White Gunman Attacks Non-Whites at California Pool

[SummerMadness]

Woman killed, 6 others injured in San Diego pool shooting; gunman dead

A gunman opened fire at a pool area of a San Diego apartment complex Sunday evening, killing a woman and injuring six other people, Police Chief Shelley Zimmerman said.

The gunman, Peter Selis, 49, shot all seven at the La Jolla Crossroads apartments around 6 p.m. before police officers fatally shot him, Zimmerman said.

Besides the seven who were shot, an eighth person broke his arm while fleeing the gunfire, police said. Zimmerman initially said that eight people had been shot.

Peter Selis: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

 

[Radrook]

Wonder what motivated him to do such a thing! Not that it is justifiable under any circumstances since I'm sure there were options such as relocating. I guess some people just don't have sufficient control. I have had people try to run me over while I was crossing the street and didn't notice their speeding car approaching me. I once got in a cab and the driver was purposefully trying to run over black people. You never know and you can never be sure. Race is no guarantee either since there are lunatics of all races and racists who are murderously inclined in all races.

 

[SummerMadness]

We all know this attacker is a reflection of white people and "white culture," in the same way that a Muslim or African American represents their entire group.

 

[Radrook]

We all know this attacker is a reflection of white people and "white culture," in the same way that a Muslim or African American represents their entire group.

Any African American represents the whole group? Isn't that a bit irrational? I mean, there are nut cases in mental hospitals who are Chinese. Do they represent the whole Chinese group? All Muslims aren't terrorists-you know? Neither are all white people racists.

 

[Dave-W]

We all know this attacker is a reflection of white people and "white culture," in the same way that a Muslim or African American represents their entire group.

Welcome back Summer!

 

[Redac]

Any African American represents the whole group? Isn't that a bit irrational? I mean, there are nut cases in mental hospitals who are Chinese. Do they represent the whole Chinese group? All Muslims aren't terrorists-you know? Neither are all white people racists.

Summer is being facetious.

 

[381465]

I won't celebrate anyone's death, but I won't shed any tears over this "man's" death.

 

[AirPo]

We all know this attacker is a reflection of white people and "white culture," in the same way that a Muslim or African American represents their entire group.

Personally, I think it makes more of a statement by not stooping down to the level of "white culture" of blaming an entire group.

 

[MehGuy]

We all know this attacker is a reflection of white people and "white culture," in the same way that a Muslim or African American represents their entire group.

Weird that you left out "masculine" culture.

You know the group of people many on the left think is ok to generalize. While throwing a fit when other people don't follow their pick and choose politics, lol..

 

[Tallguy88]

Police Say There Is No Indication So Far Race Played a Role in the Shooting & the Victims Were in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We all know this attacker is a reflection of white people and "white culture," in the same way that a Muslim or African American represents their entire group.

I kinda figured that was the angle you were going for with this. Which is fine btw...you're trying to highlight a social double-standard that has a certain measure of prevalence.

However, like I mentioned before (as you and I have had this conversation numerous times), one has to also realize that there's a logical fallacy going in the other direction as well.

Obviously, neither logical fallacy is right, and one doesn't justify the usage of the other...

On these "shooting: lone wolf vs. represents the group" threads, one side demonstrates a double standard that "when it's someone from my group, it's a lone wolf, when it's from that 'other' group, it represents the lot" (which is the one you're trying to highlight...which you're right, that's an unfair double standard).

However, the logical fallacy that the other side of the coin poses is one of the "false equivalency" variety where they portray it as a pure apples-to-apples comparison when it's in fact not.

Firstly, the "Muslim or African American" side that you're comparing to "White" is an incorrect comparison... Black to White would be a valid comparison to look at, however, those are races, where "Muslim" represents an ideology. It's a circumstance of birth vs. a circumstance of choice...big difference there.

As it relates to the "group association in the public eye" mentality that occurs when the suspect is Muslim, as opposed to the "lone wolf in the public eye" mentality when it's a Christian, one has to be honest in acknowledging that, even though the double-standard still isn't fair, it exists due to the prevalence, frequency, and magnitude of the events.

We has humans are naturally wired up to be perceptive to pattern detection. It's the reason why if a little kid has been bitten by 3 different dogs recently but never bitten by a cat, he'll be more skittish around a random dog than he would be around a random cat (even though the random cat may be just as likely to bite him as that random dog). Humans are also very perceptive to probabilities as well. If a person goes to a neighborhood 10 times and of those 10, 3 times their car was broken into, they're going to have greater concern over going to that neighborhood vs. a neighborhood where it's never been broken into (even if they've never been to that 2nd neighborhood before). Magnitude is a no brainer...a match and an acetylene torch can both burn you, however, an accident with one can be devastating compared to an accident with the other, so people are going to exercise caution at different levels as a result of that

So, as that ties in with the attributes I mentioned before (prevalence, frequency, magnitude), each of those ties in with the human thought process on whether something is a random, somewhat unlikely event, verses something that's part of a larger pattern. That's the reason why, even though "radical Christianity" and "radical Islam" are both horrible ideologies that have both used violence, people are far more worried about the latter. When you have big, high profile events, happening in what seems like short succession, people are going to start seeing that as a pattern and looking for common threads, as to where if the events are much smaller scale and occur once a decade or less, peoples' "pattern detection engines" aren't going to rev up as much.

It's the main reason why the standard "oh, well anti-abortion Christian extremists have blown up clinics before, why aren't you as worried about that????" argument falls flat in most cases. They aren't racking up 10+ kills at a time in events that are less than year apart, they're not causing so much unrest in parts of the world that they're causing mass migration (I don't see a line at the Canadian border of people trying to escape out of fear of the militant Christian groups in Tennessee coming after them).

So while I'll agree that the double standard isn't technically "fair", to pretend that we don't understand the real reasons why the double standard exists, and merely try attribute it to bigotry, is intellectually dishonest and doesn't do much to promote a real change in thinking. It doesn't put the one side's fears at easy, and doesn't give other side any credibility in their opinions. They're simply going to see the other side as "the people who call me a bigot for being legitimately worried about something"

The fact of the matter is, the religion of Islam has a lot of problems at the moment, problems that exists with a prevalence and scale that simply isn't being seen in other world religions at the moment.

I don't think a person has to take one side or the other on the matter, I think a reasonable person can both acknowledge that fact, while also saying that it's wrong to judge people by their group association, simultaneously.

 

[381465]

Police Say There Is No Indication So Far Race Played a Role in the Shooting & the Victims Were in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

I wonder if that is just a public position to keep things cool.
Past attacks from black on white have usually started with similar public statements.

In my opinion, not much is random.

 

[Tallguy88]

I wonder if that is just a public position to keep things cool.
Past attacks from black on white have usually started with similar public statements.

In my opinion, not much is random.

Don't know. But I think the headline is designed to be race-baiting when the article specifically states that no racial motivation is known.

 

[381465]

Don't know. But I think the headline is designed to be race-baiting when the article specifically states that no racial motivation is known.

It really is pitiful that the knee jerk reaction is racism in any direction.

 

[com7fy8]

It says, "so far" they have no indication?

In any case, there are people who sucker-shoot others simply because they are evil. They might cover it up with some named cause. But this is what a number of murderers do: they say . . . at least to themselves . . . that they have a reason.

"But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Timothy 3:13)

One part of their problem is they have not found out how to love. And so, they also have had problems in relating with even their families and anyone they consider to be their friends.

The loss is what they are not doing, not only what they do do.

And Jesus says murder is in the heart. Ones can miss out on love, by having hatred in their heart.

 

[SummerMadness]

Weird that you left out "masculine" culture.

You know the group of people many on the left think is ok to generalize. While throwing a fit when other people don't follow their pick and choose politics, lol..

The generalization is purposeful. There is no reason to generalize; however, when the perpetrator is African American, a Hispanic immigrant, or Muslim, there is always talk of "bad culture" and the responsibility of communities. When someone points out this hypocrisy with stories like these, these same people miss that point and argue that there is hypocrisy due to generalizations. It's fairly evident that no one blames the "white community" for crimes committed by individuals. No one creates a division to highlight crimes carried out by white people, yet they wish to do the same to highlight crimes by immigrants (with Latin American immigrants being their main focus). Where was your voice to speak to that wrongful generalization? The notion of "the left think [it's] okay to generalize" is utterly false, it was always brought up to show the subjective nature of pointing out crimes by minority groups... it appears some people missed this point.

 

[SummerMadness]

I kinda figured that was the angle you were going for with this. Which is fine btw...you're trying to highlight a social double-standard that has a certain measure of prevalence.

However, like I mentioned before (as you and I have had this conversation numerous times), one has to also realize that there's a logical fallacy going in the other direction as well.

Obviously, neither logical fallacy is right, and one doesn't justify the usage of the other...

On these "shooting: lone wolf vs. represents the group" threads, one side demonstrates a double standard that "when it's someone from my group, it's a lone wolf, when it's from that 'other' group, it represents the lot" (which is the one you're trying to highlight...which you're right, that's an unfair double standard).

However, the logical fallacy that the other side of the coin poses is one of the "false equivalency" variety where they portray it as a pure apples-to-apples comparison when it's in fact not.

Firstly, the "Muslim or African American" side that you're comparing to "White" is an incorrect comparison... Black to White would be a valid comparison to look at, however, those are races, where "Muslim" represents an ideology. It's a circumstance of birth vs. a circumstance of choice...big difference there.

As it relates to the "group association in the public eye" mentality that occurs when the suspect is Muslim, as opposed to the "lone wolf in the public eye" mentality when it's a Christian, one has to be honest in acknowledging that, even though the double-standard still isn't fair, it exists due to the prevalence, frequency, and magnitude of the events.

We has humans are naturally wired up to be perceptive to pattern detection. It's the reason why if a little kid has been bitten by 3 different dogs recently but never bitten by a cat, he'll be more skittish around a random dog than he would be around a random cat (even though the random cat may be just as likely to bite him as that random dog). Humans are also very perceptive to probabilities as well. If a person goes to a neighborhood 10 times and of those 10, 3 times their car was broken into, they're going to have greater concern over going to that neighborhood vs. a neighborhood where it's never been broken into (even if they've never been to that 2nd neighborhood before). Magnitude is a no brainer...a match and an acetylene torch can both burn you, however, an accident with one can be devastating compared to an accident with the other, so people are going to exercise caution at different levels as a result of that

So, as that ties in with the attributes I mentioned before (prevalence, frequency, magnitude), each of those ties in with the human thought process on whether something is a random, somewhat unlikely event, verses something that's part of a larger pattern. That's the reason why, even though "radical Christianity" and "radical Islam" are both horrible ideologies that have both used violence, people are far more worried about the latter. When you have big, high profile events, happening in what seems like short succession, people are going to start seeing that as a pattern and looking for common threads, as to where if the events are much smaller scale and occur once a decade or less, peoples' "pattern detection engines" aren't going to rev up as much.

It's the main reason why the standard "oh, well anti-abortion Christian extremists have blown up clinics before, why aren't you as worried about that????" argument falls flat in most cases. They aren't racking up 10+ kills at a time in events that are less than year apart, they're not causing so much unrest in parts of the world that they're causing mass migration (I don't see a line at the Canadian border of people trying to escape out of fear of the militant Christian groups in Tennessee coming after them).

So while I'll agree that the double standard isn't technically "fair", to pretend that we don't understand the real reasons why the double standard exists, and merely try attribute it to bigotry, is intellectually dishonest and doesn't do much to promote a real change in thinking. It doesn't put the one side's fears at easy, and doesn't give other side any credibility in their opinions. They're simply going to see the other side as "the people who call me a bigot for being legitimately worried about something"

The fact of the matter is, the religion of Islam has a lot of problems at the moment, problems that exists with a prevalence and scale that simply isn't being seen in other world religions at the moment.

I don't think a person has to take one side or the other on the matter, I think a reasonable person can both acknowledge that fact, while also saying that it's wrong to judge people by their group association, simultaneously.

A Christian guy shot up an abortion clinic because Planned Parenthood "sells baby parts," yet the entire ideology of Christianity isn't attacked, so let's can the argument of false equivalence. The only reason people see nuance with people closely related to them, while they see other people as being something entirely different is because of their own prejudices. Those prejudices are wrong, they are not based on some objective standard.

 

[MehGuy]

The generalization is purposeful. There is no reason to generalize; however, when the perpetrator is African American, a Hispanic immigrant, or Muslim, there is always talk of "bad culture" and the responsibility of communities. When someone points out this hypocrisy with stories like these, these same people miss that point and argue that there is hypocrisy due to generalizations.

Yet the left does the same thing for men. It's not a one way street..

It's fairly evident that no one blames the "white community" for crimes committed by individuals.

Really? A lot of modern liberals seem too.

Where was your voice to speak to that wrongful generalization? The notion of "the left think [it's] okay to generalize" is utterly false, it was always brought up to show the subjective nature of pointing out crimes by minority groups... it appears some people missed this point.

That's simply not true. The left has been spreading fear mongering over toxic males for a while now. Which I find funny. How does this help blacks males in the end? We're supposed to liberate them from the fear of their blackness and just replace it for the fear of their masculinity. And at that point it's not hard to see people who will take it an extra step and say some groups have more of a problem with "toxic masculinity" than others. Which some could argue was always the real driving force of a lot of their fear. That black men possess some hyper form of masculinity.

No one has missed the point. People are just not falling over the notion that the left is blameless and doesn't engage in the same behavior. I agree that it's wrong to generalize, although I also acknowledge the left's way of doing things is never going to solve racial problems, at the very least they are just going to make them worse.

You are not going to win people over by having double standards.

 

[com7fy8]

The notion of "the left think [it's] okay to generalize" is utterly false,

I would say there are certain liberals who generalize, but others do not. And, likewise, humans who are conservative can generalize, but not all conservatives do.

So, it is clear it is silly and inaccurate to make one-size-fits-all statements.

Ones can want to make all in a group the same way, so they don't have to make the effort to really get to know each one. It is lazy lazy lazy and against how Jesus wants us to personally love and care about each person.

And if we hold to the United States Constitution, then we understand that we are not going to accuse people if we do not have evidence, in each case for each person. And whomever we accuse has the right to see us face to face in court and review our evidence. So, if we make general accusations about people we don't even know, we are by our actions declaring the United States Constitution to be illegitimate.

But, of course, here in these forums, we have people who are from different countries, not only the United States. They have not been brought up to discipline themselves to presume people innocent until proven guilty, as the United States Constitution requires of American citizens.

We can see how generalizations are not even make-believe. For one example . . . if all the millions of Muslims in this world were suicidal jihadists . . . we already would have had millions of people around the world beheaded during even the past few days or months, I estimate . . . conservatively, I think.

And if all police were killers . . . in the United States we have about a million officers. There have not been close to a million people killed by United States police, during the past year or quite a longer time!! Plus, a number of officers would risk their lives to protect your mother or father or child or sister or brother or grandparents . . . even though a number of people are disrespecting them. But there are people who are not interested in reporting this.

I myself can be very quick to find fault, and very love-lazy about seeing and showing appreciation of how people are doing good.

 

[SummerMadness]

Yet the left does the same thing for men. It's not a one way street..

Really? A lot of modern liberals seem too.

That's simply not true. The left has been spreading fear mongering over toxic males for a while now. Which I find funny. How does this help blacks males in the end? We're supposed to liberate them from the fear of their blackness and just replace it for the fear of their masculinity. And at that point it's not hard to see people who will take it an extra step and say some groups have more of a problem with "toxic masculinity" than others. Which some could argue was always the real driving force of a lot of their fear. That black men possess some hyper form of masculinity.

No one has missed the point. People are just not falling over the notion that the left is blameless and doesn't engage in the same behavior. I agree that it's wrong to generalize, although I also acknowledge the left's way of doing things is never going to solve racial problems, at the very least they are just going to make them worse.

You are not going to win people over by having double standards.

Tell me when they make a division to focus on white crime, then we'll talk. Another problem with your argument, toxic masculinity does not mean white.