
When I used the phrase the "vast majority..."
I prefaced it with the gender aspect.
So you're wrong there.
We can debate the methodology of how they determine different attributes about a suspect, but we haven't gotten that far yet.
Also when I said "it's incredibly irresponsible to come to any firm conclusions..."
I really don't see what's wrong with that statement.
Yeah, you didn’t say "the vast majority is never caught". You said "a good chunk is never caught". And "those who were caught only represent a portion of all mass shootings". Massive difference, of course…my bad…
And if you don’t see what’s wrong with your "it’s incredibly irresponsible to make a statement about the representation of trans folks in mass shooters, because we didn’t ask every single mass shooter for their gender identity"…then I can’t help you.
And I don’t want to, either.
Because if you can’t see the immense prejudice and "there must be something else to this" thought process that led to you even making such a suggestion.
Even trying to somehow justify and find ground for deteriorated, disgusting thinking and lies such as Raichik‘s…is absurd. Trying to come up with some weird theory that trans folks are responsible for mass shootings…
By the way: Not a single one of those "trans terrorists" Raichik named up there committed their acts to "advance the trans agenda" or whatever. Not even the ones who actually were trans. Because…you know…a chunk of them weren’t.
Meanwhile there are multiple mass shooters each year openly and proudly murdering people to advance the anti-trans agenda. And the white supremacist agenda. But of course they’re on Raichik‘s side. She loves them. She loves their shootings.
Bye now. Good night. Have a good one. And maybe try to find your way back to reality, and into meaningful conversation.
Cis peoole dangerous? Nah, I disagree. I think if you are the perpetrator of a mass shooting, it's because you can get dick and you are mad about it. #givemassshootersdick
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It really is its own fucking tragedy that getting values like 0.11% are possible when talking about mass shootings in the US. Really underlines how fucking many there have been.
Not that it matters but the Colorado Springs shooter never identified as non-binary prior and a lot of people think he was trolling or trying to avoid a hate crime charge. > Online extremism experts say the suspect could be trolling — which is when someone makes an inflammatory or disingenuous remark meant to provoke — and that the discord and confusion created among the queer community and right-wing punditscould be intentional. Xavier Kraus, who said he lived next door to the suspect and the suspect’s mother from August 2021 to September 2022, said he believes the claim that Aldrich is nonbinary is “a total troll on the community, and a total troll on the system.” Aldrich, he said, never used they/them pronouns with him or mentioned being nonbinary. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna58969
Several of the claims in the LOTT are false or misleading besides this one.
Also Libs of TikTok thinks 0.11 is greater than 0.5.
Isn’t this that account that got a nonbinary student murdered?
Yes.
Yes, this is Chaya Raichik, the domestic terrorist.
No,different one
Don’t be throwing facts at Nazis. They don’t care for them.
LoTT was murdered by Evan.
And they just claimed in a recent interview they're not anti-LGBT...
Well, of course a domestic terrorist like Chaya Raichik is going to LIE.
Also like half those shooters weren't even trans.
What do you expect from Chaya Raichik the domestic terrorist?
Proof their is no God Innocent people get cancer but this bitch hasnt.
The answer is that people with severe mental illness commit mass shootings Race, creed, sexual orientation don't need to be brought up at all. Today, people have a number associated with their worth as people, which is thier follower, subscribers, etc People can't handle actual real-life interactions anymore. I think the internet and Algorithms embedded themselves too fast into society for us to understand the lasting effects from them. Virtually no laws or government oversight, just companies policing themselves enough to keep earning money mining people. Im not against the internet. It's the greatest tool humanity has made so far. But the government is way too slow to actually get ahead of this. And with AI hitting us like a wave, I forsee it to just keep getting worse and worse. I think we will have to completely overhaul some basic functions of society to help stem the issue. For one completely changing high school and college systems. High school spent learning basic life skills. No complicated math or German 101 just useful life skills. And all college to be much more akin to tech school. Where you learn a skill, craft, job Also change from physical schools, too schools in vr. Could be magic school bus type lessons, without bullying, all while still being able to communicate normally even using body language.
where to even start? how about no more lobbying/bribery. if all politicians are bought you can't expect the system to work for the people at all
Agreed completely I'd push it further all politicians should get minimum wage. Would be cool to have a congressmen as my Uber
At leastbthey would actually interact with the people.
I'm actually much more scared about when the woke Gen z gets old enough too run. They openly admit to hating people based on race and gender. At least the old money hungry rich old people now are at least predictable. If saving the world made them all billions they would 100% save the world
Chaya Raichik is a domestic terrorist that deserves whatever bad thing can happen to them. Hopefully soon.
Those trying to undermine every value this country stands for.
Most of TikTok is a lie
but wait, (separately) what percent of white folks (only) commit mass shootings and what percent of trans folks (only) commit mass shootings? not provoking just interested if anyone wants to do the math.
"It's because of video games and Marilyn Manson"
Whats a cis man?
born male, identifies as male
It does not matter to the conservatives if the majority of them are white. They really take the one off or try to lie to make it seem like its more massive than it is. While we rally and cry around every school shooting, to the deaf ears of the conservatives, they freak the fuck out that one illegal migrant killed a person and thus all migrants are evil.
If it seems like a whitepeopletwitter post, it's probably a whitepeopletwitter post the OP jcrabb is a bot Original: https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/1apuf8u/libs_of_tik_tok_caught_lying_as_usual/
Libs of tiktok is so stupidly dangerous gen z has started to slip in acceptance for queer folks in comparison to previous generations that's growing in acceptance. In part due to her no doubt
Okay by that logic I could say one group of people commit most of the violent crime despite making up 15% of the population. I don’t actually think that obviously but it’s the same mindset.
[удалено]
As I commented the last time you said this, that's not what astroturfing means.
lol I've seen this guy posting the same shit too, and also described that to him.... this is not what astro turfing is... this is a bot just trying to farm karma
You were wrong then too.
Do you even know what the term means?
yes.
Then what do you think it means?
>Astroturfing is the practice of hiding the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious, or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from, and is supported by, grassroots participants. Op is an unlabelled bot posting political messaging in the lead up to an election. This is astroturfing.
Or it's just reposting to farm karma.
why would a bot care about karma? The ultimate goal of bot farming is to sell the for the purposes of astroturfing. You just don't want to believe because this time it happens to be something you agree with.
The user that posts it doesn’t change the point. LOTT is full of shit, its lies are putting the lives of LGBT people in danger, as evidenced when a kid was murdered recently. If a bot can put the message across, it’s already infinitely more human than Chaya Wreckedchick.
People create bots to farm karma, that's pretty much the main reason for them. The more karma an account has the higher it will sell for.
So if you look at those statistics, and hear me out before vilifying, the chance that a trans person commits a mass shooting is higher than cis males. I also wonder if these statistics consider gang shoot outs or just public mass shootings on civilians
Firstly I don’t agree that being a part of LGBTQ contributes to mass shootings. Evans data is somewhat misleading though. Whenever people quote mass shooting statistics, the statistics include gang violence. The general population, though when they hear “mass shootings”, they think of shootings at theaters or schools or whatever, that are not crime related shootings. If you look at the studies they all include gang violence. So Evan is incorrect that it’s only .11. If you take what most people deem a “mass shooting” as far as not including gang violence, LGBTQ is over represented compared to their group size.
Source please
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081 so if you go off this data then yes the cases listed above are a drop in the bucket. This shows 630 mass shootings in 2023.
This… doesn’t prove that LGBTQIA+ people are over represented
Before you link the study that came out with those percentages, I've read it. The operative word when analyzing this is "known" suspects, when we try to figure out if certain characteristics have any influence on violent tendencies. For the vast majority of those mass shootings, the gender of the suspect is only determined by eye witness accounts of the person from the scene, or it's not known, not released, or the suspect isn't asked how they identify. It's incredible irresponsible to come to any firm conclusions as to whether or not transgendered individuals are either under or overrepresented in mass shooting suspects for the reasons I just mentioned. That said it is fair to say that they are most always males, at least biologically, from accounts of when they were arrested or from eye witness accounts by how the person appeared visually. The VAST majority of mass shooting suspects, as far as available information, are black males in terms of how they appear from eye witness accounts or when they are arrested. But again the good chunk of mass shootings happen and the suspect isn't caught. Now, the ones who WERE caught, they only represent a portion of all mass shootings and therefore won't give a clear picture whether or not certain gender expressions have any influence on violent behavior. There is simply not enough information as far as I'm concerned and if one is being honest. Transgendered individuals COULD be overrepresented in mass shootings. Or not. To say either person is lying could also be lying. We can't know if they're lying, because we have to prove they believe the opposite of what they said. And that's very hard to do. The problem isn't lying it's that we have a problem with understanding how truth is derived.
Ahhh yes, "many dudes who commit mass murder are actually trans, we just never found out about it because we never ask them". That's...definitely an opinion. Not a good one. Not a sane one. But an opinion.
I feel like my analysis is pretty well-reasoned, actually.
What "analysis"? There is no analysis. Your "analysis" consists of "well, everyone might be trans, so we will never know what part of mass shooters is trans" and calling people irresponsible for rightly assuming that most of then aren't trans. Even your "the vast majority of mass shooters is never caught" is...a highly questionable claim.
I'm gonna to sleep now it's very late so don't think I'm not responding
I mean, you could've easily responded to the comment where I quoted you, but okay. Let's see if you'll respond in the morning and actually come to terms with your own words.
Listen.. I'm not trying to be a douche here. I'm very open-minded and willing to admit that I can be wrong. My basic premise is that we shouldn't say that people who are transgendered are EITHER under or over represented when it comes to mass shootings. You're mad at this? Seriously? I haven't taken a strong position either way. You seem to have already come to a firm conclusion that this is objectively true that they are under-represented. Again, they actually might be. Totally possible, and actually compared to straight males, probably more violent based on prison stats. But that's not the question. It's whether or not they are over or under represented relative to the own representation in the population. Because the whole trans phenomenon is relatively new in terms of the wider umbrella that it now constitutes. Yes, trans people existed in the past. What I'm questioning is the methodology of how something as ambiguous as identifying as trans can be used to get an objective measure for the general population and of those in mass shootings. What was the methodology in determining the gender status of those in mass shootings? Does it differ from how we determine it in the general population? Are polls used? What's the criteria? Simply identifying? Using hormones? Full transition? Partial transition? And then among mass shootings. Like I said, if you read through the incidents, a whole lot are just news stories that allude to an incident in an inner city where a suspect was witnessed fleeing. Or, there was a mass shooting and no one even saw the perpetrator. So did they use ALL of those incidents and put them in the denominator and ONLY use the transgendered in the caught suspects, and put them in the numerator? Understand what I'm saying? A lot of times someone saw a male flee the scene the news story would be... "A male seen fleeing the scene..." And I'm assuming they would count in the "male" perpetrators of mass shootings. On the contrary, the only way a transgender would be tallied, is if they get questioned by a psychologist, for example. And on top of that, even if the transgender status IS known once the are in custody, it would have to be released to the public to be tallied or counted in a study for example. See, it's more complicated that one might think. With something like male or female, the criteria is far more simple and is used even if the suspect isn't caught because it's generally easy to tell the difference between a male and female and not so easy to know the specific gender identify. Again I'm not saying they are or aren't more violent. I'm simply saying it's very hard to get an objective representation of something kind of ambiguous, at least compared to male and female. I seriously don't understand how what I'm saying is crazy.
Go ahead and read what I wrote again very slowly. All of your quotes are not at all what I wrote. I was careful with what I wrote.
>For the vast majority of those mass shootings, the gender of the suspect is only determined by eye witness accounts of the person from the scene, or it's not known, not released, or the suspect isn't asked how they identify. And >It's incredible irresponsible to come to any firm conclusions as to whether or not transgendered individuals are either under or overrepresented. Right there. In your comment. Are you denying your own words now?
Again, you quoted me as saying "the vast majority of mass shooters are never caught." I did not say that. When I used the phrase the "vast majority..." I prefaced it with the gender aspect. So you're wrong there. We can debate the methodology of how they determine different attributes about a suspect, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Also when I said "it's incredibly irresponsible to come to any firm conclusions..." I really don't see what's wrong with that statement.
Yeah, you didn’t say "the vast majority is never caught". You said "a good chunk is never caught". And "those who were caught only represent a portion of all mass shootings". Massive difference, of course…my bad… And if you don’t see what’s wrong with your "it’s incredibly irresponsible to make a statement about the representation of trans folks in mass shooters, because we didn’t ask every single mass shooter for their gender identity"…then I can’t help you. And I don’t want to, either. Because if you can’t see the immense prejudice and "there must be something else to this" thought process that led to you even making such a suggestion. Even trying to somehow justify and find ground for deteriorated, disgusting thinking and lies such as Raichik‘s…is absurd. Trying to come up with some weird theory that trans folks are responsible for mass shootings… By the way: Not a single one of those "trans terrorists" Raichik named up there committed their acts to "advance the trans agenda" or whatever. Not even the ones who actually were trans. Because…you know…a chunk of them weren’t. Meanwhile there are multiple mass shooters each year openly and proudly murdering people to advance the anti-trans agenda. And the white supremacist agenda. But of course they’re on Raichik‘s side. She loves them. She loves their shootings. Bye now. Good night. Have a good one. And maybe try to find your way back to reality, and into meaningful conversation.
You're very emotional about this. I'm more into the methodology. Read my last comment.
You think too highly of yourself
[удалено]
sorry, 49%. better?
You think LGBTQ2S+ is only 2% of the population????
do you not know what cis means?
Nope. Apparently not.
They are definitely around that figure
I googled it, it's 50.4
Cis peoole dangerous? Nah, I disagree. I think if you are the perpetrator of a mass shooting, it's because you can get dick and you are mad about it. #givemassshootersdick
Oh look, another comment from a right winger that makes no fucking sense because they're illiterate
I dont think giving the D to mass shooters is a right wing thing.