Hacker News Reader

Comment by 01100011 | Hacker News Reader

> a way to feel masculine, or to feel potent

This smacks of the modern left's derision for self defense tools. It's a nicer way of saying someone has a gun to compensate for their genital insecurities. Guns are largely a tool to the people purchasing them. They are also mechanical objects which give pleasure to people who appreciate craftsmanship.

I generally agree with your post, but I think it would be better without that biased(intentional or not) take.

For what it's worth, marginalized groups have often armed themselves when they feel the state is unwilling or unable to protect them.

View on HN

> This smacks of the modern left's derision for self defense tools. It's a nicer way of saying someone has a gun to compensate for their genital insecurities.

One of the biggest issues I have with the modern left is their tendency to let their prejudices dictate their perceptions like that. It's annoying and repulsive, and it should be embarrassing for people who say stuff like they "believe in science."

As a member of the "modern left", I, too, found the OP's characterization to be cringe-worthy.

While I do know a few people who fit that description ("guns make me feel manly"), they're in the minority. I don't have many friends who own guns, but those who do mostly derive their enjoyment from them by going to the range for target practice (I've tried it and found it fun, too). One acquaintance owns some fairly old weapons and appreciates their construction & design as well as their possible future resale value.

I'm fairly anti-gun, and don't own any myself, but I'm just as tired of the "compensating for something" trope as I'm sure y'all are. It's tired and juvenile, and I assume the only reason it's pulled out is to make the name-caller feel better about themselves.

Luckily the modern left is the only group of people who let their prejudices dictate their perceptions.

> Luckily the modern left is the only group of people who let their prejudices dictate their perceptions.

I never said they had a monopoly, but I'm not going let them off the hook just because they've got competition. Their displays of that repulsive tendency also clash more harshly with their rhetoric.

Well enjoy your endless conflict, because what you describe as your biggest issues with the modern left is simply a trait (some would call a flaw) that affects all people. I would work on something more concrete when it comes to your issues with a political leaning if I were you.

The difference is that the left's entire shtick is about not being 'prejudiced' against individuals because of their group identities.

I.e. not assuming they have slimy, horrible negative personal qualities because of the group they belong to.

When this is your 'thing' and main claim to legitimacy, it hits harder when you're hypocritical about it.

The difference being the modern right wears their prejudices on their sleeve, whereas the modern left hypocritically denounces prejudice, and then deploys prejudice at the drop of a hat when it supports their cause. See: discussions about whiteness, about men, about hetereosexuals, about Christians, about "Karens", Trump's weight, etc.

"[M]arginalized groups have often armed themselves when they feel the state is unwilling or unable to protect them."

An example of this is calling to reduce policing, which probably would have the biggest (and very negative) impact in high crime areas. I believe gun sales increased rapidly starting last summer.

I have watched a lot of videos from Peter Santenello [1] on YouTube. He takes a somewhat deep dive into a lot of communities that the traditional media typically fails to highlight or fails to do it properly. He has quite a few videos where he speaks with people in the "hood" or the "projects" in various places across America.

In many of these videos he asks some of the people in these communities what they think about police. The response is often something along the lines of there being a "F the police" mentality, but at the same time they respect the good ones and still need their presence. So even the people living in the communities that are apparently most impacted by the police still are able to say positive things about them. Especially when they talk to any of the "elders" of these communities, they always preach the importance of the police in keeping their communities safe.

So it begs the question, why do so many white people on the left constantly speak for these black communities? These communities never seem to actually say they want less policing in them. Yet it's something you hear all the time from the traditional media and from activist groups.

Personally I am getting pretty sick of the white saviour complexes it seems like a lot of activist people have. They don't live in these communities and maybe have talked to a couple people, but that is enough for them to speak on behalf of a whole community. It's enough for them to go out in protest and riots on their "behalf". And the sad thing is that when black people in these communities speak out about this, they are usually attacked by the activist's and berated. I've seen seem people yelling racist slurs at black people at protests who oppose what is being protested. It's insane.

The virtue signalling is insanely present these days and is super unproductive and harmful.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/c/PeterSantenello/videos

> These communities never seem to actually say they want less policing in them.

They do! They've been saying it a long time, but no one paid them any attention until George Floyd's life was slowly and casually extinguished by a police officer on camera. Go ask any black male from New York in their 20s or 30s what they think about "Stop and frisk" and the sense of being violated by over policing.

Before you accuse me of having a "white saviour" complex, I'm black. Speaking of "saviour", I'm curious to know if you have experienced american policing, outside of youtube? No snark at all, this is a legitimate question.

I'm not sure 'stop and frisk' == 'policing in general'.

Sure, the actual situation matters. People will probably choose no cops over racist cops. I am not cynical enough yet to think that is the only choice available though.

OP is talking about policing in general, and I've seen other news reports(not youtube, but that doesn't make it gospel) that align with what he's saying. I'm not trying to say your opinion or experiences are wrong, but I think there is more nuance to this discussion and absolutist positions aren't very useful or accurate.

> Go ask any black male from New York in their 20s or 30s what they think about "Stop and frisk" and the sense of being violated by over policing.

I mean I just linked to a YouTube channel specifically interviewing and talking to different people from these areas you mentioned and as I already stated this is not how they feel.

It's a little weird to tell someone to ignore their lived experience and instead watch a YouTube video to learn about their own life.

I don't know Santanello, his videos, or his positions, but I don't think he'd be able to get a full picture no matter how he tried. Yes, I am sure there are black people in rough neighborhoods who do appreciate some of what the police does. But I am sure there are also many who don't. And if you ask those same folks in Santanello's videos if they're ok with stop-and-frisk, I would not expect to hear "yes".

Can you please stop replying for the parent commenters on all my comments? I'm more interested in what they have to say here rather than someone clearly biased coming in to share their opinion against me everywhere.

HN is an open forum - there's nothing wrong with them hopping onto the thread: we aspire to debate ideas here, not kill the messenger.

I also cosign that it's very weird that after I tell you I'm black you ask me to go watch Youtube interviews.

I mean you responded to my comment that specifically focused on the contents of a YouTube channel. It's not too surprising that I am suggesting you go watch the content my post was speaking about.

You are disagreeing with my post without even having reviewed the content my post was citing and speaking about.

The anecdotal content you cited is irrelevant because your falsifiable statement (that I quoted) is false - unless you feel like only the black people interviewed on that channel matter.

Additional facts, independent to the alleged opinions of the interviewees: NYPD's Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional[1] as it violated the 4th amendment.In 1999 9 out of 10 people who were stopped were completely innocent. 84% of those stopped were black or latino[1] (yet they were only 50% of the population on New York then). Both percentages slid down a little over the years, but in each subsequent year, the majority of stopped people were innocent, and black & latinos were consistently over-represented (against relative populations size).

1. https://civilrights.org/edfund/resource/nypds-infamous-stop-...

I really have never said I agree with something like stop and frisk so I am a bit unclear where you are going with this? I have been talking about perceptions of police in these communities not their opinions on one old police program that no longer exists.

I see your point, but I don't know another way to put it. It's like "why do men have swords on their wall more often than women"? Neither men nor women use swords in self-defense much anymore (at least not in the First World). But I would venture to say that there is at least a 10x factor of men vs. women having swords on their walls.

By the way, I'm not politically left-wing, and I do have a few swords on my wall (although no firearms).

I could see why you thought it was being said in this way, though. No offense intended; obviously there are many different reasons why a person might own a firearm.

There’s a difference between “appeals to their masculine tendencies”, which suggests they’re baseline masculine and owning a gun matches it; versus “makes them feel masculine”, which suggests they are baseline not masculine and are buying it to compensate.

I may deserve downvotes for this, but:

I find it ironic that so many on the right like to criticize the left for being "oversensitive snowflakes", and yet here we have you, presumably right-leaning (apologies if I've mischaracterized you), being upset about the difference between "appealing to masculinity" and "compensating for a lack of masculinity". I feel like if the tables were turned, someone on the right would accuse someone on the left of being oversensitive.

I say this not to insult or demean, but in a way that actually makes me happy, because it's another point in support of people on the left and right not being from different planets. Because I totally agree with the point you are making here. There is a difference between saying someone does something because it appeals to their masculinity, vs. saying someone does it because they feel unmasculine and need a boost. And I think you're right to be sensitive about it, and the parent should have worded it differently (or thought about it differently).

The left (both modern and not) is much less self-defense averse than you think. There's plenty of leftist gun clubs; the Socialist Rifle Association and Redneck Revolt, formerly John Brown Gun Club, come to mind immediately.

There's also the long history of unions literally going to war against capitalists, like in the Battle of Matewan.

Also worth remembering that leftist groups like the BPP encouraging its members to legally own firearms led to significant gun control expansion in California.

Sure, without a doubt. Are there any major political parties on the left with pro-gun or not-anti-gun platforms though?

I feel like the political parties of the left use fear of guns like the political parties of the right use fear of non-whites.

Depends on your definitions, right? What you describe sounds an awful lot like the Democratic party, but they're liberals, not leftists. I'd argue they're center-right.

From what I've seen at least, when more leftist parties like Green, DSA, the various communist parties, etc, talk about reducing gun violence it's in the context of eliminating poverty and other environmental contributors to the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com