[Macros]

and what the hell response is this?

dont know how to embed twitter

[QuickTidal]

 Macros, on 18 May 2018 - 03:31 PM, said:

and what the hell response is this?

Fixed it for you.

[Macros]

How do we do that?

[QuickTidal]

 Macros, on 18 May 2018 - 04:38 PM, said:

How do we do that?

Oh sorry, I should have said.

You do

[ tweet ] [ /tweet ]


without the spaces. Like a spoiler tag, but use "tweet" instead.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 18 May 2018 - 04:42 PM

[Tsundoku]

It's like a broken record.

[HoosierDaddy]

 Tsundoku, on 18 May 2018 - 06:38 PM, said:

It's like a broken record.

Round and round we go.

I'm terrified for schools where I have family and friends. I k

And NO teachers with guns will not help.

[Tiste Simeon]

Read somewhere, can't find it now, that this school actually had armed police on site. So, Erm, yeah, arming teachers is a dumb idea.

[worry]

Nobody mentioned it here presumably because it was just one more bit of dumb news on a day full of it, but just a week or so ago the NRA chose Oliver North to be its new president. The Oliver North convicted of facilitating the sale of weapons to Iran to fund right wing terrorists in Nicaragua, under Reagan. In case you wanted an update on where their heads were at regarding arms sales to dangerous people.

[Aptorian]

 Tiste Simeon, on 18 May 2018 - 07:48 PM, said:

Read somewhere, can't find it now, that this school actually had armed police on site. So, Erm, yeah, arming teachers is a dumb idea.

I guess the only solution left is to arm all the children then.

[Macros]

I vaguely read somewhere there was an armed officer or something but he got hit as well?

to tired to verify that so take with a large pinch of salt.
if its true, I think it really shoves it in the armed guards proponents faces, it doesnt work, just take the fucking guns off the street

[Obdigore]

[HoosierDaddy]

Resize that, please. Makes entire topic unreadable.

[Macros]

Put it in spoiler tags is a way round the problem

[Andorion]

In an effort to avoid the same futile talking points, I was wondering, has anyone conducted a study about the prevalence of violence or violent mentality in America? Controlling for race, sex, age, and religion, I would be very interested in seeing proportional comparisons to other Western countries.

While guns are the problem, what cannot and must not be ignored is that they are at the end, very lethal, but inanimate tools. They can make the task of killing easier, but they cannot instigate to kill. It is this urge to kill, this latent current of violence which seems to exist in society both as part of traditional criminal occupations like drug dealing as well as in places like schools and colleges as outlets for anger, pain and paranoia that I find fascinating.

Are Americans more likely to resort to violence? Is confrontation the accepted way of dealing with grievances? What is causing these grievances in the first place and how can they be better coped with at a socio-cultural level? I think these are the questions that need to be asked and answered if any long term solution is to be hoped for.

[HoosierDaddy]

Are Americans, no matter age, race, sex, whatever demographic, inherently more violent than other nationalities? Are you serious? We are every demographic. It is access to firearms that is different.

Fuck it, let's blame video games while we are at it.

[EmperorMagus]

 HoosierDaddy, on 20 May 2018 - 02:19 PM, said:

Are Americans, no matter age, race, sex, whatever demographic, inherently more violent than other nationalities? Are you serious? We are every demographic. It is access to firearms that is different.

Fuck it, let's blame video games while we are at it.

Don't discount science. There is very good psychological evidence that Americans from the South are far more likely to react violently than those from the north. We even know the reason why.

In the same vein, we know that having firearms near and in sight makes it more likely for people to think and act violently, even if they don't use the gun itself.

I can provide sources for my claims if needed.

[Macros]

well remove the guns and that takes out your second statement.

I'm genuinely curious to see what science has thrown up your first point

[HoosierDaddy]

 EmperorMagus, on 20 May 2018 - 05:10 PM, said:

 HoosierDaddy, on 20 May 2018 - 02:19 PM, said:

Are Americans, no matter age, race, sex, whatever demographic, inherently more violent than other nationalities? Are you serious? We are every demographic. It is access to firearms that is different.

Fuck it, let's blame video games while we are at it.

Don't discount science. There is very good psychological evidence that Americans from the South are far more likely to react violently than those from the north. We even know the reason why.

In the same vein, we know that having firearms near and in sight makes it more likely for people to think and act violently, even if they don't use the gun itself.

I can provide sources for my claims if needed.

Two, I don't dispute. Source #1 for me please. The south is a little more hunty, but violent towards other humans? I'm intrigued.

[EmperorMagus]

First of all, I learned about this from a psychology textbook called Cultural Psychology (3rd edition, Steven Heines); but the actual peer-reviewed sources are what I link:

Insult, Aggression, and the Southern Culture of Honor: An “Experimental Ethnography”


When You Call Me That, Smile!" How Norms for Politeness, Interaction Styles, and Aggression Work Together in Southern Culture


Violence and U.S. Regional Culture


I will also give a very limited summary of the articles.

1. The researchers had some data that needed to be explained. The South had been found to be more violent than the North historically and in present times. Historically, as in there were significantly higher numbers of lynchings, sniper attacks, blood feuds, and etc. in the south than there were in the north. In recent times, as in there were higher numbers of school shootings, more acceptance for corporal punishment of children, more support for wars, and etc.

2. To explain this difference, the researchers posited a few different possibilities. Higher temperatures, poverty, and history of slavery were considered as possible factors, but all of them were eventually ruled out. They certainly explained SOME of the difference, but their effects seemed small compared to some other, as of yet unidentified, factor.

3. The researchers hypothesized that the difference between Southerners and Northerners was a 'culture of honor' which led to the Southerners acting more violently compared to those from the North. This culture of honor was explained by the history of herding in the region. Specifically, the researchers claimed that because herders' wealth was very portable (their animals could be stolen quite easily and they would be left penniless), the historical settlers of the South had an incentive to develop reputations of violence that would stop such actions. In comparison, the farmers of the north had the majority of their wealth in their crops which were not stolen as easily. This culture has persisted to this day.

4. In order to support their hypothesis, the researchers first looked at the archival data they had: They predicted that only argument-related murders would be more common in South rather than all kinds of murder. Their hypothesis was supported. They predicted that murder rates in rural South would be higher than those in rural North, they were correct. They predicted that murder rates in parts of the south where terrain was more accommodating to herding (hills and dry plains) would higher compared to those rural parts where farming was practiced; their results showed that they were correct. In fact, murder rates are almost twice as high in traditional herding areas compared to farming areas. This final finding was pretty important for a few reasons. One, there isn't much difference in poverty or temperature levels between farming areas and herding ares, thus, those two factors cannot explain the difference. And two, slavery was far more common in the farming areas, thus, the effects of slavery cannot explain the difference in violence between the two areas.

4. Then the researchers conducted a few surveys to measure attitudes towards violence in the South and the North. The survey data clearly showed that Southerners were more accepting of violence. Specifically, they were more accepting of violence when one was defending one's honor.

5. The next step was for the researchers to place Southerners and Northerners in similar situations (where one could possibly take offence and react violently) and see if there were quantifiable differences in behavior. They found that those from the South were more likely to resort to violence in situations where conflict was possible. One simply study that showed it placed the study participant and a confederate (a researcher that the participant doesn't know as a researcher) in a narrow hallway. The confederate was blocking the path of the participant, and after a short conversation, the confederate leaves while muttering 'jackass' (directed at the participant) under his breath. The Southern participants were significantly more likely to follow the confederate and attempt a physical confrontation (the study was set up so that the confederate would be past a self-locking door by the time the participant tried to follow them).

6. The researchers also looked at physiological markers of violence. For example, we know that when people act aggressively, their testosterone levels rise. Testosterone levels rose far more among Southerners who were placed in a situation of potential conflict compared to Northerners in the same situation.

7. Finally, I'm going to describe a pretty clever study by two of the researchers (Nisbett and Cohen). They sent out letter to potential employers across the country. The letters were from an imaginary 27-year-old man fresh out of prison. The man explains the reason for his incarceration in the letter. In the control letter, he has been imprisoned for stealing a car. In the 'honor-condition' letter, he has been imprisoned for killing a man in rage after the man publicly taunted him about sleeping with his girlfriend. The dependent variable of the study was the warmth of the letter the employers sent back. There was no significant difference between Northern and Southern employers in the control condition. But Southern employers responded far more warmly to the murderer than the Northern ones.

Just a disclaimer: My summary is incomplete and perhaps not as clear as it could be. I would be very happy to answer any questions, but anyone curious would be far more served by reading some of the studies or from the textbook I mentioned (the section in question is the final parts of the Chapter 4).

[Brujah]

Where's the sum'bitch blocking the door way?