|
Guavanaut posted:It's strange, because the history of gun bans in the UK usually comes from the insane right, whether that's free trade liberals pissing their pants over the faint possibility of a workers' uprising just after WWI, or Thatcher, Mellor, and Blunkett screaming "we must do something and this is something" in the more modern era. It's more that I think the yank mentality of "everyone needs to be armed to the teeth and ready to murder each other at a moment's notice because that's FREEDOM" sounds insane over here. It's not specifically the idea of banning guns but like, the idea that maximum murder capacity shouldn't be the basis of society, which I do think is a left/right split.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Hello posting pals, I have been very busy the past couple weeks and the unread post count has grown too high for me ever to catch up. What's up with the thread title, what has happened to our righteous commissar, communism bitch? Liquidated, comrade. We do not speak of Unpersons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Hello posting pals, I have been very busy the past couple weeks and the unread post count has grown too high for me ever to catch up. What's up with the thread title, what has happened to our righteous commissar, communism bitch? he has been declared Counter-Revolutionary and must never be spoken of again he's just not an ik anymore because he's not as active these days, he seems fine with it
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
Tenebrais posted:It's currently law that Parliament doesn't approve a deal until its implementing legislation is passed. So for that to play out, step 1 would need to include wording overriding the Letwin amendment. So unless there's a trick like that we're no longer at risk of no deal until the end of 2020?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
xtothez posted:So unless there's a trick like that we're no longer at risk of no deal until the end of 2020? Johnson's trying to table basically the same bill he did on saturday on monday, to try and override it, and he's probably going to try and argue that the second reading on tuesday counts as "approving the deal" for the purposes of the benn act, but I am skeptical of either of those working.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's more that I think the yank mentality of "everyone needs to be armed to the teeth and ready to murder each other at a moment's notice because that's FREEDOM" sounds insane over here. It's not specifically the idea of banning guns but like, the idea that maximum murder capacity shouldn't be the basis of society, which I do think is a left/right split. It's also worth pointing out within the larger context of the spread of right-wing ideologies, that this reconceptualizing the second amendment and gun worship is very modern and a successful invention of conservatives wanting to expand their power base. Not that there can't also be a fundamental disagreement on the issue between the two countries, but that a generation of conservative marketing is pretty powerful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Angepain posted:he has been declared Counter-Revolutionary and must never be spoken of again he's just not an ik anymore because he's not as active these days, he seems fine with it feedmegin posted:Liquidated, comrade. We do not speak of Unpersons. Rest in posts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Both BXP and SNP have come out for an extension and an early general election ... interesting times, you say. Maybe LAB is hearing the birds chirping that enough CON might bolt over Farage's new line of attack? I don't know
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
Not sure if this has been posted, but So many beautiful references
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/giantpoppywatch/status/1185873619303489536
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
What is farages new line of attack? Deal is too dealy? Breaking the union? This thread has actually put me off the poppy, I didn't wear one last year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:54
|
|
|
TescoBag posted:Not sure if this has been posted, but This looks like it could be the cover of a music album in the 70s or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GloriaDePiero/status/1185852275933220865 indicative votes (round #3)? OwlFancier posted:What is farages new line of attack? Deal is too dealy? Breaking the union? https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nigel-farage/nigel-farage-boris-johnson-not-really-brexit/ too dealy, more or less
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
Hey, anyone remember those guys - you know, below Scotland, next to wales - those guys? The Angish or something? Ongish? Up north from France. Wish I would remember. Maybe if we had a day for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
certain folks are unhappy: https://twitter.com/jon_trickett/status/1185858753364660224
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Angepain posted:Hey, anyone remember those guys - you know, below Scotland, next to wales - those guys? The Angish or something? Ongish? Up north from France. Wish I would remember. Maybe if we had a day for it. Nothing good has ever come from that gods forsaken place
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
ronya posted:https://twitter.com/GloriaDePiero/status/1185852275933220865 So what do we think happens if a customs union amendment passes? Boris pulls the bill and we have an election? He proceeds with the bill but the Spartans vote it down? Or he proceeds with the bill, it passes and we leave the EU but he calls an election to try and overturn the customs union bit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Vlex posted:Highly recommend reading One River by the botanist Wade Davis, who spent a lot of his early career researching psychoactive plants from South America (including all three main varieties of coca). He was a student of Richard Schultes, perhaps the single greatest botanist of the Americas, period, and the book is interspersed with amazing throwbacks to exactly the era you're talking about when Schultes was working against the tide of prevailing yankee racism in South America. OwlFancier posted:It's more that I think the yank mentality of "everyone needs to be armed to the teeth and ready to murder each other at a moment's notice because that's FREEDOM" sounds insane over here. It's not specifically the idea of banning guns but like, the idea that maximum murder capacity shouldn't be the basis of society, which I do think is a left/right split. I do think there's a toxic codependent relationship between the US and UK on the issue though. Like in  it's:US Centrists/'Left': We should have reasonable restrictions on firearms. US Right: That's a slippery slope! You start with that and eventually you're banning completely unrelated guns for ideological reasons. US Centrists/'Left': That's not a real thing, that doesn't happen. UK Tories/Blairists: Hey, let's ban completely unrelated guns for ideological reasons so that the fascists who read the Sun will think the Home Office is doing something. US Right: Told you! *nothing ever happens thots and pears* And in  it's:I don't think we should *America does a mass shooting* have a gun culture like *America does a mass shooting* the US, but we could have *America does a mass shooting* reasonable regulations like France and *America does a mass shooting* Scandinavia where we neither fetishize nor *America does a mass shooting* demonize firearms and have a strong *America does a mass shooting* social support attitude towards *America does a mass shooting* violent crime reduction. So you end up with both countries pointing across the Atlantic screaming *look what they're doing* as an excuse. You see that in a lot of other areas too, and it seemed to kick into high gear in the early 80s, although I'm sure that's just a coincidence and not that neoliberalism left both countries as ideologically bankrupt shells capable of nothing put pointing at others and screaming. I find it interesting that the US right loves fellating their Bill of Rights as inalienable, containing whatever they want it to, and written by the most divinely inspired group of powdered wigged syphilitic slave owning deists known to man, whereas the UK right finds the HRA intolerable and even the concept of an inalienable right must only be for the protection of Muslim pedophiles, terrorists' cats, and teenage thugs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Sorry to ask but is there any good summary of what the gently caress is going on with Brexit these days? I tried researching myself and I get so much conflicting information that I'm not sure what to believe. I admit I'm a little lost on what exactly is going on at this point beyond "everything is stupid." I'll try to create a "Brexit explained" post. I'll start at the beginning. The Referendum June 2016 we had a referendum. The two options were to leave the EU (with no specifics given as to how) or remain in the EU. We voted to leave 52% to 48% in the most highly represented vote of the public ever. The vote wasn't legally binding in any way, but the Conservative majority government at the time promised they'd respect the vote and that this was a once in a generation opportunity. Both campaigns were heavily criticised for breaking campaigning rules, with leave making egregious statements that were later falsified and remain using excessive amounts of public money to send leaflets through everyone's door. As this vote wasn't legally binding, there was no consequence for any potential infractions of campaign laws. While the ultimate result was determined by a sum of all the votes in the UK, votes were released on a constituency by constituency basis, allowing for all to see how each area voted. Scotland's constituencies mainly voted overwhelmingly to Remain in the EU. There are various constituencies elsewhere that show a strong Leave or Remain bias, and this has sometimes put pressure on the representative for that area to act in accordance with how their constituents voted. David Cameron decided to resign as Prime Minister in July of 2016, landing Theresa May with the problem he created. Article 50 In December 2016 Parliament voted overwhelmingly to trigger article 50. This is the EU legal procedure that allows member states to leave. In March 2017, after some legal wankery, we finally submitted Article 50 to Donald Tusk: the president of the EU council. Doing this created a mutual agreement that we would leave in two years from the day after article 50 is submitted. The date was thus set for March 29th 2019. The Composition of Parliament - Theresa Fuc'DUP In April 2017, Theresa May held a general election. The Conservatives lost their majority, winning 317 of the 326 seats needed. The Conservatives under Theresa May entered into a coalition with a party called the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to bring the DUP's 10 seats into a working majority in the house of commons. The Conservatives are a party with the interests of "business" at heart. They are a party which generally seek to lower taxes, impose austerity, bow to corporate interests and generally push anti immigration, pro tough law stances due to regressive attitudes they help propagate in this country. I apologise if my bias is showing however it is my sincerely held belief that their 9 years in power has been nothing short of an atrocity. Another point to mention is that the Conservatives are strongly opposed to any efforts that would cause UK states to leave the UK, such as Scottish independence, Welsh independence or Irish reunification. The DUP are a Northern Irish party who focus entirely on keeping Northern Ireland inside of the United Kingdom and having Northern Ireland treated as much as possible on par with the mainland UK in terms of its status and rights. The Labour party are a party with close ties to the workers unions in this country. In 2015 the party voted Jeremy Corbyn as their leader and the party has emphasised strong socialist sentiments since. After the 2017 election Labour held 262 seats. The Labour Party and the Conservative party both went into the 2017 election campaign promising to exit from the EU. Labour promised to stay inside of the customs union (tariffs, duties, etc) and noted that the EU sentiment was that this would require the UK to uphold freedom of movement. The Labour campaign spun this as being a deal that would protect jobs and protect the rights of EU citizens living in the UK. The Conservatives campaigned on no freedom of movement because immigration coming in from the EU is an issue for the political right in this country. The third largest party, the Scottish Nationalist Party, are a Scottish party interested in having Scotland leave the United Kingdom while simultaneously having Scotland remain in the EU. They're generally progressive on social issues, although if I let that go unchallenged I'm sure someone in this thread would point out that some of their Scottish Parliament members dissent from the progressive party line on the issue of trans rights. While the SNP lost 21 seats in this election, it still left the election with 56 seats. This is more than enough seats to make a substantial difference in a process which, at times, has been decided by a single vote. The Liberal Democrats are a party of liberal centrists. As Liberals in the fiscal as well as social sense, they revile Corbyn's socialist Labour and often speak out against his leadership specifically. The Lib Dems advertise a lot of woke progressive ideas, and were once the third largest party. Their vote share tanked in a 2015 election due to the fact they entered into coalition with the Conservatives in 2011, thereby selling out their liberally won votes to a right wing government in a betrayal that future voters may unfortunately forget and relive. In the 2017 election they came out with 12 seats. 2018 Theresa May negotiated with the EU and eventually the 27 EU leaders settled on a Withdrawal Agreement. During this lengthy period, Boris Johnson resigned as foreign secretary in order to scream "Brexit Harder!" from the back benches as he found the apparent terms of the Withdrawal Agreement to be a "surrender". Some time in November the Withdrawal Agreement was published in full for all to look on in horror, after which Dominic Raab immediately resigned his position as secretary for Withdrawal from the EU. The Deal contains this -We leave the EU parliament but are still subject to its directives on a temporary basis. It's a two year "transitional period" before we figure out a new arrangement. -We uphold customs and border arrangements during the "transitional period" so that Northern Ireland doesn't have to worry about its land border. A vote to approve this deal was scheduled for December 10th but Theresa May bottled it and put it off to January 15th. The Ireland Issue 101 I need to reread my sources on this one [stand by] Here we loving go - Brexit 2019 January 15th, Theresa May had her first attempt at getting this deal through. Her defeat, 432 to 202, was the biggest defeat margin in modern UK parliamentary history. All DUP members present voted against this motion as it offered no clarity on what happens to Northern Ireland after the transitional period. All SNP members present voted against it, because Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain and they do not want to be "dragged out of Europe". 248 Labour MPs voted against it. The big thing to mention is the 118 Conservatives opposed to their own government's deal. Some of them were concerned about Ireland, some of them simply thought it was a "bad deal" but others had a more sinister purpose... In the coming weeks after this crippling defeat Theresa May gave a series of statements to the house about progress on the brexit negotiations. It's procedure that parliament is asked to vote on whether they agree "that this house has considered the statement" given by the prime minister. As it turns out the statement is subject to amendments. An amendment calling for the Prime Minister to renegotiate the Northern Ireland terms was approved with DUP support. An amendment putting it on the record that parliament wishes to avoid a No-Deal brexit also passed although was opposed by the DUP and Conservatives. One such statement failed to pass its vote because a certain group of Conservative members abstained. These are the sinister ones. These are the European Research Group (ERG) sometimes called the Spartans. They abstained from voting on their Prime Minister's statement as it appeared to rule out leaving the EU with no deal. The ERG began to enter the public view at this point, and are speculated to be a group of disaster capitalists set to use a catastrophic No Deal brexit for their own financial gain while posturing themselves as true brexiteers unwilling to "surrender" to EU pressure. Members of this group frequently spoke in parliament in favour of a no deal brexit. It was during these statements that the attorney general Geoffrey Cox sought to assure members of the house on the Northern Ireland situation giving technical legal assurances he described as his "codpiece". March 12th Theresa May had her second attempt at getting her deal through, and this time Cox's Codpiece was in place. Amendments to statements now required that if this vote fails then on the following day they would vote on whether to approve a No Deal brexit. Perhaps the threat of crashing out of the EU with No Deal and some legal assurances would work? No, Theresa May lost the vote 391 to 242. The DUP members present opposed the deal. Gains were largely made from the Conservative benches. March 13th During a vote on whether to allow a No Deal brexit, an amendment was made replacing the motion with one to categorically rule out no deal happening on the 29th. It passed 321 to 278. March 14th The government was required by the previous days amendments to forward a motion on whether it was to extend the brexit deadline past the 29th of March. This passed 412-202 with every amendment to it either failing or being withdrawn. It forced Theresa May to go to the EU27 council on the 21st and 22nd to seek an extension from the EU. March 18th The government tried to put forward the Withdrawal Agreement for a third time, which if passed would have seen Theresa May avoid the requirement to seek an extension. The Speaker of the house, John Bercow, blocked this stating that he would not have another vote on a motion that is "substantially the same" as one voted on before. March 20th Theresa May gave an absolute stinker of a public speech that sought to frame parliament as being against the will of the people. March 21-22 Theresa May negotiated an extension as required by parliament's votes. The extension would last up until 12th of April, with the option to extend to the 22nd of May if and only if a deal is agreed by the 29th of March. This was due to the EU parliament elections that took place this year. The EU needed confirmation of the UK’s intention to participate in these elections by the 12th of April else we would not be able to participate. You cannot be a member of the EU without participating in the EU elections and failing to do this would cause us to leave the EU by default. The later date of the 22nd of May was conditional on securing a deal as securing the deal would have meant we were going to leave the EU and not participate in the elections. It would have allowed us to be in the EU up to the date of the new EU parliament rather than up to the date of needing to declare our intention to participate in the EU elections. March 25th Theresa May, her vocal chords audibly injured from the long negotiations in the previous days, put forward yet another (amendable) statement in relation to the withdrawal agreement. Ordinarily the government ministers have control over exactly what the UK parliament discusses in its business. Oliver Letwin, a Conservative MP, amended the statement to replace it with a motion allowing non ministers to gain priority over Parliament's discussions on March 27th. This gave the speaker the ability to choose any motion put forward relating to brexit regardless of which MPs it came from, instead of giving the government ministers priority over what is discussed on any given day. March 27th MPs not part of the government used this rare chance for control over parliament's discussion to hold a series of nonbinding votes to see if there is any way forward that would command a majority of the house. Members were each given a ballot paper with 8 options and could vote for, against or abstain from any number of those options. Of the 8 options selected for these votes, none secured a majority, but a customs union and a second referendum on May's deal came short 6 and 27 votes respectively. Following the indicative votes, parliament voted again to take control over parliamentary discussion on the 1st of April and the 3rd of April in order to hold another set of these indicative votes with the less popular options removed from the voting paper. March 29th Leave protests gathered outside of Westminster, as this was the leave date first promised when article 50 was enacted. Theresa May had a third attempt at putting her deal through, which John Bercow allowed on the basis that this would come with an extension to the 22nd of May in order to give more time for the deal to be properly implemented. This vote failed 344 to 286, meaning there would be no deal secured before March 29th and the leave date was pushed to April 12th as agreed by Europe. April 1st MPs again used their control over parliament's order of business to hold nonbinding votes on potential ways forward. Of the four options selected none gained a majority. Holding a second referendum on Mays deal and leaving with a customs union came short 12 votes and 3 votes respectively. April 3-8 MPs involved in Oliver Letwin's process had hoped to use their control of parliament's business on April 3rd to bring into law any options from the votes which commanded a majority. As none of them did they instead began to push through a bill known as the Cooper-Letwin bill. Once made into an act of Law would allow the commons to vote on whether to require Theresa May to seek a further extension from the EU27. This bill passed its first reading 313 to 312 by one vote. Over the next few days the commons and the Lords would push this bill through parliament at breakneck speed until finally it was enacted. It meant a vote in the house of commons, if passed, would require Theresa May to seek an extension to the 30th of June. April 9th The vote required by the Cooper Letwin bill passed 420 to 110. A total of 131 Conservatives voted to force their PM to seek this extension. April 10th Theresa May was sent back to the EU27 to negotiate a new extension. They rejected the 30th of June in favour of an offer for the 31st of October which Theresa May was ultimately required to accept. This extension requires the UK to participate in EU elections, something which Theresa May had already prepared for earlier that month. This extension states that if a deal is negotiated before the 31st of October then the brexit date can be moved ahead to the first day of the following month. With it being the 20th of October today this point is moot. In the following weeks Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May attempted to negotiate alterations to the withdrawal agreement that could break the deadlock. The exact substance of these negotiations has only been speculated but what is known is that they broke down by the 17th of May. May 23rd European elections were held in the UK. The Conservative party performed terribly, and Labour also performed disappointingly. The newly formed Brexit Party, who campaigned on a no deal brexit and anti immigration stance took the largest portion of MEPs and the largest vote share, 29 and 31.6% respectively. The Liberal democrats, who campaigned on "STOP BREXIT" and revoking article 50 took the second largest number of MEPs and the second largest vote share with 16 and 20.3% respectively. May 24th After being at a complete impasse with parliament for at least 4 months, Theresa May announced her intention to step down as leader of the Conservative party in a speech where she was brought to tears presumably by her loss of personal power. It's worth noting that the results of the EU elections weren't available until the 27th, so this was not a result of her performance there. Boris Johnson's time Throughout most of June all the way until July 23rd the Conservative party was going through the process of electing its new leader. Throughout this campaign it was a foregone conclusion that the winner would turn out to be Boris Johnson. A notable mention is given here to Rory Stewart whose unsuccessful bid put some much needed levity on the whole process of selecting the catastrophic former Mayor of London and unashamed Spartan to be the country's new Prime Minister. During the election process, other parties had time to consider possible options to avoid a No Deal brexit. Sensing that Boris' leadership was a foregone conclusion and that he is not above using underhanded techniques to achieve his campaign promise of "Leaving on October 31st with or without a deal" the remainers began to plot exactly how to stop the Spartans from winning the day. Following Boris' victory in the leadership campaign notions of a "caretaker government" truly gained traction. When a vote of no confidence is passed in the current government there is a 14 day window in which the current members of parliament can attempt to form a new government with their existing members by means of forming an absolute majority using the current MPs. This prevents a general election being held as a government commanding the confidence of the house has formed without requiring an election. At various times Labour MPs, Conservative rebels, the SNP, even the DUP and a few others have stated and withdrawn their support for a caretaker government under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. This would purely serve to keep Boris away from the controls and prevent him forcing us out of the EU without a deal. The Lib Dem leader, however, has consistently stated her opposition to Jeremy Corbyn leading this caretaker government. Through a number of MPs quitting their party and joining other parties during this long process, the Lib Dems have gained 6 MPs and currently stand at 18 MPs. All projections, though mainly guesswork, have shown that a Corbyn caretaker government would not be able to form. Some projections suggest it is the Lib Dem votes that would make the difference. We're nearly there but I need to leave until about 11PM Azza Bamboo fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Oct 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Coca tea is also very good for digestion and nausea, and I found out the real reason that coca leaf is treated as a Class A drug like crack and fentanyl, and it's not because you can make powder cocaine from it with a bunch of other chemicals, it's because of the UN ban in the 60s, which was in turn because of an inaccurate and racist report from 1949 that claims chewing coca makes the Latin savages stupid and lazy. That's so ridiculous, a lot of South Americans would chew coca leaves for the slight energy boost, particularly for hard manual labour, yet the UN said it actually does the complete opposite... guess I shouldn't be surprised!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
loving lol this is the front page of BBC news I'm sure there's a quote about being the news rather than reporting the news but I can't think of it right now
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Good work Azza! E: you might want to add at the start of the "Theresa Fuc'DUP" part that May did not need to call an election, but wanted to "secure a majority" through 2022 instead of to the next scheduled election in 2019 which would still have been in the middle of the brexit proceedings. Also worth mentioning that on the Ireland issue, Northern Ireland went and spoke to the EU in the run-up to the Brexit referendum and laid out the case why Ireland is a particular issue and how they need to protect Irish interests WRT the Good Friday agreement etc. I can't find the article now but basically NI were *very* canny politically in doing that, they got the EU entirely on board with protecting them before the vote even happened. WhatEvil fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Oct 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
Marmaduke! posted:That's so ridiculous, a lot of South Americans would chew coca leaves for the slight energy boost, particularly for hard manual labour, yet the UN said it actually does the complete opposite... guess I shouldn't be surprised! But poor indigenous people were chewing them and eating them and making flour of them and so it must be wrong and why can't they eat healthily like me, a white man in the late 40s who probably subsists on boiled veg and gross lumps of meat in aspic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Don't forget chewing coca leaves is great for altitude sickness, which is extremely important in the altiplano. You need hundreds of kilos of the stuff to actually make drugs so any stigma around it is really silly, I think tea leaves are a stronger stimulant by weight
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
I wonder what happens if you refine tea into some weird powder that you stick up your nose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I wonder what happens if you refine tea into some weird powder that you stick up your nose. Colonialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
WhatEvil posted:Good work Azza! 2020.This isn't America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:loving lol I am still quite shocked that the day after Boris requested an extension, completely going against all his promises, the headline all day has been "PM has numbers to pass Brexit deal, says Raab". I shouldn't be shocked, but I really didn't think it would be this blatant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Thanks, I'll check it out, I'm sure I remember watching a documentary about Schultes along the Amazon. The embrace of the serpent (El Abrazo del Serpiente)? It's loosely based on Schultes and a German bloke/anthropologist called Koch-Grünberg who I could write a considerable effortpost about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SamWhyte/status/1185879682719408128
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's more that I think the yank mentality of "everyone needs to be armed to the teeth and ready to murder each other at a moment's notice because that's FREEDOM" sounds insane over here. It's not specifically the idea of banning guns but like, the idea that maximum murder capacity shouldn't be the basis of society, which I do think is a left/right split. It's quite interesting that gun control is a largely centrist issue in the states. Sanders for example is - while by far the most left-leaning presidential candidate - relatively opposed to meaningful gun control (at least to the extent of your Clintons and Warrens etc). This I think probably comes down to him representing a very rural state that's big on hunting etc, but I do think there's something more ideological happening here as well. Hell, I've gotten into many arguments with self-described American communists who are utterly opposed to any gun control, usually citing Marx's line about the necessity of an armed worker's militia. It's a coherent position I guess, but given the probability of an imminent socialist revolution in the USA I'm not convinced it's worth all the mass shootings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:It's quite interesting that gun control is a largely centrist issue in the states. Sanders for example is - while by far the most left-leaning presidential candidate - relatively opposed to meaningful gun control (at least to the extent of your Clintons and Warrens etc). This I think probably comes down to him representing a very rural state that's big on hunting etc, but I do think there's something more ideological happening here as well. Hell, I've gotten into many arguments with self-described American communists who are utterly opposed to any gun control, usually citing Marx's line about the necessity of an armed worker's militia. It's a coherent position I guess, but given the probability of an imminent socialist revolution in the USA I'm not convinced it's worth all the mass shootings. I guess the issue is the centrists probably aren't interested in developing a constructive cultural change as much as they just want to write laws and ban poo poo because that's what centrists do. I see the UK's gun laws as being conducive to a generally disarmed society, which I want, but the US at large isn't interested in making any sort of cultural change that would lead to a less murder happy society. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Oct 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Don't forget chewing coca leaves is great for altitude sickness, which is extremely important in the altiplano. You need hundreds of kilos of the stuff to actually make drugs so any stigma around it is really silly, I think tea leaves are a stronger stimulant by weight I hope Bolivia's success there leads to Peru and other places following suit rather than people being given the choice between gang violence and fascism. Vlex posted:The embrace of the serpent (El Abrazo del Serpiente)? ThomasPaine posted:It's quite interesting that gun control is a largely centrist issue in the states. Sanders for example is - while by far the most left-leaning presidential candidate - relatively opposed to meaningful gun control (at least to the extent of your Clintons and Warrens etc). This I think probably comes down to him representing a very rural state that's big on hunting etc, but I do think there's something more ideological happening here as well. Hell, I've gotten into many arguments with self-described American communists who are utterly opposed to any gun control, usually citing Marx's line about the necessity of an armed worker's militia. It's a coherent position I guess, but given the probability of an imminent socialist revolution in the USA I'm not convinced it's worth all the mass shootings.  OwlFancier posted:I guess the issue is the centrists probably aren't interested in developing a constructive cultural change as much as they just want to write laws and ban poo poo because that's what centrists do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Part of the US gun thing is that they've military-industrialled so hard that they need to sell weapons and APCs and body armour and poo poo to the cops to keep the right people getting even more insanely rich. There's no justification for that unless the populace is armed. And the original intention of the constitution including a thing about weapons is so that the populace can overthrow a tyrannical government... but I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't foresee tanks and bombers and poo poo existing which the populace has literally no chance of overthrowing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
I think the UK gun laws are pretty sensible. I never understood how Americans can talk as if they want all guns legal, and gun control is the worst thing, but actually have no problem banning all kinds of weapons like anything fully auto or artillery, chemical weapons, nukes where's my right to bear a Davy Crockett shoulder launched nuclear warhead? What kind of well regulated militia has no anti-air?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:It's quite interesting that gun control is a largely centrist issue in the states. Sanders for example is - while by far the most left-leaning presidential candidate - relatively opposed to meaningful gun control (at least to the extent of your Clintons and Warrens etc). This I think probably comes down to him representing a very rural state that's big on hunting etc, but I do think there's something more ideological happening here as well. Hell, I've gotten into many arguments with self-described American communists who are utterly opposed to any gun control, usually citing Marx's line about the necessity of an armed worker's militia. It's a coherent position I guess, but given the probability of an imminent socialist revolution in the USA I'm not convinced it's worth all the mass shootings. I’d say Sanders is more of an outlier among the US “left” simply because he’s from a low population rural state with a hunting tradition
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Right to own MANPADs would actually be a thing I'd support. Because they're quite hard to do random murders with. Plus it's a systemic reason to build more trains instead of short haul air flights 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Also the Democrats (much like Thatcherites and Blairites) are blind to their own ideology and are materially focused to the point that "ban object used to do thing" is the only position they understand, rather than "social change so the people no longer want to do thing" playing any part. this outlook seems to have vanished from the US gun thread for a while now I suspect the US right embracing the tactic of demanding radical social change in lieu of statutory change has demonstrated the flaw in the argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
AdmiralViscen posted:I’d say Sanders is more of an outlier among the US “left” simply because he’s from a low population rural state with a hunting tradition You have clearly never spoken to an American tankie! Vietcong lad has the right idea
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I wonder what happens if you refine tea into some weird powder that you stick up your nose. I do know powdered green tea is part of the recipe for some moon cakes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2019 17:50
|
|
