• "No More Black Targets" is Fighting to Remove Black Silhouettes from Shooting Ranges
    122 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51834064] What about a very dark green?[/QUOTE] Black is still the best, you can see the hole more easily in typical range lighting, and you can see the white easily from where the round tore through. Silhouettes have nothing to do with race, its all about practicality.
You know, I don't get something about FP. When I posted the thread about the fact that Flynn had been caught discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador, it got something like 8 to 12 responses. But stuff that's about an idea that's so obviously idiotic that the only reason it's reported at all is to provoke outrage gets multiple pages and tens, if not hundreds of replies. Example: That thread about the BMA's professional standards for its staffers.
[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;51833916]I know some shooting ranges have pink silhouettes. Do people really actually think a silhouette is more than just a silhouette?[/QUOTE] But then we'd be shooting white people. You just can't win. Someone has to get shot. [QUOTE=archangel125;51834095]You know, I don't get something about FP. When I posted the thread about the fact that Flynn had been caught discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador, it got something like 8 to 12 responses. But stuff that's about an idea that's so obviously idiotic that the only reason it's reported at all is to provoke outrage gets multiple pages and tens, if not hundreds of replies. Example: That thread about the BMA's professional standards for its staffers.[/QUOTE] ok but what does this have to do with the article
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;51834130]ok but what does this have to do with the article[/QUOTE] Well, I did say that the idea explained in the article was ridiculously stupid.
[QUOTE=Valdor;51834007]all he did was point out that you pulled that statement out of your ass (personal feelings), and you just confirmed that you don't know what the hell you're talking about[/QUOTE] I based it on having read a decent number of psych literature, with a focus on how the human brain can fuck up decision-making. This purported effect is similar enough to confirmed ones that, absent any evidence either way, the rational assumption is that it exists. ("Bayesian priors" is the fancy way of saying this). A brief search found no formal experiments on this (although I will immediately concede defeat if even a half-decent study shows no measurable effect or even the opposite), and since I don't feel like doing a six-month controlled study just to win an internet argument, I'm stuck with priors. Let me try using a car analogy: I read a paper telling me that if I remove the spark plugs, my engine won't run. Then I read a paper telling me that if I remove the battery, my engine won't start. Then I read a paper telling me that if I remove the oil pan, my engine will stop running after a few minutes. I then see a non-scientific movement advocating not removing your radiator, because it probably will break your car. Based on a series of similar facts that "removing random parts from your car will probably break it", I conclude the movement is probably right about that, although I question whether that's really worth bothering about. [QUOTE=MR-X;51834024]Um no. REAL studies show that cops are more likely to hesitate when in a situation involving deadly force with a black person. They're quicker to shoot a white person or other races. [/QUOTE] Interesting - happen to have a citation for that? In particular, is that based on psych studies or on statistical analysis of police shootings?
You fools! It's the Shadow Ones! They are the true menace. This was to prepare us!
[QUOTE=archangel125;51834095]You know, I don't get something about FP. When I posted the thread about the fact that Flynn had been caught discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador, it got something like 8 to 12 responses. But stuff that's about an idea that's so obviously idiotic that the only reason it's reported at all is to provoke outrage gets multiple pages and tens, if not hundreds of replies. Example: That thread about the BMA's professional standards for its staffers.[/QUOTE] I have to wonder why facepunch users tend to respond so quickly and with such disdain to the ridiculous SH articles that have to do with people trying to fight racism. Any ridiculous article will have users decrying it, this is a given. But ridiculous articles that have anything to do with modern social movements, especially regarding race, are magnets for posts of extreme negativity. This is only one perception and isn't exactly a provable statistic, but i feel like there's some meaning to it.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51834095]You know, I don't get something about FP. When I posted the thread about the fact that Flynn had been caught discussing sanctions with the Russian ambassador, it got something like 8 to 12 responses. But stuff that's about an idea that's so obviously idiotic that the only reason it's reported at all is to provoke outrage gets multiple pages and tens, if not hundreds of replies. Example: That thread about the BMA's professional standards for its staffers.[/QUOTE] Notice how most of the replies are to someone who is vaguely defending this. Also it's now become a self-fulfilling prophecy because people are going to reply to you about replies to this story. To actually answer your question, as much as people "hate" identity politics, they sure do love talking about it, combined with the fact that the sort of people who would take up the devils avocado in Trump threads simply don't post.
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;51834150]I have to wonder why facepunch users tend to respond so quickly and with such disdain to the ridiculous SH articles that have to do with people trying to fight racism. Any ridiculous article will have users decrying it, this is a given. But ridiculous articles that have anything to do with modern social movements, especially regarding race, are magnets for posts of extreme negativity. This is only one perception and isn't exactly a provable statistic, but i feel like there's some meaning to it.[/QUOTE] I think a big part of the disdain in this case is because there are constructive ways to fight police brutality and systemic racism, but things like the example in the OP are generally counterproductive and silly. Therefore, they're represented way more in news media than legitimate efforts because they generate outrage, and consequently, better ratings. This also has the unfortunate effect of perpetuating the problem and discrediting the moderate, legitimate parts of equality movements, which make up the main part of them by far.
I mean if you want to get technical black people arent even [I]black[/I], but varying shades of brown (i mean you're either a shade of brown or pink, really). I mean some people come pretty close but silhouette black isnt a skin color. [editline]16th February 2017[/editline] Isnt there something more important people could complain about like poverty or something.
I thought it was black so it's easier to show where the bullets hit
Frankly I hate shooting a black target, it's really hard to see your shots when they make a dark hole in an already dark surface. More often than not I shoot at pink or yellow paper with a colourful dot on it, or recently I got a shitload of free targets with a red centre from a place I bought some parts from so I've been using them.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;51833919]I understand the reasoning behind this... But silhouettes are black. It's a way of showing "generic target"[/QUOTE] Not to mention targets that have the bright pink/orange/green paper behind them show up FAR better against a black silhouette than a white one showing you where you hit People are losing their minds
What a crock of shit. End my life now. [Editline]posting on borrowed time[/editline] Do these folks realize that black on white is easier to see? It's not racism, it's just a psychological phenomenon. This article is looking for a Boogeyman where there is none.
I would think that if you equate black silhouette targets to black people, you have bigger problems that won't be fixed from changing a piece of paper.
You see what I was saying? Because shit like this triggers conservatives, that's the only reason we're seeing it reported. Exhibit A: [QUOTE=Chonch;51834311]What a crock of shit. End my life now.[/QUOTE] Chonch, incidentally, also posted something along the lines of "When will this farce come to an end?!" in the BMA staff guidelines thread right after that was posted.
even if all black targets had black face painted on them I'd still think that the targets people practice on have 0 bearing on that NMBT statistic.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51834195]I think a big part of the disdain in this case is because there are constructive ways to fight police brutality and systemic racism, but things like the example in the OP are generally counterproductive and silly. Therefore, they're represented way more in news media than legitimate efforts because they generate outrage, and consequently, better ratings. This also has the unfortunate effect of perpetuating the problem and discrediting the moderate, legitimate parts of equality movements, which make up the main part of them by far.[/QUOTE] Maybe people don't want to argue in a circle for five hours. Maybe people don't want to argue [I]with you[/I] in a circle for five hours. Maybe discussing things people already knew and discussed in two other threads is redundant. Maybe discussing politics on a gaming website isn't terribly conducive to anything other than arguing with people you will never meet in real life ever. Maybe there's nothing dramatic about "guilty guy is proven guilty by way of evidence proving him guilty" in a forum that literally has 'outrage' in the undercard wherein there are 30 active people posting and 400 people waiting for someone to get redtext at the bottom of their post thirty seconds later.
[QUOTE=27X;51834327]Maybe people don't want to argue in a circle for five hours. Maybe people don't want to argue [I]with you[/I] in a circle for five hours. Maybe discussing things people already knew and discussed in two other threads is redundant. Maybe discussing politics on a gaming website isn't terribly conducive to anything other than arguing with people you will never meet in real life ever. Maybe there's nothing dramatic about "guilty guy is proven guilty by way of evidence proving him guilty" in a forum that literally has 'outrage' in the undercard wherein there are 30 active people posting and 400 people waiting for someone to get redtext at the bottom of their post thirty seconds later.[/QUOTE] Maybe you're missing the point.
[QUOTE=archangel125;51834316]You see what I was saying? Because shit like this triggers conservatives, that's the only reason we're seeing it reported. Exhibit A: Chonch, incidentally, also posted something along the lines of "When will this farce come to an end?!" in the BMA staff guidelines thread right after that was posted.[/QUOTE] And you can be damn well sure that was a crock of shit too. This makes me want to die.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51834330]And you can be damn well sure that was a crock of shit too. This makes me want to die.[/QUOTE] Calm down friendo, how does this affect your life in any meaningful way?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;51834339]Calm down friendo, how does this affect your life in any meaningful way?[/QUOTE] I go to the range often and am genetically predisposed to macular degeneration. Black on white targets are much easier to practice with in broad daylight; I like not having to wear my reading glasses when trying to shoot. Moreover, I don't get why there has to be a social cause behind the paper I put holes in on the weekend. Yes, my response is trivial, but so is the subject at hand.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51834330]And you can be damn well sure that was a crock of shit too. This makes me want to die.[/QUOTE] Newsflash, bro: No matter what political environment you put yourself in, no matter your personal leanings or beliefs, no matter how smart you think a viewpoint is, there will be a few idiots who are so far up their own asses they'll miss the point entirely and demand some ridiculous measure that does much more harm than good, and causes far more problems without solving anything at all. Trump and his supporters are a fantastic example of this, as are the radical elements of BLM and the whole "No More Black Targets" movement. If the fact that idiots exist in the world makes you want to die, you've been living under a rock or you're an idiot yourself. What you need to understand is that idiots, such as BLM Toronto or Donald Trump, are overrepresented in the news media precisely because they generate outrage - Trump is no more emblematic of conservatism than BLM Toronto is of equality movements. The difference? People worried about Trump have legitimate concerns because he's in a position to do incredible damage. People worried about special interest groups of idiots are being melodramatic, because nobody really takes them seriously. Believe it or not, Chonch, no. This will not mean that black silhouette targets will be banned at your precious range. There, see? You can sleep soundly at night now, and hopefully don't want to die anymore.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51834355]I go to the range often and am genetically predisposed to macular degeneration. Black on white targets are much easier to practice with in broad daylight; I like not having to wear my reading glasses when trying to shoot. Moreover, I don't get why there has to be a social cause behind the paper I put holes in on the weekend. Yes, my response is trivial, but so is the subject at hand.[/QUOTE] Definitely not worth dying over though!
2017, the year were shooting targets stood up and fought against racism. This is dumber than calling PewDiePie a nazi. Why am I not surprised that it started in the US? EDIT: omg what the fuck is wrong with you why do you have to bring up Trump every time in articles that aren't even related to him?
[QUOTE=archangel125;51834329]Maybe you're missing the point.[/QUOTE] I don't think I am. See, pepperidge farm remembers a time before [I]Donald Trump[/I] when this was exactly the kind of article that SH would entreat, consume, ridicule and enjoy.
I remember seeing a scene from some movie where a guy shoots at a target of a dog and people start freaking out at him for shooting a dog. I feel like this is rather similar.
[QUOTE=27X;51834389]I don't think I am. See, pepperidge farm remembers a time before [I]Donald Trump[/I] when this was exactly the kind of article that SH would entreat, consume, ridicule and enjoy.[/QUOTE] I remember that time, too. And I *am* ridiculing it. I'm pointing out that the problem with this reporting is that while it's very profitable, it also serves to distort readers' views of legitimate movements. That's the point you're missing. If you want to take issue with the media, you can't call them fake news - they seldom lie unless they're garbage sources like Breitbart, Fox, or Huffington Post. No, the problem with news media is that it's purely profit-driven, and cares more about generating clicks or views by sharing stories that make people angry than representing the big picture fairly.
So this is satire, right? Please tell me it is.
[QUOTE=dustyjo;51834404]So this is satire, right? Please tell me it is.[/QUOTE] Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from satire: My favourite spin on Clarke's third law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.