Hacker News Reader

Comment by bargl | Hacker News Reader

I do not understand the attack on "thoughts and prayers." There are plenty of people sending "thoughts and prayers" who also support gun control. I get that it calls out the hypocrisy of Christians who don't support gun control, but it also seems like an overly broad attack.

What does someone who both believes gun control is necessary and wants to send "thoughts and prayers" do? I think the idea of gun control is a target at a solution while thoughts and prayers are meant to console the individual.

Anyway, it's just something I found super annoying. I had someone who I know lost a loved one (not due to guns) and I struggled with what to say. It's a simple thing, but I realized I didn't know how to attempt to console someone anymore.

View on HN

It isn't the "thoughts and prayers" part by itself, it is the "thoughts and prayers" offered by politicians and then absolutely nothing else. Even Christians can find it hypocritical:

> "Prayer that doesn't lead to concrete action toward our brothers is a fruitless and incomplete prayer. [...] Prayer and action must always be profoundly united"

- Pope Francis. (grabbed from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_and_prayers)

Otherwise, that to many people the phrase has become synonymous with willful inaction is just collateral damage.

It doesn't even call out the hypocrisy of christians that don't support gun control. They can believe in other ways forward, like arming all kids with guns and having them practice lots of active shooter drills, or whatever, but it is the "it is not that bad, let's not worry about it" attitude that makes people angry. The original comment I was replying to talked about a "having a national dialogue on gun control", which simply hasn't happened.

I want to clarify something, I'm not attacking you or your comment. I'm really asking for clarity. I appreciate what you've stated.

It's funny, we assume everyone uses the same definition of a phrase or slogan as we do and just by reading through the comments on this I see that's not the case.

The attack is against high profile politicians who regularly act to block or dismiss gun control measures, but also reliably jump to announce that they are sending "thoughts and prayers" to the victims of gun attacks. I don't think this would be relevant in the case of an individual interaction. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/us/thoughts-and-prayers-flori...

> hypocrisy of Christians who don't support gun control

I don't see how the two equate to hypocrisy. A friend of mine (a Christian) is strongly opposed to gun control. He has a concealed carry license and carries everywhere, because he wants to have the means to protect himself and his loved ones from an active shooter, if necessary. He cites "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns," and feels personally affronted by gun control legislation.

That, and he prays regularly for others. I for one would not accuse him of hypocrisy on that basis.

If there are no guns then outlaws wouldn't have them.

That's not what he said. If guns were OUTLAWED, not if there were no guns.

You are correct, I should have been much more clear on that statement. I've heard very good arguments against gun control that are not hypocritical. My statement was my attempt (a failing one) to ask my question with the least amount of bite possible. I actually wanted counter opinions, not to incite a flame war. It seems to have gotten good responses, and that's what I was looking for.

> hypocrisy of Christians who don't support gun control

That's a gross oversimplification of what it takes to be a hypocrite. I've met people who fall into the hypocrite category on both ends, but I what I didn't understand is how this "thoughts and prayers" thing was being used.

To me it felt like an attack on Christianity, which I didn't fully understand. I feel like I get it a lot better now though.

Or what about people who feel bad that these things happen, but believe it’s the cost of living in a free society? Every system has trade offs. You can be sympathetic about the system having downsides while still believing that the system is better than the alternatives. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about it.

To use a less charged example: developers might feel bad for novice users who get computer viruses on Windows or Mac OS. They might even help people out. And that’s entirely consistent with those sample people opposing locking down Windows and MacOS like iOS in the name of security.

My (non-US) understanding of the outrage is that they feel that the person saying it is not actually going to actually keep the victims in their thoughts and prayers...

Even if they did, what good would it do?

Unless your a friend or immediate family member there is sweet fuck all you can do to console someone in a time of grief.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com