For a long time I'd get involved with confident, self-possessed women who started picking fights six months into dating because they enjoyed the catharsis. It took me three major relationships to find the line between "assertive" and "mean".
It takes time and experience to learn lessons, and big problems rarely manifest early on in a relationship. Ignoring red flags is foolish, but misinterpretation happens.
It isn't a bad faith comparison, you're just seeing cognitive dissonance in action. A person who believes that bigotry is wrong is having their deeply held bigotry pointed out.
Rather than reject one of those two incongruous beliefs, they tell themselves (and insist to others) that the person pointing out their bigotry is in some way wrong despite their argument being rock solid.
So the "white gamer bros in Dallas, Texas" had no overlap with 4 chan users who realized they were in front of cameras and could do some trolling IRL?
I had heard that "white gamer bros" were few and far between on 4 chan, and certainly weren't the sort to start or support any of the trolling the site was notorious for. /S
That's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. They only use it because CNN and the ADL wouldn't backtrack, thus giving their claims validity after the fact.
We, the public, can stop that bullshit in it's tracks by rejecting the whole premise and insisting on the actual, innocent meaning of the gesture.
4 chan started a prank saying that the ok sign was actually spelling out "WP" meaning "white power".
The ADL and a bunch of news agencies bought it hook, line, and sinker. Pretty quickly scuba divers, anyone who has been a teenage boy in the past few decades, and really just anyone with a pulse and a brain cell pointed out how ridiculous it would be to believe that.
Some of the groups that got tricked (the ADL most notably) doubled down instead of admitting that they got got. They found like one fringe neo-nazi group that started doing it (probably after seeing it on 4 chan) and insisted "SeE? RaCiSt Dog whistle!".
There's nothing wrong with the "OK" sign. It's perfectly innocent.
Because the gun laws in place are about as far as things can go without repealing the second amendment. Further laws are either doomed to fail or make only marginal differences.
Those bills and proposals waste precious political capital that could otherwise be used passing laws that address the root causes of homicide.
Congress loves to let issues fester to garner attention and drum up support. They've been fucking around with the debt ceiling for decades to do that, and that's a problem that they create from whole cloth.
The political will of the populace to make real changes to address the root causes of homicide are squandered by focusing on the weapons used. Want to see those bills pass? Don't buy into the dog and pony show that is gun control.
If you really, truly believe that banning guns is the silver bullet to solving homicides get the second amendment repealed. All the half measures that get thrown out time and time again are usually unconstitutional and doomed to fail, they're just there to keep the public engaged.
They'd have my vote, along with probably tens of millions of other independents.
Honestly, gun control is the "poison pill" of the Democratic platform. They've got a ton of great ideas and policies but demand one of your civil rights in exchange. Even for people who aren't into guns, the idea giving up any civil right is problematic to say the least.
Buddy, you're obsessing over the means. Focus on motive.
I'd rehash the same points about how a person can commit mass murder with a car, but for guys like you talking about murder weapons is like being a pig in shit.
You're missing the point, none of them really want the social safety nets, that would kill the wedge issue. Keeping people arguing about gun control drives political engagement and votes. Both parties have a vested interest in not resolving the issue. Actually solving the problem would be a nightmare for them.
Look, if you want to spend the rest of your life watching your elected officials chase symptoms in order to drum up funds and votes, go right ahead. Just don't say you weren't warned when you let them get away with it.
When politicians are looking to score points with the public will they enact expensive social safety nets, or will they push for cheap and quick weapon bans?
Do politicians care about efficacy, or do they care about appearing to take action?
If a person's goal is to reduce homicides the means need to be decoupled from the argument. It's highly counterintuitive, but four decades of US domestic policy have proven that if the means of homicide are a part of the discussion politicians will focus on it in order to look like they're doing something without spending enormous amounts of taxpayer money - efficacy be damned.
Stereotyping people based on aspects of their personality they were born with is wrong. Period.