|
Fell Fire posted:Fascism also arises in part from socialist and nationalist elements. This happened in both Italy and Germany, it's just that the more reactionary parts of the party won out. I'm going to get the thread historians on me for this, but this is also a simplified picture you're painting here. Hitler himself courted industrialists and other major business magnates, because he knew that in order for Germany to re-arm itself they needed, well, money and factories. Joseph Goebbels made a big choice in the late 1920's by breaking with the arguably "leftist" side of the NSDAP in the form of the Strasser brothers, largely because by that time Hitler was playing Goebbels's emotional insecurities like a fiddle. Then there was the SA, but I guess that's a coin-toss between whether they just wanted to have fist-fights and whether their ideas of revolution were more socialist or nationalist. The aim for Hitler, and through him the NSDAP as a political movement, was always war. It is bizarre to take at face value the socialist brand on their party label since the party itself never really believed in it. Hitler's Germany did extort a lot of money out of its "Aryan" population in the name of providing for the poorer "Aryan" segments, sure, but this was because the Nazi government saw that its single-mindedness towards re-armament and warfare was driving down consumer goods production and ultimately even food production. There's a separate argument to be had about Josif Stalin and his paranoia, I suppose, where the brand of socialism might apply more, but his mass murders tend to fall more under the label of authoritarianism than straight-up fascism.
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
mawarannahr posted:What makes you say this? I believe this is an American dogma. Official policy in many countries, including Turkey, is to fire warning shots. Turkish police kill far fewer people than American ones (roughly 400 from 2007 through 2020, compare to over 1000 in the USA in the last 12 months). The doctrine as I'm aware of it is that you do not fire your weapon unless someone's life is in immediate danger, and if someone's life is in immediate danger you don't gently caress around. If the situation doesn't require shooting-to'-kill then don't shoot at all.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 08:14
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:What makes you say this? I believe this is an American dogma. Official policy in many countries, including Turkey, is to fire warning shots. Turkish police kill far fewer people than American ones (roughly 400 from 2007 through 2020, compare to over 1000 in the USA in the last 12 months). Unless you've got a secondary gun that's just loaded up for warning shots with blanks, warning shots are still bullets whizzing through the air. What goes up must come down, and who the gently caress knows what's going on where that bullet you didn't aim lands. Also, you just shot your gun and anyone else in the vicinity is going to be uninterested in determining exactly where you were aiming. Instead you've just initiated a gun fight. Warning shots escalate the situation, send bullets off to who knows where, and possibly immediately harm someone in your situation via ricochet or your dumbass missing your target and turning your warning shot into an actual shot. Which is aside from the question of, if you were able to utilize a warning shot, then why where you shooting your gun in the first place? You should be using your gun in a life or death situation, not for indicating that your for real serious now. If you're a cop and have time to fire a warning shot why didn't you use one of your several "non-lethal" weapons instead? American police aren't killing more people because they haven't been trained in the art of warning shots. They're killing more people because a core part of their training is being taught that everyone is out to get them, that everyone has weapons hidden all over their body, and that they are warriors who are going to be coming across just so many criminals. Add into that toxic training that they have a virtual blank check to act with no consequences due to qualified immunity and the blue line of silence on top of the institutional racism of the country, and our cops are going to kill people. Also the nature of the job and lack of oversight attracts bullies, petty tyrants, and out and proud racists. Edit: "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" has been a very popular saying among police for decades, which is darkly hilarious because none of those fucks ever go before a jury. Gyges fucked around with this message at 08:21 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 08:17
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:The doctrine as I'm aware of it is that you do not fire your weapon unless someone's life is in immediate danger, and if someone's life is in immediate danger you don't gently caress around. If the situation doesn't require shooting-to'-kill then don't shoot at all. "You've got to shoot to kill" also is a particularly American issue IMO. In Turkey you're supposed to shout "stop," possibly do a warning shot, and shoot to disable quote:Within the scope of subparagraph (c) of the seventh paragraph, the police calls the person to "stop" before using a gun. If the person does not comply with this call and continues to flee, a gun may be fired first as a warning. However, if it is not possible to capture the person because he insists on escaping, a gun can be fired in sufficient measure to ensure the capture of the person. A cursory web search shows pages of result of people deemed violent suspects by the famously humane Turkish police being disabled with a shot to the foot, which comports with my reading of this policy that shoot-to-kill is supposed to be a last resort. I suspect having shoot to kill banged into your head whether you're civilian or police (I've seen on several different US forums and social networks for decades) has an effect on its own and in interaction with the many accurate observations above.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 08:28
|
|
|
Very few of our cops have adequate enough range time to shoot to kill without emptying 1-2 magazines. Most of the time an absolutely ridiculous number of shots are fired off with only a few actually hitting. Almost none of them have the ability to pick their shot like they're playing Fallout.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 08:39
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Unless you've got a secondary gun that's just loaded up for warning shots with blanks, warning shots are still bullets whizzing through the air. What goes up must come down, and who the gently caress knows what's going on where that bullet you didn't aim lands. Also, you just shot your gun and anyone else in the vicinity is going to be uninterested in determining exactly where you were aiming. Instead you've just initiated a gun fight. For example it is entirely possible, and I would say even likely, that people in stressful situations making split-second decisions are not the best judges of whether they really are in a life or death situation and need to shoot to kill. If this is true then training to use steps of less deadly escalation (for example warning shot -> shot to the limbs) might lead to better outcomes overall. I'm not saying it necessarily would, I'm just saying you cannot dismiss this approach dogmatically. The phenomenon of police officers pumping (often unarmed) suspects full with a ridiculous amount of bullets appears to me to be at least made worse by the shoot-to-kill-approach.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 08:55
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:
Setting aside how american police dont actually follow policy, you're trying to argue that "shoot the person whose running away, but try to only maim them (but still kill them fairly often)" is a better policy than "do not shoot anyone unless they are actively threatening someone"?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 08:59
|
|
|
There is also the possibility that this place is remote enough that law enforcement is 60 minutes (or more) away. Rural areas in America don't enjoy the timely response that urban areas do.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 08:59
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Other than WW2, when have capitalists ever allied with communists for anything? Pretty frequently? Hell, right at the Soviet Union's inception, no less an arch-capitalist than Herbert Hoover helped to organize famine relief efforts in the aftermath of the Russian Civil War, which saved a tremendous number of lives. During the 1930s, the Soviets contracted with American firms like Albert Kahn & Associates to design and build factories like the Stalingrad Tractor Plant that played a huge role in Soviet tank production during the war. And even during the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union did cooperate on a number of efforts, such as the eradication of smallpox, the development and global deployment of polio vaccines, nuclear weapon treaties... the US and the Soviets even got together to tell the British and French to shove it during the Suez crisis. And that's just between the US and USSR, Tito's Yugoslavia for example was doing all kinds of wheeling and dealing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 09:45
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:your definition of fascist seems unworkably broad A supporter of a fascist party? Seems like the textbook definition to me.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
Bad people can be bad without being fascists. Democracies don’t stop being democracies when they do bad things. Historically a lot of democracies have been terrible bastards even to their own people. More at 11.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 10:07
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I'm going to get the thread historians on me for this, but this is also a simplified picture you're painting here. Hitler himself courted industrialists and other major business magnates, because he knew that in order for Germany to re-arm itself they needed, well, money and factories. Joseph Goebbels made a big choice in the late 1920's by breaking with the arguably "leftist" side of the NSDAP in the form of the Strasser brothers, largely because by that time Hitler was playing Goebbels's emotional insecurities like a fiddle. Then there was the SA, but I guess that's a coin-toss between whether they just wanted to have fist-fights and whether their ideas of revolution were more socialist or nationalist. There were some "socialists" in the Nazi Party (Ernst Röhm and the like), but they were always antisemitic fascists first and were slaughtered when they outlived their usefulness to Hitler.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 11:32
|
|
|
Name Change posted:There were some "socialists" in the Nazi Party (Ernst Röhm and the like), but they were always antisemitic fascists first and were slaughtered when they outlived their usefulness to Hitler. Röhm was a mercenary, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that he was a socialist. e: Röhm was murdered by Hitler, but this is backwards thinking. Just because he was murdered did not make him something he was not. Rappaport fucked around with this message at 11:40 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 11:38
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Röhm was a mercenary, I'm curious how you came to the conclusion that he was a socialist. Hitler was also murdered by Hitler
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 11:43
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Hitler was also murdered by Hitler He was! So by this twisted logic, Hitler was also a socialist? Editor's note, this goes against pretty much all historical research on Hitler, but heck, if Ernst Röhm was a socialist, we have nothing to lose.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 11:46
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:He was! So by this twisted logic, Hitler was also a socialist? I was just agreeing with you man
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 11:47
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I was just agreeing with you man My bad 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 11:48
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:https://twitter.com/ohshidt/status/1652753881137397760 For starters, there needs to be a real threat that you will have your gun confiscated for pulling something like this. You want to own a gun to protect your home, fine. But once you fire it at someone, they should have every legal recourse to get your gun taken away if they want to. I suppose this is already true in some theoretical sense, it just needs to be way easier and more enshrined in the law in a concrete way. Not just that you can sue them if you want to and maybe it'll go your way but it probably won't. Sir Lemming fucked around with this message at 12:06 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 12:04
|
|
|
Shocking news https://twitter.com/dfriedman33/status/1652771933224677379
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 13:35
|
|
|
It's easy to be an rear end in a top hat. Anyone can do it. The trick is being a likeable rear end in a top hat. You have to possess some level of charm, charisma, or media savvy to pull it off.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:01
|
|
|
This is unrelated to the release of the new weight loss drugs that have been discussed all over the place (including this thread), but it is pretty ironic timing. Jenny Craig is going out of business and trying to transition to an e-commerce site selling meal replacement shakes/bars before declaring bankruptcy. They aren't fully going away, but going online-only is basically the last ditch attempt to stave off bankruptcy. Interestingly, the article also notes that their major competitor, Weight Watchers, has bought out a telemedicine company that can prescribe weight loss drugs and hopes to move into that area. quote:Weight loss company Jenny Craig to shut down corporate offices https://abcnews.go.com/Business/weight-loss-company-jenny-craig-warns-employees-planned/story?id=98972494
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:24
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:"You've got to shoot to kill" also is a particularly American issue IMO. In Turkey you're supposed to shout "stop," possibly do a warning shot, and shoot to disable The only results I get for googling Turkish police foot shootings is turkish police killing people And police in other countries killing people but that’s google
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:40
|
|
|
mawarannahr posted:What makes you say this? I believe this is an American dogma. Official policy in many countries, including Turkey, is to fire warning shots. Turkish police kill far fewer people than American ones (roughly 400 from 2007 through 2020, compare to over 1000 in the USA in the last 12 months). If you shoot a bullet in the air, it will come back down. It doesn't fly off into space. if you shoot a bullet into the ground, it can ricochet, potentially in unpredictable directions. If you're firing a "warning shot," you're not exactly taking care to aim. Any time you fire a gun in the general direction of someone, you could injure or kill them. Warning shots just increase the possibility of accidentally injuring or killing some other random person.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
Also they may just assume you shot at them and missed. In fact, they rather should.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:51
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Also they may just assume you shot at them and missed. In fact, they rather should. And then you've got an exhilarated trespasser on your hands https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1323479-nothing-in-life-is-so-exhilarating-as-to-be-shot
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The only results I get for googling Turkish police foot shootings is turkish police killing people Other countries have or had the concept of "shoot to wound." I think Finland used to. The issue is that all of gun culture in America is full of absolutism, and the safety culture that's a big part of the relatively sane branch of American gun culture holds that warning shots and shoot to wound are invalid concepts, full stop. The US military absolutely uses warning shots. For example, the Coast Guard will fire a machine gun burst ahead of a drug-running speedboat as a step in between hollering at them through a megaphone and taking shots at the boat's engine. The air force will do something similar if they're trying to convince an aircraft they're not sure can hear their radio communication that it should seriously consider landing. Now I'm not saying that American civilians (or anyone) should fire shots wildly into the sky or that the dude in that video isn't a loving lunatic. Just that the American rando lens for viewing this issue is in fact extremely tinted.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
I’m more wondering about the efficacy of shoot to wound. There’s a place for warning shots. It feels too hollywood to expect anyone to be able to easily plugs the limb of a moving person.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the coast guard doesn't need to shoot at a drug runner's boat because they have helicopters and you, in a boat, aren't going anywhere they can't follow you. The Air Force is probably only shooting you down if they think you're going to pull a 9/11 or you're getting too close to a military installation, and at that point the warning shot is just a courtesy. That said, planes fire really big loving ammo and as someone who spends a lot of time on the ground I would appreciate if my government didn't fire that poo poo off somewhere it could potentially fall on me. Or shoot down planes that could also land on me, for that matter - that's why Biden didn't have them shoot down that Chinese balloon even though he could have.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:I’m more wondering about the efficacy of shoot to wound. There’s a place for warning shots. It feels too hollywood to expect anyone to be able to easily plugs the limb of a moving person. Even assuming you can somehow guarantee shots will only ever hit limbs it is still very, very easy for that to be lethal. Shooting to "wound" is dumb and bad. If you're shooting someone then assume you're going to kill them, because that is a very likely outcome. In a sane world this concept is used to moderate the choice to begin shooting in the first place but, welp, here we are.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Donald Trump is absolutely not the first rear end in a top hat who became president, in fact the most successful Presidents were huge assholes. Most people absolutely want an rear end in a top hat to represent them and their interests.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Even assuming you can somehow guarantee shots will only ever hit limbs it is still very, very easy for that to be lethal. Shooting to "wound" is dumb and bad. If you're shooting someone then assume you're going to kill them, because that is a very likely outcome. In a sane world this concept is used to moderate the choice to begin shooting in the first place but, welp, here we are. The problem mostly comes down to years of Americans being taught action hero logic, especially American cops.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The problem mostly comes down to years of Americans being taught action hero logic, especially American cops. This is kind of the opposite scenario, though. American cops are explicitly taught to shoot for center mass and not to shoot to wound.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
SCOTUS is preparing to fire the kill shot at the modern administrative state https://twitter.com/ahoweblogger/status/1653030348278693888?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
I would be interested in your replies to the points I brought up earlier: true.spoon posted:Gun safety procedures should be determined by what empirically works and not by this kind of dogmatic approach.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
true.spoon posted:I would be interested in your replies to the points I brought up earlier: It sure reads to me like they addressed your points. It's not "dogma" to question a person's ability to think critically about how to respond to a dangerous, possibly even deadly situation, or to point out that firing "warning shots" is not safe, at all. Do you have empirical evidence that warning shots are not dangerous, or that people (even with training) can reliably shoot to disable as opposed to kill?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
'Do not fire your gun unless you expect to kill someone with it' is the only common sense case. The 'warning shots' brought up above are extreme edge cases of questionable utility and more a part of mythology than anything remotely practical. 'Shoot to wound' is literally just used to muddy the argument and draw attention away from the real problems.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:29
|
|
|
Going back to the video we are talking about, that person should not have fired his gun - not warning shots, not shot to kill, nothing. You're acting as if the options there are "where do I shoot" and not "do I shoot." Warning shots just normalize shooting as a method of communication. Can you find a weird exception where firing your gun but not at center mass is the right decision? Maybe sometimes? That's not the point here though. Firing a gun at anything but a prepared target is ALWAYS dangerous. A bullet from a warning shot will kill you just as dead.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm pretty sure the coast guard doesn't need to shoot at a drug runner's boat because they have helicopters and you, in a boat, aren't going anywhere they can't follow you. They literally do. I wasn't speculating blindly, they for-a-fact do that. You can think they shouldn't, and you might even be right. But the idea that it's so clear-cut that anyone who disagrees can be asserted out of existence appears to be a uniquely American one.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
I think true spoons point is that if theres only two steps of escalation -- not shooting and shooting to kill -- then the cops are going to err on the side of shoot to kill a lot more often. And if cops in other countries fire warning shots and kill less people, why shouldn't we at least look at if having this step in the escalation chain makes a difference or not? Obviously, warning shots have some chance of killing people, but its far, far lower than shooting to kill.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:44 |
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:They literally do. I wasn't speculating blindly, they for-a-fact do that. I'm not saying they don't I'm saying it's stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:37
|
|