Anonymous #2 6d

And that should be clear but apparently it’s not clear that shootings by trans people are insanely rare

10

Anonymous #2 6d

No I meant to put 2% for women. Sorry I’m trying to do other stuff at the same time and it’s making me dumb

13

Anonymous #2 6d

100.6% is pretty easily attributed to a rounding error, right? As for the other one, it shouldn’t add up to 100%; trans men & women are part of the men and women stats, and they shouldn’t be 100% because there’s also intersex people

14

Anonymous #3 6d

And the not adding up to 100% exactly is me rounding from multiple studies (with similar but not the same numbers, judged the definition of mass shooters differently) and people not identifying as any of those things

6

Anonymous #1 6d

where did they do that?

9

Anonymous #4 6d

America

-6

Anonymous #1 6d

Try that again. Where did OP do that?

6

Anonymous #4 6d

I never said OP committed 43% of gun homicide

-5

Anonymous #1 6d

You’re struggling. One more time. Where did OP equate the stats of the shooters to the likelihood that, that race or identity would commit that offense?

5

Anonymous #4 6d

First time you actually explained your question instead of just assuming I can read your thoughts

-4

Anonymous #4 6d

Lines 3-8

-4

Anonymous #1 6d

You’re saying that when they are detailing how much of the population out of all shooters that is, that’s equating them to the likelihood of the crime?

13

Anonymous #4 6d

Likelihood to shoot someone is the same as likelihood of being a shooter

-1

Anonymous #4 6d

Thought that was common sense

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

When did they detail the likelihood to shoot someone?

6

Anonymous #4 6d

First stat

-1

Anonymous #4 6d

On every line with a percentage listed

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

so saying the stat is making the comparison?

2

Anonymous #1 6d

OP is responding to the common transphobic lie that’s been pushed in recent months that transgender people are more statistically likely to be mass shooters, which is blatantly untrue. That does not mean that OP is saying being a cisgender man predisposes one to mass shootings. Because we can acknowledge that a group can be over-represented in crime without being biologically disposed to it by that identity.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Implying that Black people are over-represented in violent crime BECAUSE they are Black is racist. Just as it would be misandristic and stupid to claim that cis men who are the majority of mass shooters are that way BECAUSE they are cisgender men.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

That's true though even if it is misandrist. Men are naturally predisposed towards violence, women aren't.

0

Anonymous #1 6d

That’s a dumb ass argument when most men are not violent and don’t engage in violence, and also lets violent men off the hook for their actions by implying a sort of “boys will be boys” element about it. I don’t accept that men are naturally inclined to violence because I’m a man who is not naturally inclined to violence, unless you count that I enjoy violent works of fiction. And women like that shit too.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

I think men are more capable of physical violence by virtue of just being built for it, but I think the reason men are over represented in violent crime is tied to gender roles. Even in the criminal world, there’s still gender roles, in fact they might be even more rigid than in legitimate life. Gang soldiers tend to be men for example because no gang is grooming women into being soldiers for them, they don’t see that as a woman’s work even with the great equalizer that is the gun.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

Women are more inclined towards "dark fantasy" (aka books about chicks getting raped and liking it) for violence in literature, Men tend to like reading graphic depictions of murder and torture. Cut it whatever way you want, use your own life as an example, whatever. Men are proven to be naturally inclined towards violence, women are not.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Broad generalizations about groups of people that number 4 billion each are generally not going to be correct. Women are just as capable of violence when pushed to it as men are, men are simply more likely to be pushed into it. Some of the best snipers in the history of warfare were women. Women blowing people’s heads off with Mosin-Nagant rifles. Predilections of violence are based around upbringing and current environment, not just biology.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Also nice AI Overview as if that’s not literally a “tell me what I wanna hear” machine lmao

1

Anonymous #1 6d

I think there is somewhat of a point that men are more inclined towards violence biologically due to testosterone and stuff but that is so minimal compared to how we see these these insane significant numbers because of social and environmental factors

4

Anonymous #6 6d

Direct quote from Oxford actually https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/roots-aggression

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Sexual-selection theory says that, sure, but is sexual-selection theory the ONLY relevant theory in this area of behavioral study? I don’t think so. Especially not once you live in a society with marriage norms, because that makes the issue of sexual selection much less of an issue.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

Sexual selection theory is incredibly relevant when talking about behavioral differences between men and women

1

Anonymous #1 6d

See, there’s the context the AI omitted, that social-role theory is a competing theory, which means neither one is scientific consensus, and it’s still a debate. You’ve just proven my point by completing the quote and showing me what the “tell me what I wanna hear” machine didn’t show you in the search results.

1

Anonymous #1 6d

I think in this specific context of what Im talking about especially, being a mass shooter is basically tanking you ever having reproductive success

9

Anonymous OP 6d

I mean you can say its minimal but clearly it isn't if you can see an incredible difference in the amount of violence being committed by men compared to the amount of violence being committed by women

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Yeah, social-role theory is also incredibly relevant when discussing behavioral differences between men and women, I didn’t say it was irrelevant, I said the picture you were painting is incomplete.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

Pulling keywords from an article isn't something only AI does either, these popups with relevant information predate Google AI

1

Anonymous #1 6d

Women have more avenues out of a bad situation than violence due to their social roles, which you seem to be ignoring the entire theory of because it doesn’t fit your point.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

I mean that really makes it a "chicken or the egg" scenario. Do women have more avenues out of a bad situation than violence because they are not naturally predisposed towards it, or are women not naturally predisposed towards violence because they have more avenues out of a bad situation than violence?

1

Anonymous #1 6d

The way our society is set up, it’s normal for a woman to marry up, it’s almost never normal for a woman to marry down. So there we have marriage as a way out of a tough spot without turning to violence. Historically, it’s been much easier for a poor woman to become a nun than a poor man to become a priest, so there’s the clergy, as another avenue out of poverty without violence for women. Societies in general aim to take more care of the poor woman than the poor man, out of paternalism, etc.

1

Anonymous #6 6d

Either way if it were untrue that men are in some way predisposed towards violence (either naturally or as a result of societal norms), you would be able to make the argument that women are just as likely to commit violent acts (they aren't.)

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

Good thing that’s not the argument I was making then, bud

2

Anonymous #6 6d

Whats your argument then? You never really made it clear

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

That biological essentialism with regard to criminality is not the correct way to look at it. Especially when you’re basing that essentialism on race, which has much less evidence of substantive biological and genetic differences than sex. I can give you that men are more likely to be violent than women, with a mix of both nature and nurture factors behind that. But you started with race, and there’s not really any scientific evidence of differences in nature factors between races like for sex.

3

Anonymous #6 6d

Maybe it should be studied more

-1

Anonymous #1 6d

I mean the genetic studies show that there’s more genetic diversity within racial groups than there is marked differences between racial categories. And the reason for that is because racial categories are completely made up. If you went back to 1400 AD and started talking about “the white race” motherfuckers would not have a CLUE what you were on about. Because those categories weren’t made up until the 15-1600s when the Europeans needed an excuse to treat Africans and Native Americans worse.

2

Anonymous #1 6d

Not to mention all the types of white people who used to not be counted in “white people” as a label at all. If you were to go back to 1900 and tell someone that one day the Irish and the Italians will be considered white just like the Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and their head would spin.

3

Anonymous #2 6d

They add up like that because they’re rounded. Like, the real stat for the trans one is .001% of mass shootings

1