Why do people on here only care when the shooter is WHITE?

LOL. No, no no. You are drawing the wrong conclusion from the evidence. This is not about the races of the parties involved in the incident. Its about the character, the posting styles of the people who happen to be posting to each other. In other words of the 'right' combination of opponents happen to meet in a thread, regardless of topic, you may have a flame war of two stubborn obstinate partisan mules that lasts for days and days!/ Get a couple of those incendiary combinations and that thread will span pages and stay at the top of our list of threads, for the cycle to continue, and more interest with more visibility . If two stubborn obstinate mules do not happen to meet in a thread, it can die fairly quickly because the brawls that provide it visibility never happen, .

Don't take this the wrong way, but if someone with a style similar to yours finds a willing engager, there may be an endless series of questions and answers in a colloquy that goes on and on and on as you two fellows dissect details and define terms. The next thread of similar nature may find that the same chemistry just does not happen between any two participants or one of them just has to go to bed, to pull a double shift the next day. A long debate disappears because somebody else who never used this site and has no interest in politics or race, called in sick!. Its about our lives, our styles, our interest level and good old fashioned chance if two or three highly partisan antagonists here, keeps the thread at the top of the page, where others will see it in and jump in rather than buried on the bottom of another page, in less than a days time!.

And I will not engage in a long detailed coliquy on this matter defending this point until I pull my eyebrows out. Either you accept this basic argument as relevent, or you do not. I think its foundation is clear above as a viable alternative premise to yours, and what I mean above is also pretty clear. Do with it what you will, Chris.

 

"Our interest level." BINGO! You said it! Most people on here just aren't interested in a black mass shooter in the same way that they are interested in a mass white shooter! Thank you for assisting my argument!

 

Please don't extract one of many variables from my post out of their context as representing one of many variables in the same sentence. Its not really intellectually honest as it will distort the full meaning of that sentence.

See,you cannot isolate the interest level in the topic by post count, from the interest level in the interaction with other posters who happen to post on the topic. Given time, that will drive post counts up as much as interest in the topic, and the more posts a topic receives, especially at times with lots of traffic, the more visibility and the more posts. That is my point. Your metric does not prove the validity of your premise. That means your 'proof' that you offered here, is compromised and your conclusion drawn from the data is suspect.

 

Are you saying that what attracts someone INITIALLY to threads is the interaction with other posters?

 

No. Its a combination of things. For example. I would first categorize the thread in my head by subject. I'd say this is a 'crime' thread, involving a specific incident. Then I would notice key words or phrases like murder or robbery, or gun or white or black or Hispanic or 'mother' or 'sister' etc. Now if I have a crime thread with anyone's race including in the thread title I am already skeptical I want to enter, because either the author of a piece quoted, thinks race is important, or if the title of the thread is a copy of that of the article, a d both the author and the op creator thinks race is important here, and neither bodes well for an informed intelligent discussion.

But I still have more data on which to base my decisions, I have the name of the poster. Now there are some who are so predictable about turning race into a big deal, that I am pretty damn sure I don't want to go near it. Its just going to go in silly repetitive places. There are other posters where I might give it a look because they do not use single episode stories or incidents with which to drive a divisive racial wedge on little or no evidence beyond the anecdotal mentioned. If I respect the poster, I will click even with the red flags. If I don't respect him, I won't. but you are concluding that if I click one a thread with a reference to a black perpetrator or a white perpetrator or black victim or white victim is different because of which race, rather than which poster. Now what I respond to with a post, has a lot more content proceding, and a lot more information than just the title or OP on which I base my behavior,

You are oversimplifying everyone's motives and activity all through this process.

 

I wasn’t talking about this thread. Hence “anecdotal”.

 

Do you actually think that the Jersey City shooting thread could have just as easily attracted over 1000 replies?

 

So white people makeup 60% of the populace but only 56% of shooters are white.

Black people make up 12% of the population yet 16% of the mass shootings.

Latinos make up 16% of the you got only 9% of the shootings.

Asians make up 5% of the country yet almost 7% of the shootings.

So by this standard black people in Asian people are the bigger offenders based on demographics.

If you're focusing on white people you are wrongfully focusing on them maybe ahead of Latinos but definitely behind Asians and blacks.

 

Can you rephrase that?

 

Exactly. Someone here applying some common sense.

but somehow gang violence isn’t part of these mass shooting stats, thousands get murdered in the inner cities, largely black on black. Nobody really talks about it, could it be racism by mainstream media? They don’t care when blacks are killed by blacks?

 

Why?

 

I think you're onto something here.

If there was something wrong happening in so-called black communities, who is in-charge typically of these black communities?

 

Was it a perfect sentence with no typing errors?

 

People being persnickety about I the English language is something up with which I will not put.

And yes I just ended that sentence with a preposition.

 

Does not mentioning something equate with ignoring the same?

 

So is it the case that there is a higher representation of white shooters than Latino?

 

That is what I said.

 

It's just that you also said, "if you're focusing on white people you are wrongfully focusing on them maybe ahead of Latinos but definitely behind Asians and blacks."

 

Yes.

 

If the person is aware of the something, then yes. - they are ignoring commenting on it.

 

It's clear that you don't actually think that the Jersey City shooting thread could have just as easily attracted over 1000 replies.

 

Well it's not "maybe" is it? It's definitely.

 

No idea what you are asking me.

 

Why did you say "maybe?"

 

Its clear you have no substantial rebuttal to the above post, or 203, or 201. The number of posts in a thread does not directly correlate to interest in the OP, or its topic and that has been your only evidence that people here care more when a shooter is white. It is just as likely to be about the posting styles of specific posters and the posting dynamics of specific interactions. I'd like you to review posts 224,223, 222,220,219, 218,217,216,215, 214, 211, 2110 etc. They definitely do not reflect the utter fascination of the OP topic at all. they reflect drift away from the original topic in tangential interactions, largely driven by your interaction with three different posters simultaneously. If this kind of thing hits thread X, that thread can go for pages and pages longer than Thread Y. Your evidence for your premise is thus compromised. Now please make your next post to me a REBUTTAL of my argument right here.