I went with “other.” I think white genocide CT theorist and 9/11-truther LAZombie made it two years, for example.
So I suspect the recently departed might have made it about as long, maybe a bit longer assuming he wasn’t personally a 9/11-truther.
There have been a few people who dropped in, made some MAGA-ish comments, started to accept feedback, and were promptly banned to never be improved.
Maybe I missed some egregious posts but my sense is that the moderators are simply in no mood to humor MAGAs.
So again, maybe I missed some posts but my current sense would be that he’d have been banned, with no meaningful guidance nor opportunity to adjust to the rules.
To the best of my knowledge, I hold three or four positions that I’m not allowed to state; I’m not allowed to mention why I hold them, because I’m not even allowed to mention that I hold them.
But I believe I received meaningful guidance, and an opportunity to adjust to the rules.
Are there that many positions you’re not allowed to say you hold? I know some topics are banned from being debated (climate change, 911 conspiracies, race realism?) but I didn’t think it was against the rules to say you believe (or don’t in the case of climate change) in them; you just weren’t allowed to talk about why, or start a debate on them.
Or he was doing it because he was debating in bad faith, attempting to deflect from the enormous number of right-wing spree shooters by introducing the noise of gang violence (allowing him to also bring in his racist views to his argument).
You are describing accurately why a bullshit artist like Kirk wouldn’t touch a place like this with a 10ft pole.
No, none of those. I’ll PM you.
PM me as well, if you’re willing. I’m curious too.
What enormous number of right-wing spree shooters? The huge majority of mass shootings are domestic disputes, gang/assaults, or other non-ideological events. Ideologically motivated mass shootings are under 1% of the total, and some of those were done by Islamic extremists and left-wing extremists.
Why are you focusing on such a small fraction of the perpetrators, rather than the vastly greater problem of non-ideologically motivated mass shootings? 
I guarantee you that something like the above sentence was going to be the next line from the guy in the audience. It was a gotcha question; posters here usually refuse to answer them. In a live debate, trying to get in ahead of the guy’s point is probably the best way to deal with it.
Thanks. And you’re right; I guess this is a newish change to the rules.
And I guarantee you that the response here would be data showing that this:
…isn’t remotely true, although the habit of right-wing sources of categorizing every right-wing shooter as a “lone wolf” (as I heard one doing this morning about Kirk’s murderer) while painting every other group with a very broad brush (as Kirk was busily doing with trans people) certainly explains why those who get their news from right-wing sources might think so.
How many “domestic disputes” involve the murder of four or more people?
At risk of fighting the hypothetical, Slithy Tove has it. Jesus’ blueberry coveting mercenary in the war against empathy had opinions for the purpose of making money, and gaining attention and power.
The kind of sick fuck who doesn’t obsess over tiny details of online arguments unless there’s something bigger at stake than feeling seen to be correct on a message board.
Say what you like, but at least being obsessed with feeling seen to be correct on a message board doesn’t get you domed.
He wouldn’t last here once he saw there was no opportunity for monetisation.
I pasted that info from chatGPT, not right-wing news sources, and my brief fact check suggests it is indeed true. Your article is talking about ‘politically motivated attacks’, not mass shootings: you are comparing bananas to bean sprouts, and that is exactly the point at issue.
I’m not going to do any more in-depth research unless someone starts a dedicated thread, but left-wing media also tends to report stats like this in a misleading way. There are multiple definitions of mass shooting, mass killing, spree killing etc used in different databases, giving very different counts. Like, one or more orders of magnitude different. Some collect information on motive, and others don’t. You cannot simply take a count from one database and divide it by the total in another, because they are based on very different criteria. Nor can you take a count of ‘famous cases in the media’ and divide it by one of these totals, because again, the criteria to be included will be very different. Making this misleading comparison is what the guy in the audience was seemingly planning to do.
Please note that it is not actually my view that ideologically motivated mass shootings are unimportant compared to the massive number of non-ideologically motivated ones, but it is my view that we should properly understand the facts, and the limitations of the data, when discussing these issues.
Then what happened?
IMHO you should be thanked for your objectiveness and clear mind on the subject of mass shootings.
In the Cambridge 400+1 debate the students frequently referred to the fact that CK would win on points while they were defending fact. Perhaps this is the Brandolinis’ law in action. In the SDMB context, the point scoring style would be considered trolling at best, ad hominem at worst and draw warnings.
Formal debates are bullshit because they are scored on style without regard to fact. That is the secret of CKs’ success. He maintains a formal debate style against opponents who are defending facts. Paraphrasing Socrates from memory “If one man has truth and the other rhetoric, the man with rhetoric will win”.
And you are throwing in domestic incidents and gang violence into a discussion on spree shootings as indeed Charlie Kirk loved to do in order to “report stats like this in a misleading way”. Introducing noise into the data is a useful deflection technique to minimize data points that one wishes to avoid acknowledging. To borrow your analogy, you’re throwing as many bananas as possible into the blender to avoid discussion of the taste of beanspouts.
For example, in paragraphs like this..
…you pretty much drop the entire fruitbowl in. Interesting that even in the context of politically-motivated attacks you specifically reference Islamist and left-wing attacks while handwaving away right-wing attacks which over the past years and decades far outstrip the other two categories you mentioned.
By your own admission, you didn’t do any in the first place.
An interesting way of pre-emptively dismissing any data that doesn’t support one’s conclusions.
If by “guy in the audience” you mean Charlie Kirk, sure. And thank you for providing an example of what it would be like to have him here.
I think we understand them just fine. And the rhetoric as well.
Formal debating has done a lot of harm. It seems like a silly game, but people have confused making an argument to win a game with actually holding a position, seeking truth and having a desire to reach a shared understanding.
Sophistry pays the bills
Whereas there’s little demand for the truth.
Moderating:
The topic of “how many mass shootings fall into what category” is an interesting one, and i nearly replied. But it’s getting off topic, and probably deserves its own thread if folks want to continue the discussion.
Removed in response to modnote.
I’m new to the straightdope board, just stumbled across it because someone on here answered a google question of mine about Purcell’s “The Cold Song.”
I’ve been reading this thread, curious about how this community would handle such a one as CK, and I’m feeling very at home, so thank you for this discussion! it was a good introduction to this forum.