This post isn't really on-topic for c/technology. Please post it in c/Politics instead.

Just jumping in here to remind folks to Be Nice. We've had to clean up some comments in here already and if issues continue the thread will be locked.

This source was founded and is fully funded by the Heritage Foundation, and this article comes from the staff of the far-right Daily Caller. This is not a reliable source and anything coming from them should be taken with an entire salt mine.

I suspect their argument would be that they are more like a flea market. If you buy something fake or faulty at a flea market then the flea market probably isn't liable, the seller is. Now, I don't think this argument holds water, especially in light of Amazon's practice of combining all of the stock of a single product into one place, regardless of who the seller is, so that there's no way to know if you'll actually get product from that seller.

I don't think you're trying to be xenophobic with this joke, but I feel like you should know that it's probably not landing the way you want it to...

Hi @rosethornRangerTTV. I can see you've just recently joined our instance, so let me first say: Welcome!

While you're here, please keep in mind the ethos of Beehaw when interacting with other folks in the comments - Be(e) Nice. We're working hard to make Beehaw a pleasant little corner of the internet that is welcoming and inclusive.

I personally don't have any issues with something like this being posted in !politics, but @coyotino's question is valid. I think in the future it wouldn't hurt to include a question (or questions) related to your ideas to help get discussion started, or link to an article expanding on the idea that you're interested in discussing. Regardless, I'm glad you're here, and I hope you enjoy the community that we're working to build.

Reports should work even if you're registered on another Lemmy instance, but they might be broken if you're browsing from Kbin. Kbin's federation is a hot mess and we've had a lot of issues with it.

I don't have a problem with this thread. I was already aware of it, I'm aware it's borderline editorializing, but honestly I think it's funny and I'm not going to be a stickler when it isn't harming anyone or making the community worse off. I'm more concerned with editorialized headlines if/when they are misleading or don't reflect the actual contents of the article. If this starts to be a trend, we'll address it, but as a one off it's not a big deal.

There's some research that indicates that there's a "contagion" effect with mass shootings that increases the more they are publicized, and that at least some types of mass killers seem to be motivated by a desire for notoriety. The FBI has backed a campaign for media to minimize coverage of mass killers' names and faces and to focus more on stories about victims in an effort to reduce these particular types of mass killings.

This has definitely given me some things to think about, and really I appreciate you being patient with me.

I feel like the conversation is getting pretty far out of my depth, so again if I say something hurtful please let me know. If it helps, I've been diagnosed with a mild to moderate anxiety disorder, but I'm pretty functional and CBT has been enough for me to get through most of my rough patches. I also have a loved one who suffers from OCD (actual OCD, not the kind where you like things to be neat). I also know how unbelievably frustrating and hurtful it is to be told that you should just "think better" or somehow fix your own "bad thoughts" or "wrong feelings", so if I somehow unintentionally communicated that in my earlier comment I apologize, it's not what I intended.

My conception of mental illness has usually been that the problem is happening before volition really comes into the picture. So in your example of the videogame, it's not necessarily that there's a bug with the controller, but maybe there's a bug with the display. What you're seeing in the "game" isn't accurate in some way, so you wind up in the pit because you didn't see it, or because it seemed like it was somewhere else on the screen, or because something was indicating that the pit was the correct direction to go. The way I've always pictured mental illness is that the inputs on your controller might make perfect sense to another person if they could see what's on your display, but because the display is bugged they lead to the "wrong" outcome. To exit the metaphor a little, I might be feeling intense anxiety about something (or nothing in particular, thanks brain) and avoid it, because anxiety is our brain's signal that something is dangerous and should be avoided. But when that thing is an assignment for school, there's a problem with the input or the perception of that thing. Now, my brain causing me to feel amounts of anxiety that are wildly disproportionate with the thing itself is not really something I can control, but once I understand that my "display" is fucked up in a certain way, I can work around it to a certain degree and remain pretty functional.

I tend to believe that if we were able to get inside people's minds and understand all of the "inputs" they're getting, from their emotions, stray thoughts, traumas, memories, etc that for the vast majority of people, we'd be able to understand why they've made the choices that they make and they would make sense, in light of the information their brain is giving them. That's why the assertion that mass shooters don't have any mental illness is surprising to me. I can't understand why someone would make that choice if their display hasn't gotten fucked up in some major way. Now, maybe it is, but it's entirely environmental or social, or something along those lines. If that's true, then I guess I could make some sense of it, although it's hard for me to understand what experiences would lead to this kind of destructive decision.

Anyway, at this point I'm basically rambling about a bunch of stuff that I really have no expertise or deep understanding of, so I apologize for that, and I apologize again if I've said anything out of line.

I don't think that the author is suggesting that mockery or laughter should be our only action, just that it should be part of the arsenal

Also, tomato, "people are trying to make you ashamed of being white" is a pretty common white supremacist dogwhistle. I'm sure that's not how you intended it, but I think you'd be better served avoiding it in the future.

Right, and I was already aware of several lists of mass shooting using that or similar criteria to determine what fits. It's just a little strange to me to group so many disparate types of events into a list, and then do a study to say "most of these things don't involve mental illness" when most of those events are wildly different from each other.

Yeah, I addressed that briefly in my first comment. This definition of "mass shooting" is much, much broader and very different from what most people are thinking of when people talk about mass shootings. Like, I'm fully aware of how serious the gun violence problem in the US is, but I'm not thinking of a domestic violence situation where multiple people got injured, or a gang related shooting at a club where some bystanders are killed when I hear the term "mass shooting". Don't get me wrong, those situations are tragic, and the availability of guns in the US makes them so much worse, but I understand the psychology of them pretty well, I think. It's not a mystery to me why they are happening. But the kind of situation where a person goes to a place and just starts indiscriminately shooting people is what I don't understand, and it's what I tend to think of when people talk about "mass shootings". Maybe this is just me being wrong, or maybe it's a problem of imprecise terminology.

Hi Tomato - a lot of what you're saying here has already been addressed elsewhere in the thread. The OP isn't just addressing Lemmy, but other Fediverse services like Mastodon as well. He also notes in the article several people who been addressing ways in which Fediverse culture has been toxic to black users. These aren't imagined problems, they exist in a lot of places off of and on Lemmy, and providing suggestions to make these sites better for black users is a good thing, not something to get defensive about. This post isn't accusing you personally of anything, but if you feel challenged by it then it might be a good opportunity for you to interrogate those feelings.

Also, others have addressed your comments about not seeing other's race online, etc, but I think it's worth taking a step back and pausing. If people of color say they experience racism online, even though you don't notice what race other people are, do you think it's possible that there may be systemic problems or unconscious biases that might cause those folks to experience racism even when it is unintended? Those are the kinds of problems that aren't solved by saying "I don't say racist things to people and I don't see color". They're problems that are built into our society just by the fact that we were all born and raised in an imperfect culture.

Nobody is accusing anyone of anything here, and nobody is trying to make anyone feel ashamed of who they are. But we can all benefit from stopping, thinking about the ways that we interact with others, and taking the time to try and be sure that we aren't acting in ways that harm others even if that isn't our intent or we weren't aware of the harm in the first place.

Thanks, I definitely skimmed the article, so missing that is on me.

It's interesting that the profile they mention doesn't really fit what I have in my mind for mass shooters, which would be younger men, not middle-aged. I guess the ones that really stick out to me, like the Columbine, Christchurch, and Uvalde shooters all fit this stereotype that I have, but apparently that doesn't map to reality.

I hope no one takes this to mean that I am trying to stigmatize mental illness or people with mental illnesses, but it seems to me that if there are people who want to be famous or notorious so badly that they kill large numbers of people, that doesn't seem to be the result of a healthy or well ordered mind. Am I misunderstanding how the phrase "mental illness" is being used here? I recognize that the headline is referring specifically to disorders involving psychosis, but they even state that only 25% of mass shooters are associated with non-psychotic mental illnesses. Are emotional/behavioral disorders not being considered here? Or is the mass shooting database they are using one of those that includes any shooting with more than a certain number of people involved, even if that includes events that the typical person would not consider part of the phenomenon of the types of shootings that most people are thinking of when they talk about mass shootings?

Seriously, I hope I am not stepping on anyone's toes or saying something that will be taken as hurtful, because that's genuinely not how I mean it. But I really feel like if someone is in a state that they decide the best course of action for them is to kill a bunch of people they don't know, how could that be the result of a healthy mental and emotional state?

I completely agree. Thank you for this comment. This is one of the reasons that in many cases we try first to just talk to users. Lots of folks have bad days, or just have certain issues that they really struggle with staying calm and being kind about.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, but please remember:

1. Be Nice. You might think your cranky comment isn't a big deal, but when there are dozens of them it can get pretty overwhelming. The dogpile is real.
2. Technology@Beehaw.org is not a "free speech zone". I think Beehaw admins have been pretty clear on this, but our overriding concern is community building and creating a corner of the internet where people are good to one another, not creating yet another site where people can say whatever they like regardless of the harm it might cause others. I understand this might clash with what some see as a fundamental philosophy of the fediverse, but we disagree. This isn't the place to re-litigate those disagreements.

It's practically a guarantee that this Sharon's dog is the most obnoxious, poorly trained little shit to ever walk the earth on four legs, too. Nobody wants your fucking dog, Sharon, it's an unholy terror.