|
Toasticle posted:.... He reached into his pocket, handed over his wallet then asked us what's in it that's worth either dying or killing for. Which in one of D&D gunchats made me a pussy of course. A laaaarge portion of TFR advocates exactly this. Folks in the carry thread routinely reiterate that carrying a weapon increases the amount of patience and forbearance you're morally and legally obligated to show. There's folks who'd call you a pussy, and admittedly some of them would actually mean it. But there's a reason the de facto gun politics thread used to be titled "retard swamp" and later "PCOS Bill." I really don't want to prolong a gun derail but it's really frustrating for a thread about a bunch of sovereign citizens to descend into petty tribalism and start treating outgroups like totally homogenous, monolithic hiveminds with absolutely no signs of self awareness.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
The only thing more boring than my posts is gunchat. This article isn't great (the source is far from neutral), but it outlines the currently known relationship between the American Lands Council and the occupiers. One of the local news stations is planning to release an audio recording indicating further collaboration Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:people who own a firearm are way much more likely to be shot with their own gun than people who don't Guns everywhere means exponentially more deaths from accidents, suicides, young kids getting at the guns, domestic violence, etc. etc. etc. than the minuscule number of cases where the gun is actually used for defence in the fabled home invasion scenario where the heroic gun owner gets to be john wayne. But every single gun owner thinks "well all that bad stuff happens with other, dumb people, I'm not going to be one of the dumb people who uses a gun irresponsibly, so it's all upside for me."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
botany posted:I realize it doesn't have any basis in actual science in the first place, but we've known since the 70s that the whole "alpha wolf" concept is a myth based on shoddy research. The fact that this hasn't trickled down into public consciousness says a lot about public science education. In wolves. It does happen in primates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:Some interesting tweets from John Sepulvado today: Correction to my earlier post: the article was delayed to next week: https://twitter.com/JohnLGC/status/701833733133828096
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The Donald Trump thread is rife with his supporters who will refer to people as "betas". It's pretty surreal. Let's pretend, for a second, that the "alpha male" theory of wolf pack organization is applicable to the situation in any way. Wouldn't a "beta" be, like, the second-highest* ranking wolf in the pack? (Or I guess the third, if there's an alpha male and an alpha female.) "Second-best" isn't really a compliment, but it's not much of an insult either. You're either the alpha's closest rival or you're his right-hand man. The real insult should be "omega male," someone at the very bottom of the totem pole. But I can't recall ever seeing that phrase used in this context. Maybe "omega" sounds too cool? Alien Arcana fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Someday we will be as good as the beasts of the earth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Let's pretend, for a second, that the "alpha male" theory of wolf pack organization is applicable to the situation in any way. No, because the theory* has the existence of two types - Alphas and Betas. Alphas are in charge, Betas aren't. *Which is not true at all for wolves but is for many primates, whether or not any part of it applies to humans is another story entirely
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Let's pretend, for a second, that the "alpha male" theory of wolf pack organization is applicable to the situation in any way. Well, we're talking about people who see themselves as a collective group of alphas. We're not talking the sharpest knives in the drawer here.(1) (1) Of course, anyone who knows anything about knife ethology will tell you that there's only one sharp "alpha", knife in the drawer. The rest of the cutting knives are "betas" and are forbidden from self-describing as "sharp" - they're only good for butter and soft cheese. Some knives are so ostracised that they're consigned to "epsilon" status, which is slightly below an egg whisk in drawer politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Wouldn't a "beta" be, like, the second-highest* ranking wolf in the pack? "Second-best" isn't really a compliment, but it's not much of an insult either. You're either the alpha's closest rival or you're his right-hand man. The ALPHA gets to rut with all the ladies. The betacucks get to stick their pole into his slimy seconds. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
I saw a nature show where crabs picked up stinging anenomes to walk around with and bully other sealife and be assholes. So basically Malheur has a natural precedent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I saw a nature show where crabs picked up stinging anenomes to walk around with and bully other sealife and be assholes. So basically Malheur has a natural precedent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:Let's pretend, for a second, that the "alpha male" theory of wolf pack organization is applicable to the situation in any way. I think they are referring to alphas and betas in the Pick Up Artist sense moreso than the animal-behavioral sense since the former is a severely warped and twisted view of the latter. Essentially in their mind's eye the Alphas are essentially confident forward people who push their agenda with gusto (Trump and his 'winners', mostly loud obnoxious assholes) whereas anyone who's not 'that' is essentially a beta and a looser in the Trump-O-Shpere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Alien Arcana posted:
I did see 'zeta'. You're assuming that the kind of person who talks about alpha males knows the order of letters in the Greek alphabet. This is a dangerous and unfounded assumption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:Well, we're talking about people who see themselves as a collective group of alphas. We're not talking the sharpest knives in the drawer here.(1) Also that the whole alpha/beta wolves thing was eventually found to be a misunderstanding. When talking about wolves, a more correct term for "alpha" would be "dad," and the "betas" are "children." Wolf packs are family groups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Also that the whole alpha/beta wolves thing was eventually found to be a misunderstanding. When talking about wolves, a more correct term for "alpha" would be "dad," and the "betas" are "children." Wolf packs are family groups. OK, seriously, Alphas are still a thing, just not in wolves specifically. The biological concept is still out there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology) There are tons of animals where only one male in the group gets to mate. edit: And again, this is me taking no position on how this applies to humans. PUA weirdos are still wrong, but they aren't disproven by the pseudo-recent information about wolves
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Also that the whole alpha/beta wolves thing was eventually found to be a misunderstanding. When talking about wolves, a more correct term for "alpha" would be "dad," and the "betas" are "children." Wolf packs are family groups. IIRC the original study was conducted by taking a bunch of random wolves from the wild and putting them in a pen together. A social hierarchy developed that was based mostly on the wolves' ability to beat each other up. The problem was that the scientists decided this was "the way wolves are" without ever considering how artificial the whole setup was - like trying to build a theory of psychology based entirely off of prison documentaries. DeathSandwich posted:I think they are referring to alphas and betas in the Pick Up Artist sense moreso than the animal-behavioral sense since the former is a severely warped and twisted view of the latter. Essentially in their mind's eye the Alphas are essentially confident forward people who push their agenda with gusto (Trump and his 'winners', mostly loud obnoxious assholes) whereas anyone who's not 'that' is essentially a beta and a looser in the Trump-O-Shpere. Well, yeah. The "alpha/beta" language as used in politics ("alphas" are strong manly leaders, "betas" are spineless wimps) is a reference to PUA terminology (aggressive "alphas" get all the ladies, passive "betas" are left with slim pickings), which is a misunderstanding of the original wolf-pack theory ("alphas" are the most dominant wolves, "betas" are next beneath them, and so forth), which was itself a misunderstanding of how wolf packs normally operate. It's a telephone game of misplaced sexual frustration. meristem posted:I did see 'zeta'. You're assuming that the kind of person who talks about alpha males knows the order of letters in the Greek alphabet. This is a dangerous and unfounded assumption. This is also a good point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Either I'm on somebody's ignore list or somebody's illiterate
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:OK, seriously, Alphas are still a thing, just not in wolves specifically. The biological concept is still out there: theflyingorc posted:Either I'm on somebody's ignore list or somebody's illiterate Why not both?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Why not both? You bastard, two minute turn around on that joke just isn't fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
xrunner posted:What a well trained militia. I mean, accidents happen and all, but I spent four years in the Army, including a year in an active combat zone as well as plenty of trips out to the range. Cumulatively, I was in the vicinity of probably tens of thousands of rifles getting cleared and I never witnessed an accidental discharge. I've seen one, but it was because my dad decided to play cowboy and forgot to release the securing strap on the holster. Fortunately no one was hurt. "accidental discharge" is normally code for "I was stupid and did something moronic"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:In wolves. It does happen in primates. That's true, but the popular concept of the alpha male almost certainly refers to wolves, not just because the term originated with Schenkel's study on wolves in 1947, but also because the term "alpha wolf" gets thrown around a lot in popular culture. Also comparing yourself to a wolf sounds cooler than comparing yourself to a chimpanzee Alien Arcana posted:IIRC the original study was conducted by taking a bunch of random wolves from the wild and putting them in a pen together. A social hierarchy developed that was based mostly on the wolves' ability to beat each other up. The problem was that the scientists decided this was "the way wolves are" without ever considering how artificial the whole setup was - like trying to build a theory of psychology based entirely off of prison documentaries.  derail, don't read unless you're interested in this sort of thing Not quite, but almost correct. The study that created the concept of alphas was Rudolf Schenkel's landmark study "Expression Studies on Wolves", published 1947, based on observations on two wolf packs in the Basle Zoo (Switzerland) starting in 1934. Schenkel observed two wolf packs successively, both in the same enclosure of about 200 square meters. The idea behind his studies was extremely smart: Up to that point, wolves had been extensively studied, but the concepts that had been created by zoologists were based on individual behaviour (imprinting, displaying, threatening), not social behaviour. Schenkel set out to study wolves as social animals. (The original paper is very readable and you can find it online, by the way. If you're interested in this stuff, I encourage you to read it.) In any case, he observed that quote:a bitch and a dog as top animals carry through their rank order and as single individuals of the society, they form a pair. Between them there is no question of status and argument concerning rank, even though small frictions of another type (jealousy) are not uncommon. By incessant control of all types of competition (within the same sex), both of these "alpha animals" defend their social position. (p. 87) That paper right there is where we get the term "alpha" from. From this study is was then imported into ethology (the study of animal behaviour) at large. The problem: Schenkel observed wolves that were confined to 200 sqm. For comparison, the smallest known wolf pack in the wild has occupied a territory of ~33 square kilometers, the largest known wolf territory is around 6200 sqkm. Wolves, as it turns out, who are forced to live in unnatural environments, develop unnatural behavioural tendencies. In the wild, wolf packs have a parent unit and offspring. At some point, the offspring founds their own packs, at which point they become parent wolves themselves. There is no alpha / beta distinction because there is no competition -- once the pups are old enough to leave the pack, they automatically become "alphas", i.e., parent wolves. The subtitle to Schenkel's study, interestingly, is "Captivity Observations", and Schenkel was acutely aware that captivity might cause some irregular behaviour. He just didn't think this sort of behaviour was abnormal. Why that is, and why it took us 30 more years to realize there was a fault in the original study, is another question that I won't bother you with, unless somebody really wants to hear me talk more about science gone wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:Or the 4 year old pulls the pistol out of his dad's holster and sends a round through dad's middle, killing him. I suggested there should be something like this along the lines of driver's ed. Man, you shoulda seen the shitstorm about "teaching kids to worship guns". Pixelboy posted:... He's just a pussy and now he's desperately trying to cower to the powers that be because he got bitch slapped by reality. Sorry fuckstick, you stepped over the line one too many times now. SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
xrunner posted:What a well trained militia. I mean, accidents happen and all, but I spent four years in the Army, including a year in an active combat zone as well as plenty of trips out to the range. Cumulatively, I was in the vicinity of probably tens of thousands of rifles getting cleared and I never witnessed an accidental discharge. Eh I've been in the presence of one in country and one in training with blanks. The one in country I have no idea what happened because it was outside the wire and no one was hurt so everyone pretended like it never happened. The one in training was actually a true AD. M249 with a worn sear discharged when our truck hit a bad pothole and barrel thumped the floor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:No, because the theory* has the existence of two types - Alphas and Betas. Alphas are in charge, Betas aren't. Well, bonobos have (slightly) matriarchal, minimal-conflict social groups and resolve conflicts with pansexual loving, but how much of that applies to humans is also another story. E: Drawing inferences about human social behaviour from other mammals is basically  .
Lead out in cuffs fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:people who own a firearm are way much more likely to be shot with their own gun than people who don't
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Yes well what happens when you multiply by 0? Agreed that reducing the amount of guns in America is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Agreed that reducing the amount of guns in America is a good idea. Geostomp posted:Which is what the real problem with the gun debate in the country comes down to: large numbers of childish adults demanding to keep their hobby of handling deadly weapons. Sure, you get all kinds of platitiudes of defense and freedom, but what it all comes down to is people demanding that they get to keep playing with their toys no matter how dangerous they are. It's the antithesis of responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:You must be in favor of reducing the amount of cars to 0 as well. Car owners are 1000x times more likely to die than bus riders. Please fuckoff back to TFR with this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:You must be in favor of reducing the amount of cars to 0 as well. Car owners are 1000x times more likely to die than bus riders. which part of the poo poo trench is yours, if i may ask
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Please fuckoff back to TFR with this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:gunfetishists waxing poetic about how the only thing in their life that makes them feel like a real man is actually selflessly protecting are freedoms in this thread is especially ironic
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Good thing we clamped down on that bailchat otherwise we would have missed this awesome gunchat and "man bros are so bad" circlejerk
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:I didn't start it. what is your rank in the New American Revolutionary Army are you all generals, or did some of you have the humility to only appoint yourselves a colonel
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:I didn't start it. Luckily this forum doesn't have a stand your ground rule, so you can retreat to safety now thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:You must be in favor of reducing the amount of cars to 0 as well. Car owners are 1000x times more likely to die than bus riders. quote:Is it a hobby or is it a constitutional right needed to guarantee the security of our state? Very clearly a hobby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Eliminating the need for personal vehicles would be a gigantic net benefit to the individual, society, and the world. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:what is your rank in the New American Revolutionary Army Al! posted:Luckily this forum doesn't have a stand your ground rule, so you can retreat to safety now thanks. What is this low effort bullshit, we've had a solid page of people circle-jerking about how stupid gun-owners are but one gun owner comes in and argues differently and the only response is "GTFO"? This is turning back into the bad old days of D&D
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:You must be in favor of reducing the amount of cars to 0 as well. Car owners are 1000x times more likely to die than bus riders. Agreed. Cars are terrible
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:36 |
|
|
botany posted:I agree that guns should be as well-regulated as cars, including license, registration, insurance etc. quote:Very clearly a hobby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 22:47
|
|