|
It's probably going to keep escalating and happening until the other side claps back and makes an example out of the next person to try it. And by that I mean a hypothetical where someone tries to shoot up a drag show and they don't just subdue him, but actively beat him within an inch of his life to serve as a warning to others. Because if there's one thing conservatives can't stand, it's when the other person is able to fight back.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:At best you're going to end up with someone the Republicans instantly excommunicate, at worst they're going to pull up the football and openly go 'lol those idiot commiecrats fell for it' The first part is the point. You split the Republican caucus and cause civil war in it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:09
|
|
|
the_steve posted:It's probably going to keep escalating and happening until the other side claps back and makes an example out of the next person to try it. The guy who shot up the drag show was clearly hit in the head a hell of a lot of times, like half of his entire head is purple. Which tracks with how he was disarmed and subdued (the vet who disarmed him took his backup pistol from him and beat the poo poo out of him with it basically until he stopped struggling and a drag queen kicked him in the face some, too) Also I don't think that a shooter getting a beatdown is going to have any impact. No one gives a gently caress about what happens to those guys after their moment of utility to whatever hosed up cause they represent. The far bigger issue is the right openly trying to start a culture war and publicly fantasizing about a civil war and throwing around rhetoric that is unambiguously intended to promote attacks like these. I don't think it really matters what happens to the individuals shooting places up, at least in terms of reducing attacks, until right wing media stops inciting hate at every opportunity. All in all it feels a lot like the height of the abortion clinic attacks in the 90s when the right was doing the same poo poo where they were clearly, deliberately working people up into attacking abortion providers and then playing dumb when it happened. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:18
|
|
|
Here in the UK we also have horrifying right-wing politics, crushing capitalism, poverty, and poor mental health provisions, but you don't see nearly as many mass shootings because guns aren't as available to the public. People blaming those other factors just want any excuse to keep their guns. Proper gun control is the only effective remedy to the mass shooting problem in the USA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:27
|
|
|
it's complete political suicide, but something has to be done about the amount of guns in circulation, too
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:it's complete political suicide, but something has to be done about the amount of guns in circulation, too It either needs to be much higher, or zero
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:38
|
|
|
Right wing media makes billions in profit by spreading their hatred, Republican political representatives are still taking office by riding on that message and the supreme court isn't going anywhere for decades. There are no solutions at the top. Everyone's getting fatter and happier at that level the worse things get down below, so no solutions will be allowed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 13:45
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:The guy who shot up the drag show was clearly hit in the head a hell of a lot of times, like half of his entire head is purple. Which tracks with how he was disarmed and subdued (the vet who disarmed him took his backup pistol from him and beat the poo poo out of him with it basically until he stopped struggling and a drag queen kicked him in the face some, too) I think that's mainly because right now, the narrative is still heavily tilted towards "Not only will you get away with your terror attack and be a hero, but if you're white enough, the cops will take you for ice cream and let you pick out a toy on the way to jail." Getting your rear end beat by the people you're planning to terrorize and murder is still considered the exception rather than the rule. When "the shooter was beaten to death with their own gun" is considered the norm for what will happen, a lot of chuds will lose their courage and go back to posting about how "someone" should do it instead since they have a thing this week.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 14:13
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Right wing media makes billions in profit by spreading their hatred, Republican political representatives are still taking office by riding on that message and the supreme court isn't going anywhere for decades. There are no solutions at the top. Everyone's getting fatter and happier at that level the worse things get down below, so no solutions will be allowed. I don't think this is entirely true, but when you bring in the corruption of the police away from capital to white nationalism the tools available to dismantle it will be used to shield it and attack it's enemies. I think there will be a defining moment, an unambiguous organized attack, that will show if even degraded institutions will move against domestic white terrorists. If that actually happens it's likely the movements internal organization will be enough to hang the lot. Otherwise the destruction of civil society is going to be a harsh lesson for those who only sought profit from them. The slow response to Jan 6 is worrying but actually organized groups got busted up for it. Frankly it could go either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Found this one interesting and it runs a bit counterintuitive for me: https://twitter.com/arindube/status/1595606927303925760 (As a correction, the Y axis should read "cumulative" and not "annualized") Overall, wage growth is below inflation for most Americans since the start of the pandemic. The ones who've done best (as measured by wage growth v CPI*) have been those on the lower end of the income spectrum. A good point to pull out if you find yourself around the sort of relatives and friends this weekend who were trying to end lockdowns and masking in May 2020 "for the sake of the hourly workers!" Dube, for context, is a professor at the University of Massachusetts and one of the world's foremost experts in labor/wage economics - particularly regarding minimum wage effects. *This is a narrow measure that obviously does not account for the increasing value and utility of nonwage compensation the higher one goes up the income ladder and should not be used to  for the rich
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
If you're going to go for a compromise candidate because there isn't a single currently serving Republican Representative that can get 218 votes... Yeah, it would make the most sense to pick a figure that isn't currently serving in the House. But I think there has to be someone in the caucus that can get there when the alternative starts becoming a candidate approved by the Democrats. Unless there's like, seven Rs that absolutely won't budge on putting up Gaetz as Speaker, I don't think it'll happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
These are horrifying tragedies, but they're expected at this point. Fwiw, I don't own a gun and completely support national gun control laws and enforcement. And I understand people need to vent about our idiotic relationship with firearms in this country. That said, in the US "no more guns!" is as realistic a solution as "no more murders!" and its frustrating to see the argument suggested as a legislative solution. In a democratic sense it's not what Americans want, our enforcement agencies would never be willing to play ball (except against marginalized / leftist groups), our leaders won't run afoul of the gun manufacturers IE capital, and finally there are so many guns out there as to diminish the effectiveness of such an act even if it was enacted with sincere commitment. Compounding that, the very environment and movements spurring on these tragedies and further illuminating our gun issues mean any serious move against gun ownership would radicalize more people towards the anti government right, even if they aren't rabid bigots. All the while creating an atmosphere where minorities and marginalized groups see more need to own a weapon to defend themselves because they are being openly and publicly targeted (yes I know it doesn't help statistically to own a gun, but humans don't make decisions based on graphs and excel sheets). The way I see it, this is just another issue that's very difficult for the government to legislate (if they even wanted to), would take a lifetime to start to meaningfully change things for the better, and would surely make things worse in the short term. Thus it exists most accurately as a political wedge issue to divide us (regardless of how much more correct one side may be). I'm sure this is some kind of thought terminating cliche, but given the myriad difficulties and realities of the situation, along with the timetable, I start to just wish people were talking about climate change instead. Equally difficult and unlikely, but far more important and consequential. One depressingly impossible crisis at a time. I mean, surely we can view energy and attention as finite resources, thus making prioritizing of issues reasonable (non terminator cliche baby). Gun control is a fine enough thing to debate on these here forums, but out there it's just another doomed hill where we're supposed to battle without any real victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Found this one interesting and it runs a bit counterintuitive for me: My guess would be that most of the lower wage jobs were the ones most hit by people quitting and not coming back during the pandemic. Fast food, retail, and other such jobs are still desperate for employees around me, and as a result have been forced to raise their wages. Still not at a level they should be, but new hire non server positions starting pay looks to be up 3-6 bucks from what it was in 2019. At the same time, most of those under 50 bought into our higher education myth and are constantly trying to get into the jobs that the Boomers are holding onto with a death grip as they work into retirement age. Which puts less pressure to increase the wages there. Especially since the higher your earnings, the less the knock on effect from increases in minimum wage laws and local factors carries on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
R's are gonna run on trafficking and abusing children in the next elections, but from the "pro-" side
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:00
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:a drag queen kicked him in the face some, too Hey just needed to correct this, but the second person to help subdue the shooter was a trans woman and not a drag queen. The initial reporting made some incorrect assumptions and it just got spread around from there. I've also been corrected on this 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Unless there's like, seven Rs that absolutely won't budge on putting up Gaetz as Speaker, I don't think it'll happen. The problem is that there are also probably at least 5 moderate Republicans who will refuse to vote for a crazyass. (Well, crazy by their very low standards, anyway) More than likely this is just posturing, it is to the advantage of both of the two warring sides to put out the impression that they'll never give in, so you better give them what they want and not the other side, and they may even want to force one or two votes to fail on the floor as a show of strength, but the most likely outcome is that a deal will be made somehow at some point with someone in the caucus, maybe not McCarthy, but someone. It is also to the advantage of all warring sides to play up the terrifying prospect of ending up with the Dems choosing their speaker. Edge cases like the Dems actually playing kingmaker with a compromise candidate are fun to talk about for political nerds like us even though it is hilariously unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:These are horrifying tragedies, but they're expected at this point. Fwiw, I don't own a gun and completely support national gun control laws and enforcement. And I understand people need to vent about our idiotic relationship with firearms in this country. A variety of specific gun control measures such as universal background checks poll extremely well. BRJurgis posted:our enforcement agencies would never be willing to play ball (except against marginalized / leftist groups), This is a meaningless argument that can be used to dismiss any law, ever. Law enforcement entities can and do enforce laws against other groups, especially at the federal level. BRJurgis posted:our leaders won't run afoul of the gun manufacturers IE capital, Democratic politicians have and continue to advocate for increased gun control. Also, the gun lobby is not "capital", it's a specific subrgroup. BRJurgis posted:and finally there are so many guns out there as to diminish the effectiveness of such an act even if it was enacted with sincere commitment. Gun control policies can in fact be effective without being perfect, even if they take time and effort to enact. This is not a meaningful reason to not pursue them aggressively. BRJurgis posted:Compounding that, the very environment and movements spurring on these tragedies and further illuminating our gun issues mean any serious move against gun ownership would radicalize more people towards the anti government right, even if they aren't rabid bigots. They do that regardless. This is a reason to pursue gun control faster. BRJurgis posted:All the while creating an atmosphere where minorities and marginalized groups see more need to own a weapon to defend themselves because they are being openly and publicly targeted (yes I know it doesn't help statistically to own a gun, but humans don't make decisions based on graphs and excel sheets). If you know it doesn't help, why do you think it's relevant as a counterargument. You should think about where and how you came to these beliefs; All of these claims you're making are specifically part of the playbook the NRA uses to ruin discussion of gun control. BRJurgis posted:The way I see it, this is just another issue that's very difficult for the government to legislate (if they even wanted to), Again, the dems are passing as much gun control legislation as they can with their current control, and the margin is very close to getting a lot more. Their constituents don't like the gun industry. Relatively few people like the gun industry. Their lobby is in a particularly severe state of disarray. There is no reason to think "the government" doesn't want to address the issue, and it's exactly as difficult as any other matter requiring a Democratic congress and Democratic judicial appointees. BRJurgis posted:would take a lifetime to start to meaningfully change things for the better Even if this were true (and it isn't), this is a reason to do it as soon as possible. BRJurgis posted:and would surely make things worse in the short term. It would not. You have done nothing and argued nothing to show that it would. BRJurgis posted:Thus it exists most accurately as a political wedge issue to divide us (regardless of how much more correct one side may be). Gun control is not an effective wedge topic. BRJurgis posted:I'm sure this is some kind of thought terminating cliche, Then don't believe it and don't spread it? BRJurgis posted:but given the myriad difficulties and realities of the situation, along with the timetable, I start to just wish people were talking about climate change instead. Equally difficult and unlikely, but far more important and consequential. One depressingly impossible crisis at a time. I mean, surely we can view energy and attention as finite resources, thus making prioritizing of issues reasonable (non terminator cliche baby). We can do more than one thing at once. Neither is "depressingly impossible". The BATFE does not need to defund itself to address climate change. BRJurgis posted:Gun control is a fine enough thing to debate on these here forums, but out there it's just another doomed hill where we're supposed to battle without any real victory. There was already at least some additional gun control legislation passed during the current congress. You keep saying this thing is doomed, based on nothing. BRJurgis, you should think about where and how you came to these beliefs; All of these claims you're making are specifically part of the arguments the NRA uses to ruin discussion of gun control. Insisting that the policy would be futile, that pursuing it is also futile, that it is be unpopular (contrary to public evidence) and asserting that it will have unsupported backlash effects, are the ways that the industry sabotages advocacy for change, using both nominally left and right arguments. This is literally the reactionary playbook of bad faith arguments used to sabotage discussion of enacting change in society. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Edge cases like the Dems actually playing kingmaker with a compromise candidate are fun to talk about for political nerds like us even though it is hilariously unlikely. Most likely, I think, is the idiot brigade tanking McCarthy's bid as a meaningless trophy and getting someone indistinguishable they could claim was "their pick" instead of foisted upon them by The Establishment. So basically the same horseshit Schrader (get hosed, rear end in a top hat) and company tried and failed to pull with Tim Ryan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
The order of likelihood for next Speaker is probably something like
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The order of likelihood for next Speaker is probably something like I don't think there's any rule saying
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
So... I haven't been paying too close of attention to the Speaker of the House/McCarthy topic, so forgive me if this has been already brought up. But even if 5+ Republicans vote in favor of someone else instead of "present" or whatever, wouldn't the most likely scenario be they continue to keep doing the roll call until enough people voting for another person get bored and leave, resulting in McCarthy winning?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't think there's any rule saying I think by rule you can't serve in the house and the senate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't think there's any rule saying I assumed this was not allowed, but apparently this is an Air Bud situation. At the Federal level you can't serve two elected positions at the same time (so if you got elected to a seat in congress and also to, say Vice President at the same time, you'd have to pick one). The constitution also forbids members of congress from serving in the executive branch, so if a Senator was nominated to a cabinet position, they would have to resign their seat to serve. However, the speaker of the house is an appointed (not elected) position in the legislative branch. There's nothing in the law that says a Senator can't also be the speaker. This won't ever happen in practice because of the historical jealous turf war that always happens between the two houses. Mooseontheloose posted:I think by rule you can't serve in the house and the senate. You can't be an elected member of the house and a Senator at the same time, but the speaker is an appointed position. Rigel fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't think there's any rule saying Actually hes just about the only person who can't because he cant hold his precious senate seat and be a house member at the same time. He then wouldn't be able to obstruct filibuster reform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:50
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:(the vet who disarmed him took his backup pistol from him and beat the poo poo out of him with it basically until he stopped struggling and a drag queen kicked him in the face some, too) Just a heads up about that last bit, for future reference. https://twitter.com/UnluckyBanshee/status/1594914600536809472 I haven't seen anyone dispute this correction, so it seems pretty safe to take it in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 16:57
|
|
|
Generic American posted:Just a heads up about that last bit, for future reference. I actually went down a rabbit hole this morning on this topic because of this confusion, and there doesn't seem to be agreement on when someone is or is not a "drag queen". I always just took it to be a highly over the top, exaggerated role or a character someone might choose to play but is not always "in character" 24/7, but there's not really even agreement on that. So to be safe, I just default to the usual "don't be an rear end in a top hat" rule of if someone says call them X, then call them X. If someone says don't call them X, then don't call them X.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:A variety of specific gun control measures such as universal background checks poll extremely well. First, I certainly intended to draw a distinction between "actual national gun control being implemented and enforced" (which has its own hurdles but should be pursued) and "get rid of the guns". If that didn't come across in my OP, well, now you know. I was rabidly anti gun for longer than I've been at my current understanding. It was easy before as somebody who boosted the dems and saw them as the only way forward to write off "gun people" as republican white supremacists and crazy toxic masculinity mad max fantasizers. I've since met reasonable rural nonpartisan people for whom "taking all the guns" is an absolute non-starter (some of whom don't even own guns, but correctly identify they are not represented by our systems). I've also started seeing that we will not achieve what I consider a bare minimum of real progress under present conditions and trajectory. So with this distinction in mind, "no more guns" is absolutely a useless wedge issue, not only because of the obvious implausibility but because it freaks people out to hear (which is why Republicans claim it is the democratic platform). It's not just a few posters here, it's out there too and sure enough any pushback paints you as "the other team" and leads to accusations of bad faith and loving the NRA (which is why you have to preface such arguments with declarations of not owning or liking firearms). How is that not a wedge issue? Perhaps I didn't draw that line clearly enough in my OP, but having now clarified that: surely you don't think arguing for federally enforced disarmament in America is reasonable or constructive... right? If so I would ask how you came to those beliefs, as they're based on the idea we have a healthy enough society and government that such a thing is possible or even wise. As I'm sure you're aware, the idea that preserving the status quo is of the highest priority (and the only way to progress) has no shortage of boosting from media and culture at large, it's bolstered both by human nature and money reflexively protecting itself. If you want to know my thought terminating cliche, here it is. None of the progress I and many of you know is necessary will be achieved without wresting control of our country away from money, and that isn't possible if we keep falling into endless fights that divide us (not as political parties, but as people.) We need mass consent for real change, and if that is truly impossible than I'd prefer we give everybody a gun than anybody entertain the idea that we can or should actually take them away. I don't see how running afoul of some media criticism ideal makes the world I'm looking at any less real. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) BRJurgis fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I actually went down a rabbit hole this morning on this topic because of this confusion, and there doesn't seem to be agreement on when someone is or is not a "drag queen". I always just took it to be a highly over the top, exaggerated role or a character someone might choose to play but is not always "in character" 24/7, but there's not really even agreement on that. trans women can be drag queens too ofc, there are a number of prominent examples the point of the tweet is we don't want to conflate trans woman = drag queen since gender identity is not a type of performance art
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
The gun thing always stands out because the wave of these mass shootings as we know them is like a last-3-years thing with isolated predecessors earlier, but the availability and technology of guns hasn't really advanced much in a century. You could've done these massacres with a BAR in 1919 as an upper middle class suicidal murderer willing to go into debt or sell down assets to get armed up. Look at what Bonnie and Clyde were packing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 18:55
|
|
|
slurm posted:The gun thing always stands out because the wave of these mass shootings as we know them is like a last-3-years thing with isolated predecessors earlier, but the availability and technology of guns hasn't really advanced much in a century. You could've done these massacres with a BAR in 1919 as an upper middle class suicidal murderer willing to go into debt or sell down assets to get armed up. Look at what Bonnie and Clyde were packing. What do you mean with "as we know them?" I think I'm misunderstanding something. At least according to wikipedia's count, they've been a lot more than isolated long before 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States Edit: I think I see what you mean with things accelerating, though: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/23/us/2022-mass-shootings-tracking-second-highest/index.html Eason the Fifth fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Nov 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:12
|
|
|
Kalit posted:So... I haven't been paying too close of attention to the Speaker of the House/McCarthy topic, so forgive me if this has been already brought up. But even if 5+ Republicans vote in favor of someone else instead of "present" or whatever, wouldn't the most likely scenario be they continue to keep doing the roll call until enough people voting for another person get bored and leave, resulting in McCarthy winning? That's why historically the vote to decide who becomes speaker is done behind closed doors during a caucus meeting, and the caucus as a whole is supposed to vote in lock step. Voting 'present' as a protest is usually acceptable as long as it doesn't cause trouble, but breaking with the caucus was punished with a loss of all committee assignments and removal of all seniority benefits for the offender (James Traficant in 2001 who voted for Hastert, and was later in the session expelled in an unrelated matter when he was convicted on 10 felony counts).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
Huh. America had its first Port Arthur 12 years before the actual Port Arthur, and already nobody gave a poo poo. gently caress this garbage country.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
Generic American posted:Just a heads up about that last bit, for future reference. I believe Fierro was the one who said that it was a "drag queen" in his recollection of the takedown, but I am taking that from his perspective and maybe a lack of specific knowledge of the clientele of Club Q. I've been in gay clubs or nightclubs with gender-fluid clientele and there's plenty of times not knowing if someone there is cis or trans unless you talk to them. There could also be the angle of throwing off the identity of the "drag queen", since she hasn't come forward regarding kicking in the shooter's face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:22
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Huh. America had its first Port Arthur 12 years before the actual Port Arthur, and already nobody gave a poo poo. gently caress this garbage country. I know I should probably get this reference, but mind elaborating, please?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
Drag queen is just a type of performer and the woman who assisted was misidentified as a performer but isn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:I know I should probably get this reference, but mind elaborating, please? It’s the reason Australia has gun control: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:37
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:First, I certainly intended to draw a distinction between "actual national gun control being implemented and enforced" (which has its own hurdles but should be pursued) and "get rid of the guns". If that didn't come across in my OP, well, now you know. Who, other than you, is starting from a position of "get rid of all guns". BRJurgis posted:I was rabidly anti gun for longer than I've been at my current understanding. It was easy before as somebody who boosted the dems and saw them as the only way forward to write off "gun people" as republican white supremacists and crazy toxic masculinity mad max fantasizers. I've since met reasonable rural nonpartisan people for whom "taking all the guns" is an absolute non-starter (some of whom don't even own guns, but correctly identify they are not represented by our systems). Again, who is taking this position. BRJurgis posted:I've also started seeing that we will not achieve what I consider a bare minimum of real progress under present conditions and trajectory. Your "bare minimum of real progress" isn't defined, but appears to be designed backward from a claim of futility. BRJurgis posted:So with this distinction in mind, "no more guns" is absolutely a useless wedge issue, not only because of the obvious implausibility but because it freaks people out to hear (which is why Republicans claim it is the democratic platform). They're lying. Why are you framing the issue in terms of a lie? BRJurgis posted:It's not just a few posters here, it's out there too and sure enough any pushback paints you as "the other team" and leads to accusations of bad faith and loving the NRA (which is why you have to preface such arguments with declarations of not owning or liking firearms). How is that not a wedge issue? I'm sure you can share examples of the group that is demanding this, and show how they're representative of something worth responding to here or anywhere else as a substitute for discussing the things actually proposed as laws or policies. Wedge issues divide a target constituency. Gun control is not a wedge issue. I've already linked to sources discussing why it isn't. BRJurgis posted:Perhaps I didn't draw that line clearly enough in my OP, but having now clarified that: surely you don't think arguing for federally enforced disarmament in America is reasonable or constructive... right? Yes, the thing no one is actually demanding because it's not currently plausible is a nonstarter. Why are you introducing it and presenting it as "a bare minimum of real progress", or in any way relevant to what people are saying? BRJurgis posted:As I'm sure you're aware, the idea that preserving the status quo is of the highest priority (and the only way to progress) has no shortage of boosting from media and culture at large, it's bolstered both by human nature and money reflexively protecting itself. No. "money" doesn't reflexively protect itself, and the immensely overbroad claim you're making here can, again, be leveraged against any policy change, anywhere. It's useless. BRJurgis posted:If you want to know my thought terminating cliche, here it is. None of the progress I and many of you know is necessary will be achieved without wresting control of our country away from money, and that isn't possible if we keep falling into endless fights that divide us (not as political parties, but as people.) We need mass consent for real change, and if that is truly impossible than I'd prefer we give everybody a gun than anybody entertain the idea that we can or should actually take them away. I don't see how running afoul of some media criticism ideal makes the world I'm looking at any less real. You are working backward, again, from the demand that anything other than the impossible is meaningless. Meaningful social, legal and cultural change do in fact occur without the nebulously defined "wresting control of the country away from money", and we do not need The Revolution to occur first in order to produce change on gun control policy-or on any other topic. This isn't a matter of "media criticism ideals", it's the opposite- grounding discussion in literally any specifics of how laws and politics work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:48
|
|
|
https://www.denverpost.com/2022/11/22/anderson-lee-aldrich-club-q-shooting-non-binary/ The piece of poo poo that shot up the club is nonbinary, per their lawyer. There's some speculation that this is a play to avoid hate crime charges, or do a chuddy muddy the water thing where they try and cast blame on the community, but pending more information they go by they/them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 19:52
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:Huh. America had its first Port Arthur 12 years before the actual Port Arthur, and already nobody gave a poo poo. gently caress this garbage country. It's deep in us. Depending on how you define it the first modern American mass killing was most likely 1949, Howard Unruh shooting and killing 13 of his neighbors after building an enormous arsenal, the murders over barely real minor slights. Derogatory remarks about his character was his reason. His paranoia and alienation were very similar to what we are today. If we want to get a little looser with it we can go back to 1924 and the Bath School massacre. Andrew Kehoe kills 58 people, 38 of them children, by blowing up his local school building, his own farm, and himself. To be clear he blew himself up in a car bomb that he drove to the school wreckage after people started searching for survivors. Just to be a bigger dick. His motivation was the tax increase for the school. He left behind one message and it's the most edgelord bullshit. On his farm he left a sign on the fence that said "Criminals are made, not born". I don't know why America has decided these assholes are allowed to kill us when they want but we have for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 20:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:https://www.denverpost.com/2022/11/22/anderson-lee-aldrich-club-q-shooting-non-binary/ It's 100% made up by his lawyers to dodge hate crimes charges and to give the worst bigots both cover AND ammo to go "See, this isn't our rhetoric at work, they're killing themselves! Also these degenerates should be violently eliminated from existence by whatever means necessary." Multiple friends and family members have confirmed he used exclusively male pronouns and identified as male up to the moment he set out to shoot up the club and he has a very extensive and easily searchable history of extremely virulent anti-LGBT posting across multiple social media outlets. This is just horrifying evil finding new ways to be horrifyingly evil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2022 20:02
|
|