A friend gave me a copy in 1994. Yes, even back then, we had the "PC" madness. It was as laughable back then as it is today. I think there are times when people may want one emoji or the other. But my freedom to choose shouldn't be limited by the PC police. Give me both choices.
It doesn't have anything to do with being PC. It has to do with people making threats via the messaging platform.
"X is an irrelevance." Is that why President Biden announced he's not running again on X?
As for those who think that constant messaging can desensitize people: then are you in favor of censoring pornography and violent video games? Why or why not?
IMO, you are only displaying your effeminacy programming.
A symbol is *not* the thing being symbolized. Why are people scared of a drawing of a pistol?
Txitter may be "an irrelevance" to Xbit and others, but it is still used by millions.
Who is expressing fear of a drawing of a pistol? Can you point to examples of this?
Unfortunately, messaging can be harmful. Messages can create fear. If someone can easily send a picture of a real gun to someone else, it's an avenue of potential threat and harm. X is a conduit between two such people, and by reverting, they are letting their American 2nd-A mentality blind them to the larger harm that can be done with their platform. Sending an image of a water pistol does not have the same impact to a scared recipient as receiving a picture of a real gun. X is in control of this.
Are you in favor of censoring pornography? Violent video games? Certain gifs? Movies with guns in them? Should I not be allowed to send movie clips to my friends if they have guns? Should videos of police activity not be allowed to be shared, because it might trigger someone (pun intended)? Please let us know why or why not.
hexclock said: People are the problem, not the guns.
As always, if people are the problem then why would you let them have guns?
Because the only way to not "let" them have guns is for other people to be allowed to have guns, recreating the very power imbalance guns helped alleviate when they were first invented. A woman with a gun is equal in a conflict with a man with a gun. Gun control is misogynistic in its effects, regardless of how hard you close your eyes to reality.
hexclock said: People are the problem, not the guns.
As always, if people are the problem then why would you let them have guns?
Because the only way to not "let" them have guns is for other people to be allowed to have guns, recreating the very power imbalance guns helped alleviate when they were first invented. A woman with a gun is equal in a conflict with a man with a gun. Gun control is misogynistic in its effects, regardless of how hard you close your eyes to reality.
I can count the number of gun violence occurrences in my country on one hand, simply because guns are very hard to get here. We do have violent people, like in any other country. They just don't shoot people, because they can't. Also, we have way more freedoms, liberties and protections than the USA, really don't need a gun for that.
hexclock said: People are the problem, not the guns.
As always, if people are the problem then why would you let them have guns?
Because the only way to not "let" them have guns is for other people to be allowed to have guns, recreating the very power imbalance guns helped alleviate when they were first invented. A woman with a gun is equal in a conflict with a man with a gun. Gun control is misogynistic in its effects, regardless of how hard you close your eyes to reality.
If I'm reading you right, by that logic, the only way to balance things out would be for everyone to have a gun.
Gun control is the only way to reduce gun related crime, and with it, gun related culture.
Gun control isn't about the sexes.
Where I am, little kids play out on the seafront past midnight (it is very hot here). Parents can lounge at bars and beach chiringuitos and watch from a distance. It is overwhelmingly 'safe' except for the pickpocket problem and that is almost always from touring groups of Eastern European origin.
There is no predominant yobbo culture. No knife problem and definitely zero gun culture. We have had occasional 'hit jobs'. Contract killings but that is because your average mafia boss is likely keeping his head down somewhere near a quiet, sunny beach so someone gets wind of where they are and then we read about it in the news.
Police and licenced security guards can carry visible firearms.
No guns means less gun related crime and far fewer gun related injuries or deaths.
"X is an irrelevance." Is that why President Biden announced he's not running again on X?
As for those who think that constant messaging can desensitize people: then are you in favor of censoring pornography and violent video games? Why or why not?
IMO, you are only displaying your effeminacy programming.
Re: "Effeminacy" - Why would anyone openly use a term 99% known only to the incel community?
Oh.
Right.
Got it.
Also: Would a noose emoji add or detract from conversations?
A symbol is *not* the thing being symbolized. Why are people scared of a drawing of a pistol?
Txitter may be "an irrelevance" to Xbit and others, but it is still used by millions.
Who is expressing fear of a drawing of a pistol? Can you point to examples of this?
Unfortunately, messaging can be harmful. Messages can create fear. If someone can easily send a picture of a real gun to someone else, it's an avenue of potential threat and harm. X is a conduit between two such people, and by reverting, they are letting their American 2nd-A mentality blind them to the larger harm that can be done with their platform. Sending an image of a water pistol does not have the same impact to a scared recipient as receiving a picture of a real gun. X is in control of this.
Are you in favor of censoring pornography? Violent video games? Certain gifs? Movies with guns in them? Should I not be allowed to send movie clips to my friends if they have guns? Should videos of police activity not be allowed to be shared, because it might trigger someone (pun intended)? Please let us know why or why not.
No one is "censoring" emojis. Companies make decisions primarily based on how it affects their bottom lines. Musk is appealing to those who he sees as benefiting his bottom line - those in need of penile prosthetics and others.
In the same vein, a ketamine emoji on Musk Media™ might make financial sense to Elon, while not making sense for Apple, Facebook, Google, etc. The Free Maket® at work, right?
Gun control is the only way to reduce gun related crime, and with it, gun related culture.
Completely wrong. Several communities in the US reduced their homicide rate significantly (which went hand-in-hand with the reduction in gun-related homicide) without any changes to gun control laws. They largely used community-based "violence interruptors" which targeted habitual offenders; basically it's a "either you stop committing violent crime (and we will help you) or you are going to prison for a very long time. Boston's Operation Ceasefire achieved a 63% reduction in youth homicide.
The US states with the highest percent gun ownership have the lowest homicide rates, and those rates are on par with the best European countries.
Gun control is the only way to reduce gun related crime, and with it, gun related culture.
Completely wrong. Several communities in the US reduced their homicide rate significantly (which went hand-in-hand with the reduction in gun-related homicide) without any changes to gun control laws. They largely used community-based "violence interruptors" which targeted habitual offenders; basically it's a "either you stop committing violent crime (and we will help you) or you are going to prison for a very long time. Boston's Operation Ceasefire achieved a 63% reduction in youth homicide.
The US states with the highest percent gun ownership have the lowest homicide rates, and those rates are on par with the best European countries.
You seem to be cherry picking items here.
If you eliminate guns you eliminate gun culture and with it you reduce gun crime. Not only 'homicide' and not only in some 'communities'.
I've read the Johns Hopkins report and many others.
"Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000."
That's only one take on 'homicide'. If I were to include all gun related crime, what would the figures look like?
It's worth remembering that up to 2021, 81% of murders in the US involved guns.
Having states with the highest gun ownership and the lowest homicide ignores the fact that if those states had no guns, the numbers would be even lower and I was referring to the US, not communities or states. Have gun related crimes gone down in the US?
If you were to apply those 'violence interruptors' country-wide do you think things would change? I certainly don't because gun culture becomes ingrained and only exists because guns are available.
Gun control is the only way to reduce gun related crime, and with it, gun related culture.
Completely wrong. Several communities in the US reduced their homicide rate significantly (which went hand-in-hand with the reduction in gun-related homicide) without any changes to gun control laws. They largely used community-based "violence interruptors" which targeted habitual offenders; basically it's a "either you stop committing violent crime (and we will help you) or you are going to prison for a very long time. Boston's Operation Ceasefire achieved a 63% reduction in youth homicide.
The US states with the highest percent gun ownership have the lowest homicide rates, and those rates are on par with the best European countries.
You seem to be cherry picking items here.
If you eliminate guns you eliminate gun culture and with it you reduce gun crime. Not only 'homicide' and not only in some 'communities'.
I've read the Johns Hopkins report and many others.
"Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000."
That's only one take on 'homicide'. If I were to include all gun related crime, what would the figures look like?
It's worth remembering that up to 2021, 81% of murders in the US involved guns.
Having states with the highest gun ownership and the lowest homicide ignores the fact that if those states had no guns, the numbers would be even lower and I was referring to the US, not communities or states. Have gun related crimes gone down in the US?
If you were to apply those 'violence interruptors' country-wide do you think things would change? I certainly don't because gun culture becomes ingrained and only exists because guns are available.
The statistics I'm reading on Montenegro and Albania show their rates at 1.91 and 1.13 respectively. Sweden is third at .60 and rising. It seems that the common thread between these three countries and the US is that gang warfare/affiliation is a huge driver of homicide -- and by merely not being in a gang cuts your chance of being a victim significantly. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1465188/europe-homicide-rate-firearms-country/
As we are seeing in many countries with extremely strict gun control, other tools replace the use of guns when guns are removed from the hands of citizens (UK and China are notable cases). Something to note about the US: it's a more violent country more comparable to Brazil. The US' non-firearm homicide rate is higher than the UK's total homicide rate.
I do believe solutions such as violence interruptors would have a significant decrease in violent crimes. The example I gave is not the only success story of its type. By far the majority of these crimes are committed by a tiny fraction of the population that are repeat offenders.
Gun culture has been a big thing in Switzerland and you know how violent that country is -- very low rates.
Comments
I was surprised when they swapped a more realistic pistol emoji for a squirt gun. Bizarre.
Glad to see the pistol back.
If people get triggered by a handgun icon, what can you say.
As for those who think that constant messaging can desensitize people: then are you in favor of censoring pornography and violent video games? Why or why not?
IMO, you are only displaying your effeminacy programming.
As always, if people are the problem then why would you let them have guns?
Gun control is the only way to reduce gun related crime, and with it, gun related culture.
Gun control isn't about the sexes.
Where I am, little kids play out on the seafront past midnight (it is very hot here). Parents can lounge at bars and beach chiringuitos and watch from a distance. It is overwhelmingly 'safe' except for the pickpocket problem and that is almost always from touring groups of Eastern European origin.
There is no predominant yobbo culture. No knife problem and definitely zero gun culture. We have had occasional 'hit jobs'. Contract killings but that is because your average mafia boss is likely keeping his head down somewhere near a quiet, sunny beach so someone gets wind of where they are and then we read about it in the news.
Police and licenced security guards can carry visible firearms.
No guns means less gun related crime and far fewer gun related injuries or deaths.
Oh.
Right.
Got it.
Also: Would a noose emoji add or detract from conversations?
In the same vein, a ketamine emoji on Musk Media™ might make financial sense to Elon, while not making sense for Apple, Facebook, Google, etc. The Free Maket® at work, right?
The US states with the highest percent gun ownership have the lowest homicide rates, and those rates are on par with the best European countries.
If you eliminate guns you eliminate gun culture and with it you reduce gun crime. Not only 'homicide' and not only in some 'communities'.
I've read the Johns Hopkins report and many others.
"Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000."
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier#:~:text=US ranks first.-,Rates of firearm homicides among high-income countries,populations over 10 million, 2021&text=Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 19,firearm homicide seen in Australia.
That's only one take on 'homicide'. If I were to include all gun related crime, what would the figures look like?
It's worth remembering that up to 2021, 81% of murders in the US involved guns.
Having states with the highest gun ownership and the lowest homicide ignores the fact that if those states had no guns, the numbers would be even lower and I was referring to the US, not communities or states. Have gun related crimes gone down in the US?
If you were to apply those 'violence interruptors' country-wide do you think things would change? I certainly don't because gun culture becomes ingrained and only exists because guns are available.
As we are seeing in many countries with extremely strict gun control, other tools replace the use of guns when guns are removed from the hands of citizens (UK and China are notable cases). Something to note about the US: it's a more violent country more comparable to Brazil. The US' non-firearm homicide rate is higher than the UK's total homicide rate.
I do believe solutions such as violence interruptors would have a significant decrease in violent crimes. The example I gave is not the only success story of its type. By far the majority of these crimes are committed by a tiny fraction of the population that are repeat offenders.
Gun culture has been a big thing in Switzerland and you know how violent that country is -- very low rates.