Pit-bulls. Most of their bad reputation comes from organizations that campaign against their very existence and people will quote pit-bull bite statistics with the same lack of irony as a white nationalist quoting FBI crime statistics about people of color.
I don’t hate the breed or agree with breed bans but both my niece and my friend’s daughter were badly bitten by pits and they do make me nervous.
I’m this way with German Shepherd s . I live dogs, Ive had big dogs, I met plenty of friendly Sheperds, but both my mom and I have been bite by 3 different ones (over our lifetimes). Now I am on edge around them.
The one in my neighbourhood jumps all over me. I am also a bit on edge, although most of it seems to be goofiness.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though. I’ve known dog owners that get those breeds specifically and they have no understanding of how to treat a dog. Like they’ll get a working dog and an cage it all day then wonder why it’s aggressive. I’d like to know the difference. Because too many people get dogs for looks and don’t actually give a fuck a about the dogs soul.
Sorry if I come off aggressive, I just talk like that… I’m genuinely curious about this.
Sure but then the problem is moron owners, not the dog or it’s breed. Those morons could be just as cruel to a German Shepherd, Boxer, Rottweiler, Presa Canario, Bullmastiff, etc. Nature vs Nurture I guess.
How many owners are morons that wanted cool mean dog though.
This is sort of my point. A pit bull that’s socialized, well trained, and cared for is generally very safe to be around. A pit bull that has the opposite kind of life? Well, what kinda dog wouldn’t be an asshole under those circumstances?
I worked as an insurance agent. In the states I had my P&C licenses in, we were legally required to base rates on data. i.e statistically how much the company paid out in claims given certain factors. One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk. Just like teenagers by and large, aren’t as safe drivers. It isn’t “fair” in that the dog didn’t choose to be the breed it is and some of them really are good dogs but statistically, averaged over the whole, they are more of a risk than other dog breeds are.
One of the things we based rates on was the breeds of dog people owned. Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk.
This is a classic example of someone observing a statistical correlation between specific factors and using that to assert a direct causal relationship between them. It implies that an insurance agency is able to 1) accurately identify every single breed of dog in every single insurance related incident (which is definitely not the case, because I doubt every insurance company is doing genetic testing on every single dog it comes across) and 2) tie a causal relationship between dog breed and incident. If I were going by typical insurance metrics, and to borrow from your analogy of “teenagers as unsafe drivers,” you would also assume that red Camarros, something more expensive to insure than your more conservative sedan, were statistically more dangerous than, say, a white Civic, as if they were what caused their drivers to get into car accidents, as opposed to young, reckless people interested in a fast sports car to simply go out and buy one. These are people who would be reckless behind the wheel of any car, but who are statistically correlated with a particular type of one. But you still mark the red Camaro as more expensive to insure regardless of who buys it because it’s statistically correlated with a higher degree of accidents.
These are multibillion dollar companies (actually they insure trillions in assets) whose whole job is to be very very good at assessing risk. You thinking you know better is peak Dunning-Krueger.
Question: Does his company factor FBI crime stats into it too? Why not? “Despite being 12% of the population black people commit 50% of crime” and suddenly now since it’s optically bad to charge black people higher rates “causation only equals correlation when we can’t be called racist for it?”
That shit don’t sit right with me tbh.
And what about German Shepherds that have bit 11 secret service agents? Secretly pits? Hating pits but not other large breeds is frankly silly imo (unless you hate black people too because the only important thing ever is statistics). At least hate Chows too, since they’re arguably more aggressive, and German Shepherds, Presas, Boxers, Rotts, etc. Shit at the very least German Shepherds were the Nazis dogs and they’re the ones the cops use now, and they’re “not” “bred to attack” over pits? Come off it.
deleted by creator
You can’t just accuse me of what I’m accusing you of because I accused you of it, that isn’t how this works.
I left out how the pit breed happens to be particularly popular with minorities as well btw, which makes irrational pit hate itself a racist dogwhistle (pun intended). I think I’ll add that in now. Gotta have a white people dog like a Bichon Frise huh? None of those dogs “the rappers” like? You disgust me.
“If a big corporation says something is one way, it must be so. They have a lot of money, after all.” Your argument is peak “Argument to Authority.” I guess it’s a good thing those insurance companies like AIG were able to effectively assess their degree of risk exposure in the housing markets in 2008 and avoid collapsing when the housing market imploded. Oh, wait…
OMFG there is no evil conspiracy by USAA and every other insurance company against pitbulls JFC. Pitbulls are just statistically much more dangerous than other animals.
They’re statistically correlated with incidents of mauling. Nobody is denying the statistical correlation. But there is a difference between observing a statistical correlation between breed and maulings and asserting a causal relationship. My argument is that the assertion that “pit-bulls are innately, biologically predisposed towards violence against people and other animals” is not supported by meaningful evidence. If you are arguing that they are, then you’re gonna have to convince me with more than “insurance companies say they are.”
Quick thought experiment - magically replace every pitbull in the world with a chihuahua instead. Do the number of maulings go up or down?
No one is ascribing any casual links here.
The causal link is implied. When someone says “Pitbulls and certain other dog breeds do not just have a bad reputation because people irrationally fear/hate them, they actually do pose a greater risk,” this is another way of saying that a particular breed of dog is innately more dangerous than another. Not that it has the potential to be more dangerous, but objectively is. The only logical deduction from this statement is that there must be something about the animal’s breed that makes it this way. It’s literally the exact same logic used by people who cite FBI crime statistics in order to paint specific entire ethnic groups as innately “more criminal” than another ethnic group.
Okay, I’m trying to understand your argument here. Are you saying that pitbulls are being racially profiled and that information from other dogs aren’t being collected or that bites of the same severity by other dogs aren’t being correctly gathered or are bring suppressed? And, if so, what are the factors that should be taken into account when discussing dog bites or dog aggression?
I think the reason they are making that comparison is that there are a lot of other factors that feed into the final numbers. Crime stats aren’t a final determination of the inherent criminality of different groups of people. Things like poverty, arrest rates, and conviction rates all skew the numbers.
With pit bulls, people often get them because they want a dog that’s “tough” and they essentially train (or don’t train) them to be bad dogs. The dog itself isn’t at fault.
Anyone who’s been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey. The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Anyone whos been around a lot of dogs will tell you that small dogs are more bitey.
There you go, thats exactly the point. But they aren’t killing any babies. Pitbulls were bred for fighting. People have Tigers and Lions as pets too. Is that also justified?
The fact that a pit bull is stronger and can do more damage is also not the dogs fault.
Of course it’s not the dog’s fault. It is just an animal. It’s the breeders’ and the owners’ fault. Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls. Maybe just get a Golden Retriever if you’re just looking for a pet next time.
What do you think happens to all the unadopted pitbulls, pizza parties every Friday? Nope, it’s euthanasia.
Nobody is advocating for euthanasing Pitbulls.
There are a shitload of people who advocate for completely destroying this breed of dog.
Yes, the breed should be distroyed. But not the poor living animals. We should simply stop breeding more of them. Pitbulls are a freak of nature created for the amusement of humans.
I mean, dog breeding is in general terribly inhumane. All dogs should ideally be mutts. They’d certainly all be healthier and have a better quality of life.
The real difference is pitbulls bite to kill, most other dogs dont. Any dog can get triggered, but certain breeds like bullies and dogos, ridgbacks, they bite to kill. It is as instinctual as a pointer pointing or a sheep dog herding.
Just watch a lot of footage of a shepard attacking a human vs a pitbull. The shepard generally goes for the arm or leg and the bully drags you down so it can go for the face and neck.
Heck, one time when I was driving a bully charged my van! I was doing 50km and he charged out, and bashed into my door! I didnt stop, and it didnt seem hurt it just went after the car behind me…
The other user who responded to you, @evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world, does a good job of analyzing the core idea here. To quote Benjamin Disraeli, there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics. Black people are no more “innately inclined towards criminality” than a pit-bull is innately inclined towards mauling people. Where people of color have been historically over policed, profiled by the criminal justice system, and generally set up to have a higher rate of criminal statistics than other ethnic groups, pit-bulls face similar statistical problems. Bite statistics are often self-reported by people who either witnessed a dog attack or who were themselves victims of one. Identifying a dog’s breed by sight, especially for mixed breed dogs, is nearly impossible, and more error prone than accurate. And for a pound, any “big dog with a blocky head” immediately gets labeled as a pit-bull, even if it has literally no pit-bull DNA. These dogs are routinely adopted by people who explicitly train a dog to be mean to people, as opposed to socializing them. The fact that they also have this reputation as guard dogs or attack dogs exacerbates their reputation.
I already suggested this in another comment, but you can easily apply a thought experiment here. Magically replace all white people with black people with the same upbringing: does crime go up, down, or basically stay the same? Magically replace all pitbulls with chihuahuas with the same upbringing: do maulings go up, down, or basically stay the same?
Couldn’t tell the cops if the mugger was white or black? Pretty understandable. Couldn’t tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Any “big dog with a blocky head” should be banned from breeding or sale, and nobody who agrees with that statement cares about DNA. It is a matter of public safety and it doesn’t matter that humans are the real problem, because humans are notoriously hard to control. The pitbulls and similar breeds we have today deserve all the love and comfort we can give them now, but they shouldn’t be bred into the future because there is no legitimate reason to own one except for its potential for violence and flatulence-scapegoating.
Couldn’t tell the cops if the dog that bit you was a chihuahua or a pitbull? Really?
Because those are the two dog breeds that exist. Pitbull and Chihuahua. There are no others.
Conservatives seem to really hate electric cars for some reason. You’d think that for all the bitching they do regarding how Dark Brandon is personally hiking gas prices as part of his pinko commie agenda they’d like to stick it to him and stop paying for gas, but no, they take personal offense as if an electric car is somehow emasculating.
They are paid to “take personal offense” by lobbyists. They actually don’t give two shits one way or the other about electric cars.
Idk I see a lot of stupid memes on conservative mocking groups on Facebook that they post. Perhaps they don’t care.
The people in charge don’t give a shit, but again, they’re paid to care so they spew the hate to their followers who eat that shit up like a fat guy at an all you can eat buffet. They’re really good at doing what they’re told
on the flip side, the further left you go the more you get people who hate cars in general
Honestly I don’t understand how the right hasn’t co-opted solar energy as a libertarian sort of grid independence thing. Seems like an easy win considering how much opportunity there is for politicians to throw subsidies at manufacturing in their states.
Because there aren’t any “real” libertarians. Here’s what happens when people actually try that stupid shit…
Guy made the story into a book, you may have heard of it. “A Libertarian Walks into a Bear”
True survivalist/libertarian types have always loved solar power.
I don’t know how solar lost its space age coolness, though, aside from active lobbying from the fossil fuel industry to try to kill it. For awhile solar was undoubtedly the power source of the future, the same thing that was on our space probes and satellites.
I have old oil-crisis era books and magazines on my shelf which absolutely loved solar power and billed it as the cheap energy solution for the common man. Somewhere we went wrong, and I think it was Reagan (in many ways…)
Age gaps in partners.
Depends on the gap lol
Why?
13/30 is rather problematic
Also anyone dating legal teenagers as an adult are weird AF. Gives off “Id go lower but the law won’t let me”
13/13 is fine. It is definitely about the gap wtf?
Ok fair point. Though I’ll say in my experience I don’t see people being weird out by 33/40 or even 33/51 in most cases. It’s almost always with someone in their early 20s and it comes off weird when you know that the brain isn’t even finished developing until years later. I think once someone reaches around 25-30 then they are truly considered “adult” in a more broad social sense.
Common complaint from people is that we send “kids” to war, but obviously most don’t. We just know that’s it’s fucked up to make young people 18- early 20s make life altering decisions.
What’s 13/30 mean? I hope you don’t mean 13yo. Why would you think that’s what I meant by age gap?
… a 13 year old with a 30 year old…
Why would you assume that from just saying “age gap”?
… I was making a joke about it by saying ‘depends on the age gap lol’…
Why are you getting defensive?
Ofc consenting adult relationships with large age gaps are generally fine with some exceptions.
Quest 64
Caring about people who are different from yourself
Oh they deserve it, just not because of their music. I used to hang with a few guys that grew up in the same town, the stories they would tell…
do tell
Haha my first thought when I read the title was Creed. We had similar thoughts.
They chose to be commercially popular. They CAN absolutely shred, they ARE very talented. But they chose the top 40 route and are laughing all the way to the bank.
Everyone has a price, if you’re an artist and you havent “sold out” its because nobody offered you enough money.
The “sold out” thing bothers me sometimes, yes the ARE bands who come from less popular genres towards more mainstream sound because thats where they found commercial success and wanted/needed that money to keep doing what they do.
But there are also many bands who change genres and sound over time and some bands just enjoy playing that kind of ‘radio friendly’ music. Personally i feel like nickleback are in the ‘we just like this kind of music’ category.
(Personally I cant stand nicklebacks genre, so no bias here)
Music is a medium and playing is a craft. Some people play to express themselves in artistic ways and others play to make a living. It’s all music, even when it’s not art.
Nobody hates the guy who paints walls for a living for not being Picasso, but when it comes to music, everyone looks at any guy with a guitar expecting him to be the next artistic genius.
Sometimes he’s just there to play three chords, get paid and go home.
I don’t really like Nickelback’s music, but if I ever need a house painted, I’d call them before calling someone who hasn’t “sold out”. I think that’s their appeal.
It’s kind of ironic seeing people post something here and being downvoted. Kinda just proves their point.
So if someone said that people hated nazis and holocaust denial “for no reason” and was downvoted into the dirt you’d say that proved their point? Sometimes people are downvoted FOR A REASON. That does not validate their point in a thread like this.
Socialism
The ironic part is that actual socialism is actually pretty popular. It’s the violent revolution and ensuing dictatorship which turns most people off to the Marxist Leninist ideals, which takes up most of the oxygen in that room these days.
The ensuring dictatorship isn’t socialism nor communism. You can dream of something and ending with something else.
You know socialists want to take away everything you own and install a dictatorship right? /s
Fucking commie! /s
Our road system, retirement benefits, health system (except USA), public school system, national parks are all socialist.
True, but they also mixed into comunism
Trans people, seriously, they just want to live their lives in peace. They’re not here to radicalise anything or to “trick” anyone. They just want to get on with their lives and be left alone.
the other replies to this comment reaaaally prove your point.
Are people really stupid enough to think that every single trans person is a loud screeching SJW?
Not to mention trans people are constantly under attack in most places and NEED to speak up.
Marginalized groups tend to be the loudest about oppression of all varieties.
Are people really stupid enough to think that every single trans person is a loud screeching SJW?
Even if they were so what? You have to be cynical about these things and figure out how much danger every given person represents. I am in far less danger from someone who yells loudly on Instagram compared to some proud boy marching on the street. One makes the internet kinda boring the other sets off bombs.
It’s similar to veganism, they yell really loud to make it known they want peace while at the sime time disturbing everyone else and expecting friendliness.
It’s like that annoying neighbour that blasts music at full volume just because he likes it and then he goes on to say he just wants to be left alone.
You can’t take the stage at a Rammstein concert and expect to just chill out there without getting thrown out.
-
This does not happen.
-
Even if it was, are you really shitting on trans people for complaining about constantly being hate-crimed for sport?
-
Have you ever actually met any trans people? Because they don’t do that thing you said
I’m trans, I hate talking about gender stuff
So yeah, they never did
Literally. Outside of trusted circles you know what to expect from most of society
People keep saying this, but what is expected when a minute fraction of the population has such a high rate of being murdered? What is expected when without making any fuss, legislators are constantly trying to legislate trans people out of existence, refusing healthcare, increasing the already disproportionate suicide rate, forcing them to do things that puts them in situations where the chance of being murdered is much higher.
These sentiments come from such a place of privilege, “I don’t have this problem, why are you getting on stage to shout about this, you should expect to be discriminated against and murdered” if you don’t see anything wrong with that, you should reevaluate your morals.
People can do whatever they want imo, go take that rammstein stage…just be realistic about what you’re gonna get as a result.
You feel like a woman and want to be one? Go ahead, i’d even date and or wife you if your personality is likeable i don’t care about your genitals and whatever makes you happy goes.
Understand that not everyone is going to agree with you, stay safe and be careful. Same goes for everyone else.
when the disagreement is about whether we should be allowed continue existing it’s a bit much to handwave like that, and fuck you very much for deigning to not only frame it like that but 'splain it to us like we’re children. get bent.
It is a bit disingenuous to say they are just trying to live their lives in peace, they have chosen an antagonistic path by pushing to normalize the way gender is viewed in culture, which is an upset of the status quo, and that is radical by definition. it doesn’t matter what their motivations are for that to be true.
And they choose this path because LGBT folks have been getting bullied, assaulted and murdered for just existing for about as long as civilization has existed. If they don’t stand up for themselves nobody else is going to do it for them.
The key word is “trying” - most of them are trying to live their lives largely without bothering anyone - except that “anyone” is composed of a lot of people that can’t put up with their existence. Not through any fault of the person, just because of the way they are.
I do get what you’re saying. But it’s a half step away from deriding them for their very existence, which is disgusting. They are attempting to break the status quo in the same way the civil rights movement did.
Edit: I won’t talk about this here.
I am just really jaded about how people talk about certain topics on social media even though I consider myself a progressive.
I have a sensitive spot for reddit/twitter rhetoric (very heavily emotionally skewed language isn’t helpful)
Pulling out the big paint brush today I see.
deleted by creator
White people.
not really imo.
As a race white ppl have done a lotta bad shit globally. Of course that is not the fault of an individual white person. And sure, sometimes people forget about that last part and treat white people different which is racist. But then again non whites deal with way more racism, so I’m not complaining
Race isn’t even a good social construct. No doubt people have done truely aweful th8ngs for “the white race” but it doesn’t and never has helped the majority of people stuck in that construct.
removed by mod
It’s not racism to identify white privilege/historical harms from pro-white racism.
removed by mod
They’re literal statements about facts and events that have transpired.
The only way this could be framed as racism is if you deny that white privilege exists and/or that there have been no harms from white supremacy.
If that’s what you’re claiming, then I suppose that means it would be racist to say the opposite. You’d be completely, egregiously incorrect, but at least that would be an internally consistent worldview. That’s such a ridiculous stance to take that the only logical explanation is that you’re trolling.
Nah, you’re just dumb as fuck actually
removed by mod
KYS
>the reasonI’m hated for no reason: Nah man, it’s because you’re paedo mutant potato looking faggot with a receding hairline in dire need of a noose.:hang_yourself:
I’m terrified of Weiner and vagina and everything in-between.
Edit: wtf is so special that Weiner auto capitalizes?
Weiner is a surname… and also a misspelling of wiener.
Big W
Kill yourself niggerfaggot, trans “people” all deserve the rope #TTD
A lot of that is just unavoidable lookism sadly, maybe I’m too doomer
@ada @Lanky_Pomegranate530 there’s so many valid reasons, I’ll probably go over the character limit on my instance if I list them off.
George Michael
VEGANISM!
It’s great for your health, we’d solve like 25% of the climate catastrophe overnight and it redeems billions of our fellow earthlings from the unimaginable suffering we inflict on them 24/7.
It’s a ridiculously obvious and easy step we should take as a species, yet even hardcore leftists turn into irrational idiots and go full Bullshit Bingo when you bring it up. Because they have become accustomed to a taste.Because they have become accustomed to a taste
I have been toying with baking the last two months and vegan bread is a challenge. It isn’t just taste. Take my basic bread and cut out milk+butter and all I have left is oil. The bread rises funny and the crust is totally different. Yes I have tried a good friend of mine has a dairy allergy.
Just saying it isn’t like there is a ready solution I can grab.
I agree, changing your diet is something you need to be willing to do, because it takes time to learn new things. Some take babysteps, some go all in. It is possible to cook and bake delicious food without animal products. So have fun learning!
Vegan.bingo that’s amazing I’m gonna just refer to that for every one of those conversations from now on
I try to tell people to ditch beef as a compromise. I’m flexetarian myself and try to avoid meat, but beef is by far the worst offender when it comes to climate.
I think the average person doesn’t want to give up all meat dairy and eggs all in one go. Removing beef is highly effective and a first step into a more conscious diet.
Eggs are a super food, too. They’re cheap, delicious, and have dense nutrition. And, if you live anywhere close to rural, you can get farm-fresh eggs from ethically treated, well fed chickens for cheap.
We minimize our meat consumption, but we eat lots of eggs, and I don’t see any ethical concerns with people’s backyard chicken coops.
Pretty much what I did. Meat once a week and almost always birds. Maybe a hamburger or pho twice a year, and always with my family.
Best thing I ever did for myself.
I think it’s less veganism and more how noisy and evangelical the loudest vegans are.
If you’d just said veganism, I’d agree, but you went on to emphatically tell us all the reasons why veganism is better. All legit, sure, but all the underlining gives it a particularly condescending tone. It’s not veganism that irritates me, it’s how condescending so many vegans become. Same camp as CrossFit for me. They’re both cultures I don’t really care to be a part of.
Eating animals is doing so much harm on a personal and global scale, yet people mostly choose to ignore it. So we get louder to confront your cognitive dissonance. I know it is annoying to you, I was annoyed too. But it’s necessary and it’s working. We’re not a cult, quite the opposite: Vegans act according to scientific facts. Do you want to have a heart attack? No. Do you like torturing animals? No! Do want to wreck our planet to the point our children won’t be able to live on it anymore? If course not. Veganism is not the only answer to all this, but no solution will suffice without us stopping to abuse animals. Think about that when you’re out in the supermarket next time. It feels good to actually live up to you ethical values.
Also, #7 and #30, bingo!Excellent example. Thanks.
For the record, there’s no dissonance. I know well what I’m doing and recognize that I am choosing the easier option. Call me a villain, I don’t care. I live my life as best I can and to the best of my ability which you’ve made it clear is immoral and lesser than you.
So 10 years ago it was “STFU, you’re wrong”, now it’s “STFU, you’re right”? Changing diet is a journey, I didn’t go full vegan from one day to the other. I’m sure you’re not a villain and hope you change your mind sometime. There are many great plant-based foods waiting for you on the shelves.
The dead animal flesh is already there and I honor its sacrifice by eating it. That is my position and my purpose.
I do :(
You’re doing great. :)
You know what you did
I know you probably already hate me for mentioning it, but foot fetishes. It’s a very common fetish people have and I don’t think people should be ashamed of it. It’s not even the weirdest fetish out there when it comes down to it. I understand the stigma comes from weird dudes asking girls for feet pics in creepy ways and I feel like that’s reasonable. But most of us are just regular people just trying to live our best life. I used to feel comfortable telling women I’m with that I have a foot fetish and most of them were even down to give it a try. Nowadays I’m too embarrassed or ashamed to even mention it and when I do I get shot down more often than before because of this stigma. I’m more comfortable these days telling someone that I’m bisexual than telling someone I like feet. Which I guess is a win for the gay part of me, but it still sucks.
I’m not into that at all (tbh I find feet kinda disgusting) but I’ve never seen it as something really weird because it really isn’t that weird.
In that regard I definitely agree with you. It could even just be the people I associate with. If anything the people that have given me the most shit for it are other guys that I have as friends.
See, you get it. :)
I spent some time explaining amputee fetish to my CW the other day (which is actually called body identity integrity disorder). I’m just glad there are people who like their limbs and appendages attached.
