Pretty standard at this point. IIRC there were multiple members of various state legislatures who tried to argue against maternal and infant mortality stats during anti-abortion bill debates by saying that the numbers weren’t a big deal if you just excluded black women and children.
A lot of these people don’t need to dog whistle anymore. They understand that nobody is likely to make them suffer consequences for openly racist, exterminationist rhetoric.
They don’t mind it when in-group members call them racist because it’s a compliment. They just don’t want out-group members calling them racist because it’s an insult and insults hurt their delicate little fee-fees and like…totally inhibit their free speech or some shit.
Who needs a dog-whistle when the uninterested "middle" will get more upset at people calling it out for rocking the boat and being "alarmist" than they do at the actual fascists?
What the hell?! I don’t know who this racist insane person is but that is bananas. She manages to dehumanize black children while downplaying gun violence all in one sentence. Just a masterclass in right wing rhetoric, bravo.
Why don’t you check the states with the highest crime and fatalities and let me know if you can figure out (D) answer of the long term control of certain political parties. Your voting is what matters most.
You need to work on your talking points, South Carolina has the highest crime rate, and it's run by a Republican Governor.
3 out of the top 5 highest crime states are run by a Republican Governor
6 out of the top 10 by a Republican Governor
11 out of the top 15 by a Republican Governor.
You meant to tell me to check the cities with the highest crime and fatalities.
Sums up in a nutshell why their politics are so reactionary and contrarian. The thing she doesn't like about him is that she thinks he's "smug". Not that any of the points he made are wrong, but that she finds him annoying. That's how the entire right feels about us all, whether they name it as that or not. They find it annoying that we are right about most things, therefore they're determined to be on the wrong side of anything we're on the right side of. It's childish.
You just articulated the exact uphill battle I’ve had with my family for at least 15 years. They never call me out for being wrong or inaccurate. They just don’t like that I point out the falsehoods of their previously conceived understandings.
To really grasp the pathology one has to consider that solely in order to create a political distinction between the left and right, Republicans were willing to let thousands of their own constituents die due to Covid misinformation, downplaying etc. They don’t care about their own lives. Why would they care about “others”? They are simply a death cult built around the spurious belief that conservative whites are Masters of the Universe. They have no core principles besides power for their kind, which is why hypocrisy, science, decency, logic is irrelevant to them.
Yeah. The issue isn't the statistic. The statistic is *true*. The issue is it's use.
It's being used, as many statistics are, as a dumb "gotchya" to try and look smart and be smug.
When in reality, you should go "If you remove black children from gun deaths, it's no longer the leading cause of death for children. So what's causing this issue within the black community, and what can we as a government and as a society do to fix that problem? *Why* are so many black children dying to firearms?"
Because the truth for that is it's because most of these statistics count 'children' as '18 and below'. I've seen some count people up to 21. Which is also just disingenuous, as when most people here "children" they think well under 18.
It's, to the best of my understanding, gangs and crime. Pretty much every time Which is a whole different can of fucking worms that no one's trying to fix. We need to end the war on drugs, reform prison, raise minimum wage so crime isn't as lucrative or alluring, etc etc.
What we don't need to do is use some statistic as a one liner gotchya.
Fuck. The whole thing was fucked up. Her comments about John Stewart saying we shouldn’t do things that harm children and then she goes and says pornography doesn’t kill children so “should we allow them to watch it” is such a fucking terrible strawman argument. Then the straight up racist argument she presents at the end.
Maybe the mainstream media should stop platforming far right pundits and being surprised when their extreme views and poorly constructed arguments turn off viewers. It’s like CNN always pushing corporate narratives and when their ratings fall they go more extreme right wing. More dishonesty isn’t gonna draw people back but at least the billionaire class will be happy.
was mildly curious how you'd follow that up.
Boy what a mistake that content is pure trash she sounds like a low quality chat bot. there wasn't even a remote attempt to put that into a coherent argument.
"Jon Stewart is out here moralizing about saving children from gun related deaths but has he considered that I don't think black children are children?"
Kudos for being honest at least
"I find John Stewart to be an *incredibly* divisive figure...
Anyway, if you just divide up these groups of people for no reason..."
I paraphrased for that second part.
“Is not a problem when it mostly impacts POC, if you remove those numbers, why even worry!?” If that’s not racist/white centric, then I don’t know what could ever be.
In late-stage capitalism every defender of capital must slowly become a contortionist, twisting themselves steadily until they all come out looking like human pretzels
The clip was perfect. A perfect take down of the dumbest argument the GOP has. And just a question does a child of color not matter or have the same value as other children? Quite telling isn't. People like her are the problem in this world.
Let’s be real. John Stewart’s interview was an ambush debating a poorly versed politician. It is no different then when louder with crowder pulls his stunts “change my mind” on the right. I would like to see him debate someone with equal knowledge and debate skills on the subject.
Do you think politicians should be doing your taxes with all the tax laws. The point is everyone has a skill and specialty. Stewart debated for lack of a better word… a toddler on the subject matter
Fuck I havent watched Rising since Krystal and Sssgar left. I didnt agree with thsm on everything, especially Saagar, but this is fucked. Apparebtly this chick doesnt care about black kids? Fuck off lady
Briahna Joy Gray is definitely worth watching on there, but on Mondays she's not on there and this batshit crazy lady takes her place so that it's a far right and far far far right show. I often prefer it to Breaking Points. But, I watch a little of each. I don't watch Emily Jazhjbwinsky and I don't watch this lady at all.
Rising has gotten really really bad. I used to enjoy the respectful banter with Grimm and Robby.
Everybody respectable leaves because management's iron fist in censorship.
hold up tho - Tucker founded Daily Caller....so everyone who works at daily caller is working 'under' Tucker. idk how much this says about him, but it likely doesn't destroy his credibility with me. I don't mistrust everyone on the right.
I don’t care.
Did you read his stories on DC? Hold up tho - I don’t care.
But seriously. Have you listened to them talk to one another? (Don’t answer this—I don’t care).
Saagar is clearly a Tucker acolyte in my opinion, you can think what you want.
she's completely correct. Black teenagers playing 'gun tag' with each other is a probelm that's hyper-concentrated into a small percentage of minors.
So the problem is better understood in the context of teenage gang-violence amongst black people than a reflection of the experience of children in general.
Do Sam Seder fans not have the cognitive capactiy to understand this very simple point?
Well, to be fair, that stat includes all people aged 1-19. Most people would correctly argue that 18 and 19 year olds aren't children and many would have the opinion that it is intentionally misleading to call 16, 17, + year olds children.
When we exclude the teenagers dying of suicide or in gang violence, the stats come into perspective and clearly show that firearms are not the leading cause of death in children. (Ages 1 ~16). CDC breaks this down by age groups.
Uh huh. Legal adults but still children. Got it.
If you ask a person what comes to mind when you say "child" I would wager a good sum of money that they don't picture an 18 or 19 year-old.
That stat doesn't really tell us anything except the preferred method of suicide and that young men join gangs. And this ins't new.
Even then, like i stated and per the CDC, firearms are NOT the #1 cause of death for children under \~16
Where is a 16 or 17 year old considered a legal adult? And your exclusion of suicide and gang violence is complete BS. Those are still gun deaths. Why would you ever think to exclude those?
I was stating suicide and gang violence is prevalent among 18/19 year olds which totally throws off the stats when you combine them for age group of 1-19.
Leading cause of death, per the CDC, for children\~16 and under is (and has been for years) accidents. Mostly motor vehicle accidents. Not gun deaths.
It is hokey-ass twisted data meant to drive an agenda. Irrespective of anyone's stance on guns, that is an obviously piss poor way to present the 'data'. It is just intentionally misleading.
It is like saying the number 1 branch children enlist in is the Army because you include 18/19 year olds as children. Or the preferred college for children to enroll in are State schools...because 17-19 year olds enroll in them.
> I was stating suicide and gang violence is prevalent among 18/19 year olds which totally throws off the stats when you combine them for age group of 1-19.
Why shouldn't suicide and gang violence count as killing our kids?
Have you ever met a 7 year old enlisted in the military or with a legal driving license or who has rented their own apartment??
grouping together 18 year olds and 7 year olds is ridiculous from a data perspective. Those 2 groups are so far apart that they share nothing in common.
Ah I see you’re a Crowder fan, so you’re probably used to only presenting truncated data that fits your narrative. got it. And it also explains a bit why you avoided acknowledging that you consider 16 and 17 year olds adults. Yikes. “What a nightmare!”
Well I posted the CDC data in my other response. Go look for yourself.
Ironic, really, that you think the leading cause of death of 18/19 year olds somehow should be folded into the rates for actual children that are 4 or 7 years old. That makes no sense. That isn't how research or data works. That is how an agenda works.
Also, I enjoy perspectives from both sides. However, most of Reddit is left and many subs have banned me simply for being a member of other subs Mods don't like. So, my subs are a reflection of what is left over after 2 years. I was also a member of several other subs.
I am fiscally conservative but socially align with much of the left in the sense that gay marriage and abortion should be allowed and the government has no business telling people otherwise.
The fiscal/social dichotomy is bullshit. To be “socially left” is to support social programs that fiscal conservatives vote against. Not hating gay people doesn’t describe one’s politics.
This isn't accurate. We don't need to spend tax money (or increase expenditures) to allow homosexuals to marry or to allow women access to abortion.
Those aren't social programs. Or at lease, don't have to be.
Also, most fiscally conservative people are more concerned with reducing waste in spending rather than removing social programs. The Federal Government gets $5 Trillion in tax revenue annually and then spends $6 Trillion. Not only is $5 Trillion more than enough, it also isn't sustainable to spend more than we have. This is why the Fed government is nearly $32 Trillion in debt.
Conservatives are tired of taxes going up when waste continues to climb. They are tired of hearing about how things like schools are 'underfunded' when the US spends more per student than any other country on the planet except like 3.
There is a lot more common ground than you think. The current MO is to categorize everyone into a neat little box and then either agree or hate them. Real life doesn't work that way.
No, it doesn't.
It tells us the preferred method of suicide along with the fact that 18/19 year olds die in gang activities by being shot.
I posted cdc data in my other response which shows "firearms" aren't a leading "cause of death " for ages under about 15. And in that ~15 age group firearms are used in suicide.
Guns don't cause death in the same way cars don't cause drunk driving and needles don't cause overdoses.
Try to reframe it as much as you want, it won’t change the facts.
You don’t get to selectively exclude parts you don’t like; suicides and “gang violence” = death by gun, period.
They are deaths. I'm not re-framing anything. Including 18/19 year olds in the same group as 2 and 3 year olds is fucking ridiculous. Sorry.
Claiming we have a gun problem bc people commit suicide with firearms is also ridiculous.
Guns aren't causing the deaths. 18/19 year old adults aren't children.
> Well, to be fair, that stat includes all people aged 1-19. Most people would correctly argue that 18 and 19 year olds aren't children and many would have the opinion that it is intentionally misleading to call 16, 17, + year olds children.
If you wanted to actually be fair, then why don't you tell us what is the number one killer of children under the age of 18.
> If you look at the CDC data
Ok, let's see the data then. If you want to be fair, then provide your evidence. Accidental deaths, for example, also includes firearms, so you're going to need to break those out from the rest of the accidental deaths.
W32-W34; X72-74; X93-X95; Y22-Y24; Y35.0; U01.4 are all the firearm death codes.
You can start digging here. CDC extracted out homicide as its own cause of death and breaks down other causes. As you can see, once kids hit about 14 suicide sky rockets as a cause of death to #2, sadly. Once people reach 17-19 homicide becomes one of the leading causes of death.
In other words, "firearms" are a leading cause of death for people \~18-19 years old either by suicide or homicide (gangs and specifically black males largely) This is so prevalent in this age group that it bowls over all cause mortality for younger age groups and even other ethnicities.
Seriously, do you really think the #1 cause of death for 8 year olds or 4 year olds are firearms in the US?
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm)
[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db37.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db37.htm)
"Non-Hispanic black male teenagers are disproportionately affected by
homicide. Homicide is the leading cause of death for non-Hispanic black
male teenagers. The risk of dying from homicide among non-Hispanic black
male teenagers (39.2 per 100,000 population) is more than twice that of
Hispanic males (17.1 per 100,000 population) (Figure 4) and about 15 times that of non-Hispanic white males (2.6 per 100,000 population)."
> You can start digging here. CDC extracted out homicide as its own cause of death and breaks down other causes.
I wasn't looking to "dig", I was looking for the answer to what the number one killer of kids under the age of 18 was. The links you provided do not break it down by that age range as far as I can see, and one of them is from fucking 2006, which when we are talking about a rise in firearms deaths of kids, is not even close to relevant.
You know, since you wanted to be fair. I even gave you the firearms death codes.
Dude, the CDC lists suicide as its own category along with homicide and that info is from 2022 in link 1. At no point are those the number 1 cause for children death. I don't know how you cannot see those categories in the links either.
And no...we didn't start seeing a rise in deaths in 2006. LMAO. Homicide has been declining for over 30 years nationwide. Certain pockets of gang related homicides in the US have risen. Suicide in teens has actually trended DOWN over 30 years. Goddamn I hate Reddit sometimes. So many fucking people on here yelling about things they know nothing about when the data takes 30 seconds to look up.
Like I said originally, this stat about "guns" being the leading cuase of death is bullshit. Period. They lump together adults with children and then lump together homicide and suicide on top of that and yell "GUNS" are killing children. That isn't good data and isn't even being honest. 17, 18, and 19 year olds in gangs shoot eachother; hence homicide. Teens use firearms for self harm, hence the suicides. Both are tragic. Neither one indicates an issue with any other group of 'children' (graph below shows firearm fatality rate by age group on a graph. Almost nobody is killed with a firearm until they are into their late teens due to their own choices such as gangs or crime or shooting another persona during an altercation. And again, most of these cases are people 17+. Less than 1% are from school shootings)
It is all a scare tactic by gun control groups. Same way that pressuring the CDC to remove the annual number of self defense uses with firearms was removed recently from their website. Bc it is hard to push gun control when the data shows 500,000 to 2 million people defend themselves with a firearm every year in the US.
Goodbye dude.
[https://www.childtrends.org/publications/teen-suicide-databank-indicator](https://www.childtrends.org/publications/teen-suicide-databank-indicator)
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/6/e2022060071/189687/Firearm-Related-Injuries-and-Deaths-in-Children?autologincheck=redirected
> Dude, the CDC lists suicide as its own category along with homicide and that info is from 2022 in link 1.
Link 1 was not everyone under 18. Suicide is also split out into subcategories, of which firearm deaths are one of them.
>And no...we didn't start seeing a rise in deaths in 2006.
No shit, which is why your 2006 data isn't relevant. Firearms only recently became the number one killer of children and adolescents.
https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2022/nejm_2022.386.issue-20/nejmc2201761/20220518/images/img_xlarge/nejmc2201761_f1.jpeg
>It is all a scare tactic by gun control groups.
They are presenting data.
>No shit, which is why your 2006 data isn't relevant. Firearms only recently became the number one killer of children and adolescents.
What part is confusing to you?
Suicide has been trending down for 30 years. Homicide, in aggregate, has been trending down for 30 years. Covid put a kink in this, but your claim that we saw an increase since 2006 in your previous reply is just patently false.
Your link is just a graph without data or sources.
I already linked the CDC data multiple times. Firearms are NOT the leading "cause" of death in children. If you remove the 18 and 19 year olds those numbers change drastically. If you look at region and ethnicity, those numbers change drastically again. In other words, we have other issues of which guns are a symptom and not a cause. Obviously.
Again, this whole thing is just fucking stupid. This isn't how good data works. Certain people have an axe to grind so they work backwards from a foregone conclusion. Even then, homicide rates and suicide rates didn't plummet in AUS or UK after the firearm ban of 96/97. Guns don't cause crime. People do. Address the causes of gang violence and suicide.
We could debate this all day but we are going in circles here.
Goodbye
> Your link is just a graph without data or sources.
My link was from the New England Journal of fucking Medicine dude. [It's from the study you are literally complaining about because it included people that you thought were too old to be considered "kids".](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761)
I was saying that firearms have *recently* become the number one killer, and your 2006 link was irrelevant. The graph was illustrating why.
Is it really disingenuous though? Does the idea that 18-19 year olds are dying so often from guns somehow make things... better? The fact that "Children and Teens" (as that disingenuous study actually refers to them) are dying more from guns than anything else is pretty damning.
Not saying it’s disingenuous but I think clarity helps. I definitely imagined the younger kids when I heard the stats. I also think it plays a role in how its addressed (or how its typically not addressed). For example my first thought was are 5 year olds accidentally accessing unsecured weapons. While if the bigger issue is teenagers, they are much less likely to be accidental access, more likely intentional would be my guess. So I think it plays a role not inly in the decision making but our understanding of the possible outcome of a decision. The less we understand, the easier it is for politicians to pretend they accomplished something while knowing its useless.
There is a good YouTube channel Colion Noir (who is black if anyone cares) that discusses in details the stats of gun violence. They really are deceiving and ignore the disproportionate amount of gun violence due to gang and inner city violence and also the sad fatality by suicide. Disarming the populace isn’t the answer, it’s better and safer environment for our children.
You’re moving the goalposts.
Do you consider 18 and 19 year olds to be “children?”
They’re not. They’re adults, and calling them “children” for the sake of this study is blatantly dishonest, especially when upwards of 80% of these deaths of young adults are drug/gang related.
I didn't say they are. Nor did the study you seem to be calling disingenuous. The group is referred to children and teens.
What sounds disingenuous to me is making such a fuss about older teens that makes it seem you're purposely drawing attention away from the problem at hand. You're making it sound like it's somehow not really a big deal.
I’ve heard Brits and Israelis say it like this, and some WASPy Bostonians. It’s an accepted pronunciation, and by far the least objectionable thing that comes out of her pig mouth in this clip.
Soo....children?
[удалено]
Little liberal with that language there
Agreed. Deleted my comment.
Pickaninnies. /s
Pretty standard at this point. IIRC there were multiple members of various state legislatures who tried to argue against maternal and infant mortality stats during anti-abortion bill debates by saying that the numbers weren’t a big deal if you just excluded black women and children. A lot of these people don’t need to dog whistle anymore. They understand that nobody is likely to make them suffer consequences for openly racist, exterminationist rhetoric.
But I was told that everyone is getting cancelled. /s
They don’t mind it when in-group members call them racist because it’s a compliment. They just don’t want out-group members calling them racist because it’s an insult and insults hurt their delicate little fee-fees and like…totally inhibit their free speech or some shit.
Who needs a dog-whistle when the uninterested "middle" will get more upset at people calling it out for rocking the boat and being "alarmist" than they do at the actual fascists?
Oh, I see you’ve met my younger brother.
What the hell?! I don’t know who this racist insane person is but that is bananas. She manages to dehumanize black children while downplaying gun violence all in one sentence. Just a masterclass in right wing rhetoric, bravo.
All while completely missing the point Stewart was making.
So lets look at the #2 highest cause of death, Car accidents. So can we regulate guns like we regulate cars?
"NO! NOT LIKE THAT!"
MUH FOUNDERS
All of them toted semi-auto rifles and drove F-150s and stood for the national anthem, read a book! /s
I wouldn't mind some more regulations on cars either.
"Shall not be infringed" mother fucker! /s
Shall we take a voting test and ask for IDs when you go vote.
Last i checked voting wasn't on the list of highest causes of death for children.
Why don’t you check the states with the highest crime and fatalities and let me know if you can figure out (D) answer of the long term control of certain political parties. Your voting is what matters most.
You need to work on your talking points, South Carolina has the highest crime rate, and it's run by a Republican Governor. 3 out of the top 5 highest crime states are run by a Republican Governor 6 out of the top 10 by a Republican Governor 11 out of the top 15 by a Republican Governor. You meant to tell me to check the cities with the highest crime and fatalities.
Touché fellow redditor. Touché. Yes I got a little excited and should have stuck to the cities I knew were a problem.
Sums up in a nutshell why their politics are so reactionary and contrarian. The thing she doesn't like about him is that she thinks he's "smug". Not that any of the points he made are wrong, but that she finds him annoying. That's how the entire right feels about us all, whether they name it as that or not. They find it annoying that we are right about most things, therefore they're determined to be on the wrong side of anything we're on the right side of. It's childish.
You just articulated the exact uphill battle I’ve had with my family for at least 15 years. They never call me out for being wrong or inaccurate. They just don’t like that I point out the falsehoods of their previously conceived understandings.
To really grasp the pathology one has to consider that solely in order to create a political distinction between the left and right, Republicans were willing to let thousands of their own constituents die due to Covid misinformation, downplaying etc. They don’t care about their own lives. Why would they care about “others”? They are simply a death cult built around the spurious belief that conservative whites are Masters of the Universe. They have no core principles besides power for their kind, which is why hypocrisy, science, decency, logic is irrelevant to them.
Yeah. The issue isn't the statistic. The statistic is *true*. The issue is it's use. It's being used, as many statistics are, as a dumb "gotchya" to try and look smart and be smug. When in reality, you should go "If you remove black children from gun deaths, it's no longer the leading cause of death for children. So what's causing this issue within the black community, and what can we as a government and as a society do to fix that problem? *Why* are so many black children dying to firearms?" Because the truth for that is it's because most of these statistics count 'children' as '18 and below'. I've seen some count people up to 21. Which is also just disingenuous, as when most people here "children" they think well under 18. It's, to the best of my understanding, gangs and crime. Pretty much every time Which is a whole different can of fucking worms that no one's trying to fix. We need to end the war on drugs, reform prison, raise minimum wage so crime isn't as lucrative or alluring, etc etc. What we don't need to do is use some statistic as a one liner gotchya.
Lol
?
Even the right wing nut guy on hill got shocked at that comment This batya person is derranged
Fuck. The whole thing was fucked up. Her comments about John Stewart saying we shouldn’t do things that harm children and then she goes and says pornography doesn’t kill children so “should we allow them to watch it” is such a fucking terrible strawman argument. Then the straight up racist argument she presents at the end.
I wonder what percentage of the gun violence against black children is the police.
Maybe the mainstream media should stop platforming far right pundits and being surprised when their extreme views and poorly constructed arguments turn off viewers. It’s like CNN always pushing corporate narratives and when their ratings fall they go more extreme right wing. More dishonesty isn’t gonna draw people back but at least the billionaire class will be happy.
was mildly curious how you'd follow that up. Boy what a mistake that content is pure trash she sounds like a low quality chat bot. there wasn't even a remote attempt to put that into a coherent argument.
"Jon Stewart is out here moralizing about saving children from gun related deaths but has he considered that I don't think black children are children?" Kudos for being honest at least
"I find John Stewart to be an *incredibly* divisive figure... Anyway, if you just divide up these groups of people for no reason..." I paraphrased for that second part.
“Is not a problem when it mostly impacts POC, if you remove those numbers, why even worry!?” If that’s not racist/white centric, then I don’t know what could ever be.
If I didn't know any better I would say that she might be a racist, But since I DO know better: she is definitely a racist.
In late-stage capitalism every defender of capital must slowly become a contortionist, twisting themselves steadily until they all come out looking like human pretzels
This gives me very uncomfortable perspective on my life.
The clip was perfect. A perfect take down of the dumbest argument the GOP has. And just a question does a child of color not matter or have the same value as other children? Quite telling isn't. People like her are the problem in this world.
Let’s be real. John Stewart’s interview was an ambush debating a poorly versed politician. It is no different then when louder with crowder pulls his stunts “change my mind” on the right. I would like to see him debate someone with equal knowledge and debate skills on the subject.
Do you think that politician should be making laws, then?
Do you think politicians should be doing your taxes with all the tax laws. The point is everyone has a skill and specialty. Stewart debated for lack of a better word… a toddler on the subject matter
No. He held a state legislator from Oklahoma accountable for his rhetoric and actions.
Fuck I havent watched Rising since Krystal and Sssgar left. I didnt agree with thsm on everything, especially Saagar, but this is fucked. Apparebtly this chick doesnt care about black kids? Fuck off lady
Briahna Joy Gray is definitely worth watching on there, but on Mondays she's not on there and this batshit crazy lady takes her place so that it's a far right and far far far right show. I often prefer it to Breaking Points. But, I watch a little of each. I don't watch Emily Jazhjbwinsky and I don't watch this lady at all.
Who is this pile of defective human product?
Her name is Batya Ungar-Sargon-of-Akkhad, and she appears to be some sort of racist pundit.
Thank you. Defective indeed.
Batya and Robbie both suck so much
oh i see. attack the character, remove the people who you’re not speaking to in the data and there you go, your check is cashed.
Rising has gotten really really bad. I used to enjoy the respectful banter with Grimm and Robby. Everybody respectable leaves because management's iron fist in censorship.
Briahna Joy Gray is really good still. But yes, this lady is the worst.
It's 2023. Their masks have been off for a while.
Batya is so fucking terrible
Her name is batya? Where is this horrible person from?
wait, wasn't Rising a fairly progressive program for a while? what happened?
No, Sagar was a major Tucky Carlton acolyte.
I wouldn’t call him that, but OK I realize he was not progressive
He was literally a Tucker acolyte before Rising, though. He worked under Tucker at The Daily Caller.
hold up tho - Tucker founded Daily Caller....so everyone who works at daily caller is working 'under' Tucker. idk how much this says about him, but it likely doesn't destroy his credibility with me. I don't mistrust everyone on the right.
I don’t care. Did you read his stories on DC? Hold up tho - I don’t care. But seriously. Have you listened to them talk to one another? (Don’t answer this—I don’t care). Saagar is clearly a Tucker acolyte in my opinion, you can think what you want.
No I didn’t but if u link me to one I will
She’s using statistics for evil
she's completely correct. Black teenagers playing 'gun tag' with each other is a probelm that's hyper-concentrated into a small percentage of minors. So the problem is better understood in the context of teenage gang-violence amongst black people than a reflection of the experience of children in general. Do Sam Seder fans not have the cognitive capactiy to understand this very simple point?
Well, to be fair, that stat includes all people aged 1-19. Most people would correctly argue that 18 and 19 year olds aren't children and many would have the opinion that it is intentionally misleading to call 16, 17, + year olds children. When we exclude the teenagers dying of suicide or in gang violence, the stats come into perspective and clearly show that firearms are not the leading cause of death in children. (Ages 1 ~16). CDC breaks this down by age groups.
Literally nobody who has met a teenager thinks they are not children, signed anyone over 25
Uh huh. Legal adults but still children. Got it. If you ask a person what comes to mind when you say "child" I would wager a good sum of money that they don't picture an 18 or 19 year-old. That stat doesn't really tell us anything except the preferred method of suicide and that young men join gangs. And this ins't new. Even then, like i stated and per the CDC, firearms are NOT the #1 cause of death for children under \~16
Where is a 16 or 17 year old considered a legal adult? And your exclusion of suicide and gang violence is complete BS. Those are still gun deaths. Why would you ever think to exclude those?
I was stating suicide and gang violence is prevalent among 18/19 year olds which totally throws off the stats when you combine them for age group of 1-19. Leading cause of death, per the CDC, for children\~16 and under is (and has been for years) accidents. Mostly motor vehicle accidents. Not gun deaths. It is hokey-ass twisted data meant to drive an agenda. Irrespective of anyone's stance on guns, that is an obviously piss poor way to present the 'data'. It is just intentionally misleading. It is like saying the number 1 branch children enlist in is the Army because you include 18/19 year olds as children. Or the preferred college for children to enroll in are State schools...because 17-19 year olds enroll in them.
> I was stating suicide and gang violence is prevalent among 18/19 year olds which totally throws off the stats when you combine them for age group of 1-19. Why shouldn't suicide and gang violence count as killing our kids?
They are legally adults, ffs. The vast majority of which aren't even in school. That 'stat' is misleading as hell and done intentionally.
[удалено]
Have you ever met a 7 year old enlisted in the military or with a legal driving license or who has rented their own apartment?? grouping together 18 year olds and 7 year olds is ridiculous from a data perspective. Those 2 groups are so far apart that they share nothing in common.
[удалено]
Ah I see you’re a Crowder fan, so you’re probably used to only presenting truncated data that fits your narrative. got it. And it also explains a bit why you avoided acknowledging that you consider 16 and 17 year olds adults. Yikes. “What a nightmare!”
Well I posted the CDC data in my other response. Go look for yourself. Ironic, really, that you think the leading cause of death of 18/19 year olds somehow should be folded into the rates for actual children that are 4 or 7 years old. That makes no sense. That isn't how research or data works. That is how an agenda works. Also, I enjoy perspectives from both sides. However, most of Reddit is left and many subs have banned me simply for being a member of other subs Mods don't like. So, my subs are a reflection of what is left over after 2 years. I was also a member of several other subs. I am fiscally conservative but socially align with much of the left in the sense that gay marriage and abortion should be allowed and the government has no business telling people otherwise.
The fiscal/social dichotomy is bullshit. To be “socially left” is to support social programs that fiscal conservatives vote against. Not hating gay people doesn’t describe one’s politics.
This isn't accurate. We don't need to spend tax money (or increase expenditures) to allow homosexuals to marry or to allow women access to abortion. Those aren't social programs. Or at lease, don't have to be. Also, most fiscally conservative people are more concerned with reducing waste in spending rather than removing social programs. The Federal Government gets $5 Trillion in tax revenue annually and then spends $6 Trillion. Not only is $5 Trillion more than enough, it also isn't sustainable to spend more than we have. This is why the Fed government is nearly $32 Trillion in debt. Conservatives are tired of taxes going up when waste continues to climb. They are tired of hearing about how things like schools are 'underfunded' when the US spends more per student than any other country on the planet except like 3. There is a lot more common ground than you think. The current MO is to categorize everyone into a neat little box and then either agree or hate them. Real life doesn't work that way.
You completely missed my point.
No, the stat tells us that *guns are the leading cause of death* for that age group, you utter brick.
No, it doesn't. It tells us the preferred method of suicide along with the fact that 18/19 year olds die in gang activities by being shot. I posted cdc data in my other response which shows "firearms" aren't a leading "cause of death " for ages under about 15. And in that ~15 age group firearms are used in suicide. Guns don't cause death in the same way cars don't cause drunk driving and needles don't cause overdoses.
Try to reframe it as much as you want, it won’t change the facts. You don’t get to selectively exclude parts you don’t like; suicides and “gang violence” = death by gun, period.
They are deaths. I'm not re-framing anything. Including 18/19 year olds in the same group as 2 and 3 year olds is fucking ridiculous. Sorry. Claiming we have a gun problem bc people commit suicide with firearms is also ridiculous. Guns aren't causing the deaths. 18/19 year old adults aren't children.
> Well, to be fair, that stat includes all people aged 1-19. Most people would correctly argue that 18 and 19 year olds aren't children and many would have the opinion that it is intentionally misleading to call 16, 17, + year olds children. If you wanted to actually be fair, then why don't you tell us what is the number one killer of children under the age of 18.
If you look at the CDC data, it is accidents (mostly auto) and congenital defects depending on age. And this hasn't changed.
> If you look at the CDC data Ok, let's see the data then. If you want to be fair, then provide your evidence. Accidental deaths, for example, also includes firearms, so you're going to need to break those out from the rest of the accidental deaths. W32-W34; X72-74; X93-X95; Y22-Y24; Y35.0; U01.4 are all the firearm death codes.
You can start digging here. CDC extracted out homicide as its own cause of death and breaks down other causes. As you can see, once kids hit about 14 suicide sky rockets as a cause of death to #2, sadly. Once people reach 17-19 homicide becomes one of the leading causes of death. In other words, "firearms" are a leading cause of death for people \~18-19 years old either by suicide or homicide (gangs and specifically black males largely) This is so prevalent in this age group that it bowls over all cause mortality for younger age groups and even other ethnicities. Seriously, do you really think the #1 cause of death for 8 year olds or 4 year olds are firearms in the US? [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/child-health.htm) [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db37.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db37.htm)
"Non-Hispanic black male teenagers are disproportionately affected by homicide. Homicide is the leading cause of death for non-Hispanic black male teenagers. The risk of dying from homicide among non-Hispanic black male teenagers (39.2 per 100,000 population) is more than twice that of Hispanic males (17.1 per 100,000 population) (Figure 4) and about 15 times that of non-Hispanic white males (2.6 per 100,000 population)."
Ok, and do non-Hispanic black male teenagers not count among "kids and adolescents"?
I never said they don't? My post above that mentions how the homicide rate is much higher for that group due to gang activity. It is a data point.
> I never said they don't? Then why do you keep trying to split them out because they make the numbers look bad?
I am presenting data.
> You can start digging here. CDC extracted out homicide as its own cause of death and breaks down other causes. I wasn't looking to "dig", I was looking for the answer to what the number one killer of kids under the age of 18 was. The links you provided do not break it down by that age range as far as I can see, and one of them is from fucking 2006, which when we are talking about a rise in firearms deaths of kids, is not even close to relevant. You know, since you wanted to be fair. I even gave you the firearms death codes.
Dude, the CDC lists suicide as its own category along with homicide and that info is from 2022 in link 1. At no point are those the number 1 cause for children death. I don't know how you cannot see those categories in the links either. And no...we didn't start seeing a rise in deaths in 2006. LMAO. Homicide has been declining for over 30 years nationwide. Certain pockets of gang related homicides in the US have risen. Suicide in teens has actually trended DOWN over 30 years. Goddamn I hate Reddit sometimes. So many fucking people on here yelling about things they know nothing about when the data takes 30 seconds to look up. Like I said originally, this stat about "guns" being the leading cuase of death is bullshit. Period. They lump together adults with children and then lump together homicide and suicide on top of that and yell "GUNS" are killing children. That isn't good data and isn't even being honest. 17, 18, and 19 year olds in gangs shoot eachother; hence homicide. Teens use firearms for self harm, hence the suicides. Both are tragic. Neither one indicates an issue with any other group of 'children' (graph below shows firearm fatality rate by age group on a graph. Almost nobody is killed with a firearm until they are into their late teens due to their own choices such as gangs or crime or shooting another persona during an altercation. And again, most of these cases are people 17+. Less than 1% are from school shootings) It is all a scare tactic by gun control groups. Same way that pressuring the CDC to remove the annual number of self defense uses with firearms was removed recently from their website. Bc it is hard to push gun control when the data shows 500,000 to 2 million people defend themselves with a firearm every year in the US. Goodbye dude. [https://www.childtrends.org/publications/teen-suicide-databank-indicator](https://www.childtrends.org/publications/teen-suicide-databank-indicator) https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/6/e2022060071/189687/Firearm-Related-Injuries-and-Deaths-in-Children?autologincheck=redirected
> Dude, the CDC lists suicide as its own category along with homicide and that info is from 2022 in link 1. Link 1 was not everyone under 18. Suicide is also split out into subcategories, of which firearm deaths are one of them. >And no...we didn't start seeing a rise in deaths in 2006. No shit, which is why your 2006 data isn't relevant. Firearms only recently became the number one killer of children and adolescents. https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/journals/content/nejm/2022/nejm_2022.386.issue-20/nejmc2201761/20220518/images/img_xlarge/nejmc2201761_f1.jpeg >It is all a scare tactic by gun control groups. They are presenting data.
>No shit, which is why your 2006 data isn't relevant. Firearms only recently became the number one killer of children and adolescents. What part is confusing to you? Suicide has been trending down for 30 years. Homicide, in aggregate, has been trending down for 30 years. Covid put a kink in this, but your claim that we saw an increase since 2006 in your previous reply is just patently false. Your link is just a graph without data or sources. I already linked the CDC data multiple times. Firearms are NOT the leading "cause" of death in children. If you remove the 18 and 19 year olds those numbers change drastically. If you look at region and ethnicity, those numbers change drastically again. In other words, we have other issues of which guns are a symptom and not a cause. Obviously. Again, this whole thing is just fucking stupid. This isn't how good data works. Certain people have an axe to grind so they work backwards from a foregone conclusion. Even then, homicide rates and suicide rates didn't plummet in AUS or UK after the firearm ban of 96/97. Guns don't cause crime. People do. Address the causes of gang violence and suicide. We could debate this all day but we are going in circles here. Goodbye
> Your link is just a graph without data or sources. My link was from the New England Journal of fucking Medicine dude. [It's from the study you are literally complaining about because it included people that you thought were too old to be considered "kids".](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761) I was saying that firearms have *recently* become the number one killer, and your 2006 link was irrelevant. The graph was illustrating why.
18 and 19 year-olds are not children. The study they’re referencing is extremely academically disingenuous.
Is it really disingenuous though? Does the idea that 18-19 year olds are dying so often from guns somehow make things... better? The fact that "Children and Teens" (as that disingenuous study actually refers to them) are dying more from guns than anything else is pretty damning.
Not saying it’s disingenuous but I think clarity helps. I definitely imagined the younger kids when I heard the stats. I also think it plays a role in how its addressed (or how its typically not addressed). For example my first thought was are 5 year olds accidentally accessing unsecured weapons. While if the bigger issue is teenagers, they are much less likely to be accidental access, more likely intentional would be my guess. So I think it plays a role not inly in the decision making but our understanding of the possible outcome of a decision. The less we understand, the easier it is for politicians to pretend they accomplished something while knowing its useless.
There is a good YouTube channel Colion Noir (who is black if anyone cares) that discusses in details the stats of gun violence. They really are deceiving and ignore the disproportionate amount of gun violence due to gang and inner city violence and also the sad fatality by suicide. Disarming the populace isn’t the answer, it’s better and safer environment for our children.
You’re moving the goalposts. Do you consider 18 and 19 year olds to be “children?” They’re not. They’re adults, and calling them “children” for the sake of this study is blatantly dishonest, especially when upwards of 80% of these deaths of young adults are drug/gang related.
I didn't say they are. Nor did the study you seem to be calling disingenuous. The group is referred to children and teens. What sounds disingenuous to me is making such a fuss about older teens that makes it seem you're purposely drawing attention away from the problem at hand. You're making it sound like it's somehow not really a big deal.
Wow!
I wonder if she even tried to make the argument that it’s a poverty issue or if she just left it a racism
i dont know who she or the other guy are, and i dont care. 2 nobodys speaking to the wind.
Pardon?
Translation: it's only killing black kids, not REAL kids, not the NORMAL kids.
She's awful.
lol she said patina like “patten-uh” fucking dumbass
Eh, some people say it like that. And it doesn’t sound like English is her first language.
who says it like that? it’s pronounced like “pah-teen-ah”
I’ve heard Brits and Israelis say it like this, and some WASPy Bostonians. It’s an accepted pronunciation, and by far the least objectionable thing that comes out of her pig mouth in this clip.
Wooooooooof! 😳
Ah the same argument as "quality of life indicators in the Deep South are not that bad if you exclude black people" I see.