Also, do you know why MS-13 is so infamous? *Because they kill innocent people who had no involvement in gangs.* That’s kinda their thing.

So either you don’t know that, or you don’t care because...I’ll let you fill it in.

I also don’t...think you know what MS-13 is, if you think they had some involvement here.

Either that, or you do and just want to use buzzwords to get people mad. One of those.

So, wait. First you said you weren’t minimizing, you just considered them different. OK, fine. But now you’re literally saying it’s because you care less about one? That facade didn’t last long.

You also haven’t given a *reason* you view “gang” shootings (or those you assume to be gang-related “differently.” You just keep repeating that you do.

I didn’t actually say anything about race.

Every she says is possible individually. They don’t make any sense together. I’m baffled by so many people’s impulse to believe her.

“One man killing his family, or a gang murdering another gang, or a group of people shooting each other, are not ‘mass shootings’” I’m not exactly sure why you bring these examples up, because even if we used a more restricted definition that excluded them...none of them apply here.

IKR? The effort being put into finding s way This Is Different is quite impressive!

Family annihilations (yes, that is the technical term) and other domestic-violence-related shootings, *which absolutely meet the definition of mass shootings*, generally aren’t considered to be because women and children are considered property of fathers. That’s the only reason to make a distinction between family…

Anger doesn’t “manifest” as violence. A person chooses how to *express* it. There’s nothing wrong with *being* angry. This seems to be what you’re stuck on, the idea that the solution is choosing not to be angry instead of choosing not to assault people?

Holding a phone is portrait mode is not *morally* wrong. No one is hurt by it like people are by misdirected anger. So it’s a terrible analogy. Your alternative analogy is still terrible, because the wrongness was stealing the phone, not each individual time the stolen phone is used.

You’re trying to make two things…

Things can, in fact, be *different levels* of unjustified.

“that wouldn’t make the assault a less unpleasant experience for them” Let me try to hold your hand through this, MoustacheTwirl—inflicting an unpleasant experience on someone who’s done nothing wrong is generally considered worse than doing the same to someone who’s actually done something wrong. Hope that helps.

Assaulting a person *you shouldn’t even be angry at in the first place* is generally considered worse than assault already is. The person you’re photographing isn’t affected more or less by the way you’re holding your phone. Hope that helped.

Well, it’s not really about the mental health system, TBH, it’s about certain people’s existence being the treated as a crime. You can increase access to treatment all you want but as long as you treat the problem as people having the nerve to exist with weird brains and not get treatment for the sake of *everyone…

I think you missed the point here but OK. Assault can be the wrong way for her anger and manifest and she can *still* be misdirecting it. Those are two different issues of which the OP addressed one.

Yeah, exactly. It doesn't have to be the single best; there are ten nominee spots.

But you know what, going through the comments you’ve left in the past it’s entirely clear this is just how you talk to people all-the-fucking-time, and also that you actually use “Shillary” unironically, so it’s pretty clear where you stand here.

“Hint: not everything is about you.” You know who this definitely isn’t about, sir? YOU. If you’re not a woman, you don’t get to decide *literally anything* on this subject. What “respecting women” looks like *is not up to you, because it doesn’t affect you.*

Are you *literally* confused about the idea that *more than one woman can disagree with you*, because you’re THAT used to taking the idea that you’re totally doing enough to “respect women” for granted???