The measure of efficacy then, is the number of mass shootings with or without the rhetoric, not relative to the population as a whole. We can't have a true negative control in national politics, but we have seen the number of mass shootings on the rise since Trump, and a number of those shooters have explicitly echoed his rhetoric. That suggests that the rhetoric is efficacious.

Yeah not like you ever said political rhetoric isn’t the problem, mental health is.

This is not paint by numbers. I know you are brand new here with no posting history but others have years and years. People can remember the wrong things you said three days ago and it is still relevant to the discussion.

Calling stuff out of bounds because it was not specifically addressed in one post is nonsense and disingenuous.

Don’t worry buddy you will catch on by the time the next poker boom hits.

Which brings me back to Dayton, and the point I was making. You can't be dismissive of the counter-rhetoric then, even if it was not as significant in his case. I'd even buy the argument that Trump led to the counter-rhetoric that appealed to Dayton, and at least contributed, even in a small degree, to his as well.

People were completely dismissive of rheotric in Dayton's case, and I do not find that to be consistent with the views discussed in relation to El Paso, or this one.

Actually, I said bad parenting and violence inside the home was the cause, and that leads to everything else. Nice of you to think I'm just screaming "mental health", while mentioning you remember what I post.

itshotinvegas arguing that to be consistent we need to consider the butterfly effect in Dayton if we're going to consider that the terrorists own manifesto in El Paso came out of a trump rally speech or what not.

What was the counter rhetoric in question?

totally not manipulative

No, what I'm saying is, if you think political rhetoric is as cause, or a significant cause, you need to address all rhetoric, but as you can see, a particular kind of rhetoric is ignored, or dismissed, while another particular kind is put on a pedestal. No one in their right mind can say rhetoric on the left has not escalated as well.

So, if you are telling me Trump and 8chan has led to increase in mass shootings, then goes without question I should also be worried about the escalating counter-rhetoric. There is no worry there, though...or people would not be so dismissive of the engagement with antifa, in regards to the Dayton shooter.

Wait a minute, I thought a particular kind of rhetoric leads to the efficacy of mass shootings? But, you are not convinced of that, so you want to see specific rhetoric for yourself? Dayton was actively engaged in with the political rhetoric of antifa.

Yeah bro, the kind of rhetoric matters. If you think that someone who happens to be a Warren fan shot up a crowd because of their shared support for Medicare for All, you are a crazy person. What was the antifa rhetoric in question?

It makes no sense that the rhetoric of Trump is so sinister, and you need to be convinced that antifia rhetoric meets the same qualifications. I'm being elusive not answering your question because it's not even debatable that antifa's rhetoric is just as, if not more inflammatory than Trumps, and Dayton was engaged with it.

Further, you are not the one who decides which is good rhetoric and what is bad rhetoric. If you do not think antifia's rhetoric qualifies, then fine, say it, and we can be done. If you are not aware of antifia's rhetoric, then I can use the same line others have used on me, go read it.

Wtf is this? Post the specific antifa rhetoric that you think inspired this. You need to be specific. Like, is it that hard to see the difference here? Trump constantly refers to Latin immigrants as invaders and talks about how violent they are and deploys the military to stop them, dude writes a manifesto using the same rhetoric just before he goes out and kills a bunch of Latinos. There is no simila clear chain with the Dayton killer. This is absurd.

Yes, it's debatable what "antifa" (a decentralized group without any one message or messenger) says as well as what aspects the Dayton shooter approved of and may have acted upon, and if that is equivalent to what Trump says, who is one guy clearly saying things which quite clearly line up with why the El Paso shooter says he decided to kill people.

Maybe I missed it, but are there people aligned with antifa who preach murdering your sister? Were some of those messages the ones he liked on Twitter? Because that would be quite relevant to the conversation!

Okay, lets remove Dayton and El Paso, again, for a moment. Your base position is that the particular type rhetoric Donald Trump uses, leads to mass shootings.

First, it does not seem you think this kind of rhetoric exist on the left side of the spectrum (maybe you do, but do not seem too concerned about it when discussing rhetoric, and seem to actively argue against it be correlated with the type in question). You are skeptical that antifia engages in this particular type of rhetoric that Donald trumps uses (not the context of the rhetoric, but the type of rhetoric).

I think it's plainly obvious antifia (or, antifia members) engages in the same type of rhetoric, and Dayton was engaged with antifia on some level.

Calling people who work at ICE "monsters". Calling 50 percent of the country that support Drumpf, "nazis" and that they are racist.

You’re almost there, one more step. Who did the Dayton killer kill? We’re they fascists or perceived fascists? Did he kill members of ICE?

Only about 40 percent of the country supports Trump, and yes, they are racist, but I don't think that has led to any mass shootings. Do you have a manifesto we can read?

Cite the person who said it. Was it Warren or Bernie orrrrrr...?

Some of the people who work at ICE are monsters.

50% of the country do not support trump. But, yeah, racists might be close to 50%.

It bolsters the argument about El Paso.

You are missing the point.

The argument is the type of rhetoric Trump uses, causes mass shooters. Irrelevant of the context of that rhetoric. Trump does not have a monopoly on the type of rhetoric, neither does the right...it's exist across all spectrum's of mass media. I would agree the right, and Trump mostly have a monopoly on the context to which Trump uses. At every juncture in these type of conversations, the type of rhetoric, when it's used by the left, in a different context, it get's hand waved away, while at the same time arguing that type of rhetoric is dangerous, when coming from the right.

If you are telling me I need to be concerned about Trumps rhetoric in regards to mass shootings, then it makes sense to be concerned with the lefts rhetoric as well, when they engage in the same type of thing. We have some evidence to indicate Dayton was engaged with antifia. Of course, we get a hand wave.


How can I buy into a position (particular type of rhetoric is bad for mass shootings) that is not consistently applied?

We aren't missing your point at all. We understand what you are saying clearly. We think it is bullshit. You don't just get to claim that the left says equivalent things with no examples, and we do not have to believe you if you don't.

No. It's not obvious. It's not the same type of rhetoric. It's not the same level, at least it hasn't been shown the Dayton engagement was a similar level, not even close. stfu, gtfo, and fo

Oh my, I Dunning-Kruger myself so much I'd blocked out that he hasn't read the thing.

Go read it?


I did not see anyone but mircobet comment on this:


https://twitter.com/rezaaslan/status...60628592209920

or this:

claims trump is exterminating latinos.




If you think that's not the same type of rhetoric...you are full of ****.

I'm not claiming Dayton viewed these specifically, but he was politically engaged with the left, and, in particular antifia, and this type of thing is not uncommon, and to claim otherwise is bullshit.

It's completely inconsistent to ignore this guys interest in lefty rhetoric, if you are concerned with a type of rhetoric causing mass shootings.

Now, I'm calling bullshit on MrWookies concern with political rhetoric.