Addendum to my last post: the meta version.
I've seen a lot of grumbling that discussion of these mass-murders that include conversations on gun control are "politicizing the tragedy," and how sad it is that these conversations have become "political."
Well-- the context of our national crisis of mass-shootings makes these discussions explicitly political. Were this an isolated incident, that'd be one thing. But the US has had a mass killing every month this year with guns. There is no way possible to discuss how to avert further bloodshed without getting, as these people say, "political" about it.
It is important to shield and support those affected, and honor those who have passed-- but when we have conversations about how to stop these massacres (and those conversations are more pressing than ever), gun control is one of the things that is going to factor in. So is the total inadequacy of mental healthcare in this country. Both of those things are gonna be "political."
So I guess my question is-- how on earth do we discuss how to stop massacres without being "political"? I don't think there is a way, and frankly I find the descriptions of these types of conversations as "politicizing the tragedy" quite dismissive. I've heard a lot of "now is not the time." I've heard that we should all stop being political and "spread your love around." (As though, again, talking about these tragedies with a mind to stopping them and being a loving person were somehow mutually exclusive.)
More often than not, these sentiments basically boil down to "I find these conversations difficult and painful. I don't want to participate in those conversations, so you shouldn't have them." Which is... dude, not your place to decide. It's just pushing the conversations out of the national consciousness back to another day, where they're less likely to occur on the same scale. Where they're less likely to do any good.
Yeah, these conversations get heated sometimes. But other times they don't. Other times they're quite instructive, or illuminating, or people find common ground.
Bottom line? If you don't want to participate in these discussions, that's okay. There are many reasons why one wouldn't want to. But please don't try to dictate to others how they should respond, and definitely don't imply that those who are choosing to have these discussions are somehow less willing, able, and/or capable to be loving than someone who chooses not to.
Also? Does it seem like the media is doing a worse job of covering this tragedy than previous ones? It seems like in the rush to be the first to break news, there is SO MUCH misinformaiton flying. The number of shooters, the identity of the shooter, the guns, the victims, the motives, everything. I understand getting a detail wrong here and there, but news stations have basically been reporting hearsay as fact, and it's gross.
Well-- the context of our national crisis of mass-shootings makes these discussions explicitly political. Were this an isolated incident, that'd be one thing. But the US has had a mass killing every month this year with guns. There is no way possible to discuss how to avert further bloodshed without getting, as these people say, "political" about it.
It is important to shield and support those affected, and honor those who have passed-- but when we have conversations about how to stop these massacres (and those conversations are more pressing than ever), gun control is one of the things that is going to factor in. So is the total inadequacy of mental healthcare in this country. Both of those things are gonna be "political."
So I guess my question is-- how on earth do we discuss how to stop massacres without being "political"? I don't think there is a way, and frankly I find the descriptions of these types of conversations as "politicizing the tragedy" quite dismissive. I've heard a lot of "now is not the time." I've heard that we should all stop being political and "spread your love around." (As though, again, talking about these tragedies with a mind to stopping them and being a loving person were somehow mutually exclusive.)
More often than not, these sentiments basically boil down to "I find these conversations difficult and painful. I don't want to participate in those conversations, so you shouldn't have them." Which is... dude, not your place to decide. It's just pushing the conversations out of the national consciousness back to another day, where they're less likely to occur on the same scale. Where they're less likely to do any good.
Yeah, these conversations get heated sometimes. But other times they don't. Other times they're quite instructive, or illuminating, or people find common ground.
Bottom line? If you don't want to participate in these discussions, that's okay. There are many reasons why one wouldn't want to. But please don't try to dictate to others how they should respond, and definitely don't imply that those who are choosing to have these discussions are somehow less willing, able, and/or capable to be loving than someone who chooses not to.
Also? Does it seem like the media is doing a worse job of covering this tragedy than previous ones? It seems like in the rush to be the first to break news, there is SO MUCH misinformaiton flying. The number of shooters, the identity of the shooter, the guns, the victims, the motives, everything. I understand getting a detail wrong here and there, but news stations have basically been reporting hearsay as fact, and it's gross.