636
Anon is a statistic
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2025
636 points (92.9% liked)
Greentext
6037 readers
1840 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So... I'm curious why you think gang shootings shouldn't count or is a bit disingenuous to include.
It's disingenuous because they're not everywhere. They're in a specific subset of high crime areas.
It's a very own problem in its own right, but when including in a statistic used to represent all of America as shooting people up is what makes it a poor and often intentionally misleading statistic as compared to how safe you actually are in the average area
They're also typically more targeted, less random
and it regularly involves a specific group of people, often times doesn't really even involve every day normal people, as opposed to a mass shooting, where the literal point is killing normal people.
Exactly! We're not having hundreds of random shootings in a given year, a very small subset are those crazy, heinous shootings where someone decides to hurt as many people as possible. Most of the incidents don't make national news because they're something like a drive by or similar.
We should absolutely fix the gang problems, but the solutions there are very different from the solutions for random mass shootings.
Nice dog whistle.
The virctims in gang violence include innocent bystanders.
We all know exactly what you're really saying here and you'll deny and make excuses about it.
i mean it certainly can, but statistically, gang violence is going to be between gangs. Whether or that happens to be among specific racial, or ethnic groups is a different story entirely.
Of course there is also the question of gang violence hitting non violent members of the local community which may or may not be involved in that gang specifically, but that's a different problem.
yeah, and it's that specific communities, which tend to be correlative with racial/ethnic groups (you wouldn't disagree with me on this one, judging by your comment acknowledging this fact) tend to have issues with discriminate, or indiscriminate violence between members of their community, for various reasons.
This is usually a phenomenon restricted to certain geographic areas though, it rarely makes it way outside of these areas, to places where "mass violence" is most commonly reported on. Because it's not common.
quick edit: all i'm going to say, is that im not reading into the racial/ethnic problem here, you are. I'm just pointing out that gang violence tends to be isolated, concentrated, and easy to avoid.
Just because you read into it wrong doesn't make your bullshit interpretation correct.
Yes, There are innocent bystanders that die. It's a major issue. The only thing I'm trying to say is that it isn't the same issue as widespread violence
You used those additional qualifiers. You're just back peddling. You're clearly indicating it's not a big deal because it's not people like you who are affected.
statistically, someone who goes outside, unless they go into a shitty part of town, where this kind of violence is more common, isn't going to be exposed to it.
It's like claiming that because we bombed japan in ww2, that the US population has radiation sickness.
That was someone else who said that, not me. You also missed the context part at the start of that sentence
because it's a statistical anomaly, it's like including capital punishment in homicide numbers.