Is the voilence attributed to the decline of the white male?

[HeyYou]

Violence has always been a problem, the entire World over ... and to read something into

it other than mankinds penchant for his own self destruction is to miss it completely.

 

This, in a nutshell, is basically the issue. The decline of society as a whole. The lack of personal responsibility, the 'no one ever fails' mentality of schools. Etc.

 

Mankind has always been best at finding new and better ways to kill his fellow man. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else.

[kvnchrist]

Hmmm, your headline seems to have very little in common with the body of your post.

Although I did follow up on your link and it read, "Guns and the Decline of the Young man",

nothing at all about a "white male" in the article's headline.

 

Though I did notice that the same article did mention the name of Seung-Hui Cho who went on

violent killing spree and took the lives of 32 innocent people and wounded another 17 innocent

people at Virginia Polytechnic ... and he was a Korean.

So as far as I'm concerned your post could also have headlined the statement ... " Is the violence

attributed to the decline of the Oriental male" but it did'nt but it could have.

 

You see KVN, what I'm trying to get at here is that your post concerning the shooting at Newtown

and your insert of the term "... decline of the White male" is in fact a racially motivated statement.

 

I've just perused the data from the US Department of Justice and if the horrifying and senseless

shooting of inncoent people (whether it be kids or adults) by a certain "White" person says that

now because of this the " .... White man is in Decline".

Then according to the data from the Department of Justice the "decline of the Black man" and the

growing levels of violence amongst the Hispanic community must be ensuring their decline too ?

I think not.

 

I would have rather stated that the "violence should be attributed to the over abundance of guns

and the general lack of respect toward human life" and not some racial putdown.

Violence from ANY group is ALWAYS unacceptable, irrespective of who they may be, but no

one group should be targeted.

 

Secondly ...

 

Perhaps it could be said that because of the Economic woes that the "White man" is now in,

he is in a "decline", and thus because of his apparent decline he is now losing it and the

the levels of White violence is increasing.

 

But no, if you look back at the Great Depression, which lasted for 11 years (way longer than the current

finacial woes), and had a way higher rate of unemployment in the US than you are currently facing,

up to 25 percent at one time.

Yet you don't see the same levels of unfettered violence as you do now ... Why not ?

 

Because people had a greater level of respect and value for human life back then.

That's what it ultimately boils down to, not some racial issue or thing.

 

Though other issues like "last hired and first fired" concerning Black people during that time

was an issue also the fact that at one time over 500,000 Mexican-Americans were illegaly

deported so that White people could get jobs isnt a pretty picture.

 

Violence has always been a problem, the entire World over ... and to read something into

it other than mankinds penchant for his own self destruction is to miss it completely.

My post was not meant to be a racial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[sukeban]

@Nintii

I definitely think that there is a demographic bias toward white men in examples of "mass shooting" types of situations. Yes, barrios and ghettos are dangerous places, but they are largely dangerous only for the people living in them. Gang members don't go on road trips to public spaces and open fire against people that they don't know--instead, it's far more tribal and personally directed violence against people--largely of their own ethnicity--who have done them perceived wrongs. You have score-settling, vendettas, and competition involved in inner-city violence, features that do not at all describe indescriminate shootings where the target is "everybody" or "the world" or "the man" or whatever.

Did you (or anybody else) happen to catch Wayne LaPierre's press conference today, ostensibly responding to Obama's State of the Union address? In it, he basically hyped up "white fears" of marauding black gangs, drug lord invasions from Mexico, government stormtroopers, the imminent collapse of our economy/society/the world, and basically topped it off with his ultimate panacea: buy MOAR guns! Other ethnicities are not like this, they are not obsessed with firearms in this bizarre post-apocalyptic way. That is a feature of white people, and, more specifically, white men. It isn't some weird genetic sympton of "being white" though--instead, it is 100% rural/suburban American white culture. Lots of these people have been getting hammered by the economy and have seen their country change before their eyes. Some of them might actually be racists and/or have religious reasons to fuel their anger, but I'd imagine that most of them are simply insecure with their place in the world: in the economy, in their families, in our nation. Getting owned in the economy and feeling insecure is a perfectly reasonable response, and reasonable people can differ about how much immigration we need or don't need, but where lots of these folks go off the rails is in their listening to the "easy answers" pablum of the far-right, a group that tells them to blame and hate nearly everybody else for the way things are now and, to top it off, instructs them to arm themselves against them.

From this large group of angry--and increasingly paranoid/desperate--heavily armed people, it is almost inevitable that some of them will take "the message" to heart and act on what talk radio all but begs them to do. And if it isn't politically motivated, one can easily guess where a disgruntled and mentally ill teenager may best obtain a gun (at home, from their parents). Sure, the VT shooter was Korean-American and the renegade cop in LA was African-American, but they are clear outliers amidst the general trend. White Americans are probably the most heavily armed demographic in the world (excluding criminal organizations) and they are living through trying economic, social, and political times (but who isn't these days?). Under pressure people are strange enough, but when there's a cache of firearms and hundreds/thousands of rounds stored in the basement... well, no good is ever going to come out of that.

TLDR: Per capita rates of violence might be higher for other demographics, but white Americans are the most likely to be the perpetrators of massive and random violence. This is so for reasons I've mentioned before, but include economic distress, rural/suburban culture, and history. High rates of black-on-black violence in Chicago does not make me fearful that an African-American gangbanger will go on a shooting spree in public, but each time there is a mass shooting I automatically assume that it was a white male... and I am hardly ever contradicted.

EDIT:

Wayne LaPierre's speech: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/13/stand-and-fight/

Edited February 15, 2013 by sukeban

[kvnchrist]

I think you need to get out more.

 

 

Did you (or anybody else) happen to catch Wayne LaPierre's press conference today, ostensibly responding to Obama's State of the Union address? In it, he basically hyped up "white fears" of marauding black gangs, drug lord invasions from Mexico, government.

This taking the words of a few idiots out there as well as linking talk radio as if everyone on the right who has a radio program spews the same hatfilled crap that a few do is as ludicrous as several on the right thinking that public education and public radio indoctrinates American youth in the socialists agenda. What gets me is the idea that anyone would assume that nuts and crackpots are getting inspiration from the news media. Certainly they may turn in such stations because they are ideologically compatible to what the person is saying.

I remember when the Unibomber was caught. Those who dispised those in the environmental movement, that they connected to the left by virtue of not being able to see past their noses, were saying the same thing as you just did, but about the left. I have friends on the left and the right. Good friends and good people. There is no shortness of either honest upfront individuals or wacked out crackpots on either side of the political movement and the idea that anyone, anywhere needs to be motivated in their intentions, no matter if they are violent or not is dehumanizing and patently false.

These people care nothing for anyone, which is why they try to make everyone pay for their discomfort. They couldn't care less what conservative or liberals say, because they only want to have their voice to be heard and that voice needs a gun in it's hand.

[sukeban]

@kvn

LaPierre, Limbaugh, and their ilk might be idiots, but if you don't think that they represent and speak for a _large_ number of people in the United States, you are woefully naive. The membership of the NRA is estimated at four million; now, not all NRA members are going to agree with LaPierre, but if they were really that opposed to the crazy things that he says, you would hope they would drop their membership in the organization. Talk radio has tens of millions of listeners dispersed throughout every state, and Limbaugh can essentially dictate the policies of GOP politicians by threatening to rile up his listeners to support a primary challenger. I don't know if Limbaugh or LaPierre actually believe the crazy words that they say--or if they just do it for the money--but their messages are heard and internalized by millions of angry, impressionable, insecure (and armed!!) Americans.

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

Anyway, not all violence is political or pseudo-political violence, but neither is all violence done by "nuts" or "cranks" or whatever else. Truth is, people don't just wake up in the morning wanting to shoot up a Sikh temple, even less so when said shooting is motivated by white supremacist ideology and a mission to "cleanse" the United States of lesser ethnicities. That kind of thinking doesn't just arise out of thin air; instead, it has to be planted (which in his case happened in the Army) and then nurtured by like-minded individuals and their media (in his case Neo-Nazi metal and the whole white supremacist "literature" scene). He might not have been worshiping at the altar of Limbaugh, but I'm sure he could agree with him when he calls immigration an "invasion" or that "America is no longer American" due to the influx of other cultures and peoples. The "mainstream" variant of this language is GOP politicians talking about "real Americans" versus, what, "fake" Americans? Such language is reductionist and is merely code for talking about "white conservative" ("real Americans") versus everybody else (fake Americans). It's that kind of beleaguered, Manichean, and paranoid mentality that, when paired with infinite amounts of guns (or, to quote Gearbox, "Bazillions of guns!!"), can give rise to shocking examples of violence.

But beyond political violence, there is still white American rural/suburban gun culture. I personally don't understand the allure of firearms--nor anything connected with their use--but I'll agree that they're largely legit when used by responsible, law-abiding citizens. I don't think there's any issue if somebody wants to practice marksmanship, shoot skeet, hunt ducks or whatever as recreation, the only problem arises when people start viewing guns as the ultimate tool for "conflict resolution" between people or groups of people. There's also the matter of gun-accessibility, where it is far easier for a disgruntled teenager to obtain a gun from their parents if they are gun owners than it is for that same teenager to get one if he has to buy it illegally or obtain it through some other channel. With respect to these two issues, I would say that those brought up in conservative gun culture are more amenable to calls for political violence and rampant paranoia because they will feel like their "way of life" is "under attack" by all those fake Americans. Suburban kids who have parents that own guns also have a "leg up" in terms of pulling off mass shootings, as they have the "tools of the trade" already in-house and potentially at their disposal.

Yes, there will always be crazy people in the world, but I would caution against merely calling all of these shooters "crazy." That, IMO, is just an easily digestible bromide that misses the true issues at play here, namely rising right-wing extremism and the easy access to guns that many (white) Americans have in their homes. You might think that is dehumanizing or whatever--to look beyond explaining away these incidents as convenient "craziness"--but the facts speak for themselves. People might be slightly unhinged or have personality disorders (paranoia, anger issues), etc. but they are given "targets" by listening to other people speak or by reading radical words in print. I repeat: people don't just wake up wanting to shoot at minorities because they are "crazy"--instead they are given direction by radical reactionary ideology that all but begs them to do so. If people were really that sad or mad in a vacuum, maybe they would have just killed themselves, but when they are all ginned up after reading or listening to the insane rhetoric of the right, how can we be at all surprised when some of these people begin to take action on the ideas that they repeatedly hear?

[StormHammer81]

I am a White male and am also a responsible gun owner. Served (6) years in the Military and am skilled in proper usage of Assault Rifles and Pistols. Every day in my life, including my time in the service, I had to deal with crazy, racist, confused and bitter people. Still do. This is interesting, you guys keep talking about how the White Male is "no longer necessary" and how many of us are "Right-wing extremists". Of the people that I have met and dealt with, people will be people. A racist and I would say a bitter person towards White Men would make a statement such as this. You cannot say something like that and then turn around and be like, well they're not all that way blah blah blah. Either you are racist against White Men and are bitter towards us, or you're not. For my part, I'm not racist, I'm not bitter. Although, I'm a little perplexed at how so many people can hate on White people, especially directly going after the White male.

 

The White male is why you have America. For better or worse, this was our dream, this was built by us. The reason you can sit and use at a computer to spew your hate - at all today - is because White people invented the Computer and the Corporation and America and and and... It seems your hatred towards White people is politically motivated. So now, are *seriously* going to tell me you are willing to hate and bias a race because of "party platform"? Excuse me, I'm not perfect, not the smartest, most likeable guy in the world but that's sick. If your ideology ever puts you in a place to look down on someone because they're not the "politically correct" race or gender, then you've got some serious issues yourself. What's even sadder is you people are allowed to jump on here and broadcast your left-wing hate speeches to the entire world. I don't care who you decide to vote for, I don't care what race or gender you are, I am a man who really only cares about his freedom. That's it. Like my ancestor's did who were FORCED to flea from people like you for their very lives, from the onerous Catholic church and from the Tyrants trying to burn people at the stake and rape them with taxation because they weren't "politically correct". The right can do the same thing as the left, but, there is such a thing as left-wing extremism and it's all over the posts on the page alone. Sukeban. No surpise there.

 

I think everyone should be open to free speech and if you or I don't like it ~ change the f*cking dial. The next time someone irritates your political opinions, calm your self down and realize that this is at least *supposed to be* a free country and as citizens, we need to try and respect one another no matter the race and gender. Unfortunately, I'm afraid particularly the left-wing and right-wing leaders won't allow the hate to die and keep fueling tension in their "sermons". I must agree though, once the "White male" population dwindles you will see more violence, in particular against White people just like what happened in South Africa. The White people want to defend what's ours, we want our freedom. And the minorities do not seem to believe in freedom like we, you have other beliefs which are tied in Relgion, culture and history. That's how things work in South America, Middle East, Africa and everywhere else they don't believe in Freedom and self-determination and the right to protect oneself. That's the difference between us. White people make some mistakes but we try and follow LOGIC and reasoning. In many of these countries, they follow religion and family ties and what happened 3000 years ago. Not saying that some White people don't do these things too, but how many Democracies and Republics did you see before they developed this stuff in Greece? Then Rome thought is was a good idea, and Europe was ruled by kings (not dictators or despots) during the Dark ages but even then it was different. Knowledge was rewarded, it was highly regarded. Progress was made in countries with White-males. Doesn't mean we're better than anyone and that's not what I'm saying.

 

What I am saying, is you f*ckers better hope the White males last a good long time or else this civilization we have will break down almost overnight and the US and Europe will become a warzone with gangs and thugs fighting over Religion and race. The most racist people I have EVER encountered were Black. My friend is an policemen and his friend is narcotics office and there are some places that they will not even enter. Some areas of Europe have no-go zones dominated by Muslims, they're like min-police states. Scary. How many white neighborhood no-go zones have you encountered? Have you ever been afraid to walk down one of our streets? Has anyone ever been afraid on offending a "White-male". And then there are some examples sure but in general and on average, I would say no.

 

Truthfully Sukeban, I think minorities aren't necessary. I think we have enough minorities and illegals "poruing in" in droves while Legitimate Immigrants are BEGGING and PLEADING to be allowed to enter this country legally. Whose going to pay your EBT and your Food Stamps and your welfare checks if all the White people stop working. If we're all so unnecessary, then you should be able to pay your own way. And if you're so responsible, then you should be man enough when you go to the pulpit to stop blaming white people for all your ills and grow the f*ck up. Or better yet, GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY. If you can't respect the founder of this great land, then you don't need to be among us. We're hit hard enough as it is and we don't need to deal with anymore spite or hostility coming from the very people we're FORCED to support.

 

Can you handle the opinion of another fellow American citizen? A veteran who just wants to be free and cares about the direction his country is going? As a White male, do I not anymore get a say in what my fore-fathers built?

 

Thank you for your time.

Edited February 16, 2013 by StormHammer81

[myrmaad]

I am a woman descended from a european white male and his native born american indian wife, as well as poor white irish starving trash on the other side who happened to parent sons who fault, one on the side of the confederates who died, and one on the side of the union who lived well into his 80s with his youngest brother in the house my grandmother grew up in.

 

No. You do not get more of a say than any other citizen.

 

I think this thread has gone far enough.