trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it…

False dichotomy: The article presents the argument as a binary choice between armed law enforcement on campus and restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. This oversimplifies the issue and ignores other potential solutions or approaches to school safety.

Cherry-picked evidence: The article selectively presents examples and studies that support the argument against armed law enforcement on campuses while downplaying or omitting evidence that may contradict it. This creates a biased view of the topic.

Anecdotal evidence: The article relies on specific incidents, such as the Uvalde and Santa Fe shootings, to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. While these incidents are important to consider, they alone do not provide a comprehensive assessment of the issue.

Appeal to authority: The article quotes experts and studies to support its claims, presenting them as the definitive authority on the matter. However, there are conflicting studies and opinions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools, and relying solely on one set of experts or studies is misleading.

Hasty generalization: The article generalizes from specific cases or limited studies to make broad conclusions about the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings. This ignores the complexities and variations in different school environments and security measures.

Ad hominem attack: The article includes a statement from Sen. Ted Cruz blaming others for politicizing the Uvalde shooting, implying that his argument for armed law enforcement is driven by political motivations rather than genuine concern for school safety. This attacks the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself.

Lack of counterarguments: The article does not present counterarguments or alternative perspectives to the claim that armed law enforcement is an effective tool for keeping kids safe in schools. This one-sided presentation of the issue limits a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Overgeneralization of research findings: The article cites specific studies to argue against the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in schools. However, it fails to acknowledge the limitations of these studies and extrapolates their findings to make sweeping claims about the overall impact of armed officers in preventing school shootings.

It’s important to critically evaluate the information presented in the article and consider a range of perspectives and evidence before drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of armed law enforcement in preventing school shootings.

I’m reminded of Uvalde

“negativity bias”

Law enforcement agencies in the United States have, on multiple occasions, successfully intervened to stop potential and active school shooters. Interventions vary in terms of effectiveness.

gun regulation is the obvious solution

Do you not find it dumbfounding? How can we have so many existing firearm regulations and still have evil people? It’s quite perplexing, isn’t it?

It’s almost as if, the guns aren’t the problem to begin with, and instead, people’s culture and mental health are to blame. Imagine that. People kill people, with or without access to firearms… Amazing!

Now that we’ve covered some obvious nuggets of truth, we get to dive into why the articles you’ve put your faith in are BS pseudoscience. Enjoy.

https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/making-schools-safe-and-just

…begins with the personal experience of Cameo Kendrick, using her feelings and experiences to support the argument against SROs. While personal anecdotes can be powerful, they are not sufficient evidence to draw broad conclusions.

…is manipulative, heavily relying on emotional language and appeals to fear and racial injustice to shape the narrative.

…mentions statistics about the increase in the number of SROs in schools but fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the data.

…implies a causal relationship between the presence of SROs and negative outcomes such as higher rates of behavioral incidents, suspensions, expulsions, and arrests. However, it fails to consider other factors that could contribute to these outcomes.

…highlights statistics that support its argument, such as the disproportionate arrest rates of Black students. Does not provide a complete picture of the overall effectiveness or impact of SROs.

…makes sweeping generalizations about the impact of SROs based on limited research and isolated incidents. It fails to acknowledge that the effectiveness and outcomes of SRO programs can vary significantly across different schools and communities.

…does not present any opposing viewpoints or address potential benefits of having SROs in schools. This one-sided presentation undermines the credibility and objectivity of the argument.

…asserts that several school districts have already moved to stop the practice of employing SROs, but it does not provide any specific examples or evidence to support this claim.

https://www.aclusocal.org/en/no-police-in-schools

…opens with a strong emotional appeal by linking the presence of police in schools to historical injustices such as slave patrols and forced dislocation of indigenous youth. It is crucial to evaluate the current situation based on evidence and data rather than relying solely on emotional appeals.

…cites a few instances where school districts eliminated or made progress towards eliminating school police, implying that this is a widespread trend across California. However, without providing a comprehensive analysis of the situation in all California schools, it becomes a cherry-picked example.

…suggests a correlation between the presence of police in schools and higher rates of arrests. Other factors such as the demographics of the student population, socioeconomic conditions, and crime rates in the surrounding community could also contribute to the observed disparities.

…dismisses the argument that schools with assigned law enforcement officers may be inherently more dangerous, using the example of Baldwin Park Unified School District. While this example is presented as evidence against the argument, it does not consider other potential explanations for the increase in law enforcement referrals.

…selectively highlights data points that support its argument, focusing on the disproportionate arrest and referral rates for specific student groups. While these disparities may indeed exist, it is important to consider a broader range of data and factors to get a comprehensive understanding of the situation. Ignoring or downplaying relevant data can lead to a biased and incomplete analysis.

…does not address any potential benefits or positive aspects of having police in schools. It fails to acknowledge arguments that advocate for the presence of law enforcement as a means to ensure safety, prevent violence, or address potential threats within school environments. By omitting counterarguments, the article presents a one-sided view of the issue.

…recommends the removal of police from schools, it does not provide concrete alternatives or strategies to ensure the safety and well-being of students in the absence of law enforcement. Simply advocating for the removal of police without proposing viable alternatives undermines the goal of creating safe and supportive learning environments.

Both what I’ve said and what was said in the video is about democrats, not libs, per se. While the terms are often used interchangeably, they certainly represent different ideologies… Even more so if we’re talking about “classical liberals” compared to the “modern libs”, but that’s besides the point.

Democrats unanimously voted against bills calling for police officers at schools. That is what this video is about. Not necessarily about democrats, or libs, being “gun grabbers”, and certainly not about using an AK as your concealed carry.

You sound like you are helping prove my point. Children need to be protected. So it makes no sense to prevent the placement of police outside of schools.

The unfortunate truth is that you likely don’t see it that way and will instead try to coerce people to give up their guns.

Fortunately for me, I’m not the one who is pretending to be a

fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

Or, a criminologist, crime analyst, and criminal justice researcher…

Scientists should strive to adhere to the principles of objectivity and impartiality in their research and analysis. The scientific method is designed to minimize bias and subjectivity in order to obtain reliable and valid results.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/feb/21/richard-corcoran/do-most-mass-shootings-happen-gun-free-zones/

The article uses biased language when describing certain individuals and groups, such as referring to John Lott as a “pro-gun advocate” and Daniel Webster as someone who “disagreed with Lott’s findings.” This kind of language can influence readers’ perceptions and is not conducive to an objective analysis.

The article presents opposing views but fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the counterarguments. It briefly mentions that anti-gun advocates see different patterns in the statistical evidence, but it does not explore these alternative perspectives in depth or provide specific examples or studies that contradict Lott’s findings.

The article heavily relies on the viewpoints of Daniel Webster and Louis Klarevas to challenge Lott’s research. While it is valid to include different perspectives, the selective use of sources can create a skewed representation of the available evidence.

The article portrays Lott’s research as flawed without providing substantial evidence to support this claim. It mentions that academics have criticized his work, but it does not delve into specific critiques or present a balanced assessment of the academic debates surrounding Lott’s findings.

The article dismisses Lott’s characterization of certain locations as gun-free zones because armed security personnel are present. However, it fails to address Lott’s argument that shooters may target areas where civilians are not armed, regardless of the presence of armed guards or police officers. This oversight undermines the comprehensive evaluation of the issue.

The article briefly mentions that some academics have criticized Lott’s methodology, but it does not provide a detailed analysis or explanation of these criticisms. Without a thorough examination of Lott’s methods, readers are left without the necessary information to assess the validity and reliability of his research.

The article concludes that it is difficult to draw broad conclusions about the motivations of perpetrators of mass shootings or their relationship with gun restrictions. While this statement may be true to some extent, the article fails to provide a clear analysis of the available evidence and expert opinions. It leaves readers without a strong understanding of the topic.

Oh well, better luck next time…

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315794349_Adding_More_Police_Is_Unlikely_to_Reduce_Crime_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Police_Agency_Size_and_Crime_Research

The scope of the study is off topic as it discusses the size of a police force relative to the amount of crimes within an area. The proposed argument isn’t about the size of police forces, it is about putting existing police in places which we deem important places worth protecting, such as the buildings in which our children congregate on a daily basis.

If you had half a brain, you would notice that tons of government buildings have armed security forces and they are rarely ever the target of mass shootings.

The article does not provide any context or summary of the research it is discussing. It jumps straight into discussing the findings without explaining the methodology or the scope of the study.

The article does not provide any in-text citations or references to support its claims. It mentions the number of studies analyzed and the conclusions drawn from them but does not provide specific examples or evidence from the research itself.

The article presents a binary view of the findings, stating that there is no consensus among the studies and that police agency size has no impact on crime. However, it fails to acknowledge the nuances and variations within the studies analyzed. It also does not discuss potential factors that may influence the relationship between police agency size and crime.

The article focuses solely on the impact of police agency size on crime and does not consider other important outcomes, such as officer health and safety or public perception of the police. This narrow focus limits the comprehensiveness of the analysis.

The article presents its conclusions as definitive and dismisses any other interpretations as contradicting theory, evidence, and common sense. However, it fails to address potential counterarguments or alternative perspectives, which weakens the overall credibility of the article.

The right is emotional and wants to manipulate you with flawed conclusions based on their feelings.

Hilarious to say such a thing when you are clearly letting your emotions control your opinions while putting faith in bunk “science”. A true leftist, “trust the science, bro. no matter how misleading and inconclusive it it”…

I support your decision to rename yourself, “NoCaresBozo”. Seems fitting.

Or, maybe you meant to write, “nobody cares, bozo”. But you’re such an edgy nihilist that you simply don’t care if what you say is properly understood? But if that was the case, wouldn’t it be more logical for you to just not say anything to begin with? Or is the simplicity of that reasoning just too much to ask from you?

Do you often lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation? If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names and telling people that you don’t care because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your own education. Best of luck to you, my friend.

Certainly aware and support their decision to have a means of protecting themselves and their loved ones. However, that is totally irrelevant to the idea that is being discussed here.

stop posting this hateful bullshit

The spreading of ideas and differing perspectives through provoking conversation isn’t “hateful bullshit” just because you and the echo chamber which you might align with disagree with it. Noting I’ve said, nor what was said in the video, is “hateful”. Why are you often trying to control how other people speak and think?

It’s not a genocide, that’s not how genocide works

Sterilization is quite commonly associated with genocide. If you support it because it’s voluntary. More power to you, I guess? I don’t support the sterilization of anyone, but if it’s voluntary, I guess that makes it acceptable in some people’s eyes? Noted.

the idea that they can’t feel sexual pleasure is just categorically untrue

Yes, I agree that this idea is a stretch, unfortunately it was included in an otherwise thought provoking video.

I appreciate what little insight you’ve provided and I hope you are more open to meaningful conversations in the future. Best wishes to you, my friend.

Black Lives Matter, too. Who could be against this?

All lives should be treated as equals. “Social equity” is not equality. Since when is charity dignifying for the recipient?

Ben Shapiro has terrible opinions about minorities and the LGBT

Shapiro has stated multiple times that he would rather a child have two gay parents over being an orphan. I won’t deny that some of his takes are a bit on the theocratic side. But he isn’t theocratic, he recognizes that while his religious beliefs do influence his perspectives, not everyone should be coerced to live the way which he chooses to live.

He is not a good person

Clearly, in an echo chamber of leftys and libs, my opinion on Shapiro will not be recognized as the general consensus. However, it’s best to keep a perspective that is open minded when listening to opinions with which you might disagree, instead of just attempting to nullify everything that is said simply because you dislike a particular person.

And he is not quick witted.

It is quite clear that many people recognize him as a well spoken and worthy debate opponent. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that opinion is not commonly recognized, as many people seek debates with him.

Shapiro is known for his fast-paced and articulate speaking style. He possesses a strong command of language, which enables him to present his arguments clearly and succinctly.

Shapiro is well-versed in a wide range of topics, including politics, economics, philosophy, and social issues. He often extensively prepares for debates by researching the subject matter, gathering relevant data, and constructing persuasive arguments.

Shapiro is known for his confident and assertive demeanor during debates. He is not afraid to challenge opposing views and presenting his own perspective.

Shapiro actively seeks out debate opportunities and is open to engaging with individuals who hold opposing views. His willingness to participate in discussions and defend his ideas contributes to his reputation as a debater.

You’d be more accurate if you stated that you have trouble following Shaprio’s debate style as it is quite clear that many people recognize him as a well spoken and worthy debate opponent. While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, that opinion is not commonly recognized, as many people seek debates with him.

Clearly, in an echo chamber of leftys and libs, my opinion on Shapiro’s debate style will not be recognized as the general consensus. However, it’s best to keep a perspective that is open minded when listening to opinions with which you might disagree, instead of just attempting to nullify everything that is said simply because you dislike a particular person.

Nothing I say can make you see people of color as worth dignity, so I don’t care to expend the energy to try to convince you.

Now you’re implying that I’m racist while I’m clearly advocating for anti-racist policies… It’s certainly true that the leftys don’t get much smarter than this prime example.

Since when is charity dignifying for the recipient?

Was I wrong? Why not instead of just spewing malarkey you try and bolster your position on the matter? Instead we get “mickey mouse attempt,” “reverse racism,” and “full blown trite”… How is any of that useful to the discussion at hand? It isn’t. If you want to be taken seriously, redeem yourself and give it a go.

SCOTUS disagrees and I am so pleased that years of blatant racism is being reversed regarding college admissions. Cannot wait to see what’s next!

Many people are saying that my position is wrong, but nobody has yet to try and explain why they think so. Instead we have “bait-and-switched,” “reverse-racism,” “microaggressions”, “bad faith actors,” “bird-brained simpleton,” etc… It’s both hilarious and sad that none of you can provide reinforcement for your positions.

Here’s mine: Racism is discrimination by an institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. Literally affirmative action and college admissions. But the libs and leftys will deny this to the death without ever trying to back it up. Why is that?

The subject being promoted here is not rational, the consequences are not beneficial to society at large, and this person only wants to cling to civility when it benefits him to do so, in order to appear to be a sympathetic victim in comparison to the other person in the dialogue.

I couldn’t care less how many names the members of m/politics call me. It’s honestly hilarious how fresh this site is yet how much of an echo chamber it has already become. If you want to be m/lib-scum or m/donkey-politics… I’d totally get that, I wouldn’t support it, but I’d recognize that at least you tried. Instead, you’re m/politics, so you should surely expect that both sides of current arguments would be present. I was surprised that this assumption was false.

So, you get what ask for.

On another note, I’m not attempting to “appear as a victim,” we have enough leftys and libs doing that on a daily basis, I certainly wouldn’t want to come off as soft headed or cowardice as that lot. I’m simply calling out the bullshit as I see it. I’m certainly not claiming I’m innocent of bullshitting and name calling.

So, you get what you give.

No need to apologize, my friend. Here’s some timestamped links of the giant numbers leading the way:

https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7286

https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7646

https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7655

https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7692

https://youtu.be/vS-w8By9G88?t=7752

This level is just full of them, all those are for the same level… The timestamps are right on the spot, so might be helpful to pause or the player will probably just run past them quickly.

Not sure what happens on kbin when linking multiple YT vids in a single post. Let’s find out!

Don’t let your lack of values coerce you into thinking that your lack of values is justified.

Blame the culture, not the skin color. Only then will you truly understand.

Look beyond superficial attributes and instead delve into the underlying cultural dynamics that contribute to individual’s behavior.

I wouldn’t get on a plane with Ben Shapiro because he’ll destroy the left wing

Hilarious.

Hm, something got lost in the conversation there… Boltgun does not have sequels or prequels it’s not a “franchise” (regarding “Boltgun” itself, of course 40k is a huge franchise). There is only the one Boltgun game…

I was referring to certain levels within the game. Not every level, but some, have giant signs painted on the walls that will have Roman numerals, like “I, II, or III”. With an arrow pointing a certain direction which leads to a door or how to progress through the level.

I wish I never noticed them as they felt very immersion breaking. Why would somebody paint on the walls exactly where to go and in which order?

If someone proposes an argument and another person tries to counter the proposed argument with the goal being to critically analyze the topic and challenge a position, the conversation becomes a “debate”. Regardless of if the setting is formal or not. If you’d prefer to not call the conversation a debate, that’s fine, Libs are well known for trying to redefine words to fit their narrative and the definition of debate itself varies depending on which source you query…

Since this isn’t a formal debate and you were clear that you didn’t think it’s a debate at all, why then would you imply that the conversation must have a winner or a loser? Seems contradictory. I certainly didn’t tell you that I won because I pointed out something that was seemingly obvious to everyone, besides yourself.

You seem generally confused as you lack the capacity to analyze a simple conversation. If the only thoughts you are capable of explaining are calling people names because you disagree with their position, I doubt you should be anywhere near an entertainment medium and more focused on furthering your education. Maybe then you might be able to comprehend the joke and attack it’s position and validity.

I truly hope you have a brighter future ahead of you. Best wishes.