Politics: The Final Frontier

[Gfted1]

Exactly. Now how about derping over there. *points over there*

 

[algroth]

And now they're beating on the "videogames cause violence" argument *again*, because of *course* playing violent videogames is the one difference between USA and just about every other country with a fraction of USA's mass shootings per year...

Edited August 5, 2019 by algroth

[algroth]

Edited August 5, 2019 by algroth

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

46 minutes ago, algroth said:

And now they're beating on the "videogames cause violence" argument *again*, because of *course* playing violent videogames is the one difference between USA and just about every other country with a fraction of USA's mass shootings per year...

I honestly hope they double down on this.

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, algroth said:

Hmm, US bar size is the same in each graph so since there is a clear 1:1 correlation between game revenue and gun deaths reducing one bar will reduce the other- that's just basic logic.

(Next step: GDP to gaming revenue vs violent gun deaths in the Americas to get Colombia/ Honduras/ Venezuela/ El Salvador in there and all the pesky Euros and Asians out...)

Edited August 5, 2019 by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

does anybody genuine take the video game as inspiration for evil claims serious in 2019? the video game stuff is thrown in as part o' a laundry list o' ills one might imagine being penned by a 70-something baptist minister from alabama.

am getting the concern, 'cause far too many Congressmen is 70-somethings from alabama and indiana and north dakota. the thing is, has been a long time since we saw any kinda widespread and real support for curtailing video game violence, particular as there is First Amendment issues at play. infants (legal description o' those under 18) may receive special protections which would otherwise be abhorrent to the First Amendment, but such protections is gonna be resulting in warning labels n' such as 'posed to outright bans.

some may recall the prohibitions on killing kids in video games which affected fallouts? those were due to german laws. japan and other nations also got all kinda restrictions. American developers/publishers who wanna sell games outside the US often run into practical censorship issues, but is rare 'cause o' US legislation or fed exec rules.

Fed Judge: ‘Difficult to Reconcile’ Mueller Report with AG Barr’s Statements

“I do have some concerns because it seems to me difficult to reconcile the contents of the Mueller report and statements made by the attorney general [about the report],”

Judge Walton is a george w. bush appointee.

gotta agree with J. Walton. when we got around to reading the mueller report, we were genuine shocked by the disconnect 'tween barr's summary and the contents o' the report.

during recent testimony, mueller refused to speak 'bout barr's characterization o' his report via the summary other than to note the summary were not wholly accurate. what a shame. mueller report made trump and others appear as incompetent, mendacious buffons who were at times willful ignorant. barr, on the other hand, ain't incompetent and he ain't ignorant. barr's intentional mischaracterization were done knowing and with clear intent. violation o' public trust and oath o' office.

am not seeing a way to excuse barr's behavior. am glad at least one fed Judge has gone on record to express similar concerns.

this should be a big issue, and in any other administration it would be. unfortunate, Americans have become numb to the daily and sometimes banal indifference to truth from this administration. is just another monday.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

5 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

does anybody genuine take the video game as inspiration for evil claims serious in 2019? the video game stuff is thrown in as part o' a laundry list o' ills one might imagine being penned by a 70-something baptist minister from alabama.

am getting the concern, 'cause far too many Congressmen is 70-somethings from alabama and indiana and north dakota. the thing is, has been a long time since we saw any kinda widespread and genuine support for curtailing video game violence, particular as there is First Amendment issues at play. infants (legal description o' those under 18) may receive special protections which would otherwise be abhorrent to the First Amendment, but such protections is gonna be resulting in warning labels n' such as 'posed to outright bans.

some may recall the prohibitions on killing kids in video games which affected fallouts? those were due to german laws. japan and other nations also got all kinda restrictions. American developers/publishers who wanna sell games outside the US often run into practical censorship issues, but is rare 'cause o' US legislation or fed exec rules.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Phaw, back in my day we played Pac Man, Q-Bert, Dig Dug, & Donkey Kong. Games cost a quarter, not $500 for the console and $60 per game. And we went to mall, the 7-11, or to Pic-N-Save to play them with our friends. Grand theft something, something, Skyrim, Fallout, feh! Defender! Now THERE was a game! Zaxxon and Galaga, Asteroids and Space Invaders... THEY never warped our minds. Now take you X-Stations, and Play Boxes and GET OFF MY LAWN! Damn kids. Ought to be a law. I need to go lay down. 

[Gromnir]

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Phaw, back in my day we played Pac Man, Q-Bert, Dig Dug, & Donkey Kong. Games cost a quarter, not $500 for the console and $60 per game. And we went to mall, the 7-11, or to Pic-N-Save to play them with our friends. Grand theft something, something, Skyrim, Fallout, feh! Defender! Now THERE was a game! Zaxxon and Galaga, Asteroids and Space Invaders... THEY never warped our minds. Now take you X-Stations, and Play Boxes and GET OFF MY LAWN! Damn kids. Ought to be a law. I need to go lay down. 

one o' the worst beatings we ever got were resulting from us dropping $12 into an asteroids machine one rainy june afternoon in 1980. am forgetting exact inflation/conversion calculation, but should be something ~$35 in 2019 money, so am somewhat understanding the punishment we received. 

ah, memories.

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

2 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

one o' the worst beatings we ever got were resulting from us dropping $12 into an asteroids machine one rainy june afternoon in 1980. am forgetting exact inflation/conversion calculation, but should be something ~$35 in 2019 money, so am somewhat understanding the punishment we received. 

ah, memories.

HA! Good Fun!

Asteroids, Defender, Berserk & Frogger were my favorites. I loved the way those old arcades sounded. 

Heh, now we DO sound old. 

 

[Gromnir]

am believing we official became old this year. we now get 5% off shipping from ups store thanks to our senior discount.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

20 hours ago, Gromnir said:

calling bs and apologizing for length.

the government came to your home, armed and w/o any desire for violence... 'cause what peace officer carrying out duty wants to be shot at by some l00n willing to die for his chainsaw? the government agents come armed 'cause you, and those like you, is armed and it would be irresponsible o' the government to send officers to your home w/o means o' defending themselves. if You didn't have guns, they wouldn't need be armed. freaking circular nonsense.

the government agents in the scenario is acting legal. they ain't bullies or bandits. they ain't acting out o' cruelty or malice. there is a government authorized taking. they come to your home 'cause you did not follow law requiring you to surrender your chainsaw... or gun or whatever. you holed up in your home and then complain when the government finally, after exhausting every alternative, finally shows up at your doorstep? arrogance indeed.

your friends and neighbors, acting in accordance with democratic principles, pass a law which demands you surrender your chainsaw. you had a chance to fight law. you had a chance to use legal process to fight taking. instead, gd invites the agents to come and take his stuff... if they dare.

you see some grand difference 'tween you defending your home, which is only in danger o' being violated 'cause you refused to follow law, and the el paso killer defending his country from filthy foreigners?  am doubting he sees the difference. Gromnir sees you both as villains.

if we are still talking chainsaws, then your friends and neighbors need no more than a rational basis for divesting you o' your property, as long as you get paid. is nothing special 'bout a chainsaw from a legal pov.  you defending chainsaw ownership to death o' self or others don't make you least bit heroic.

alternative, if we are genuine talking 'bout guns, then that means gd is either bat crap crazy, a convicted felon, or laws has been changed via constitutional convention action or amendment repeal, both o' which means a ridiculous large % o' his neighbors and friends came to agreement that firearms is too dangerous to be kept by private citizens. as such, defending gun ownership through violence is arguable even less defensible.

your principle looks pretty darn self serving.

mine owner in late 1800s and early 1900s. is his mine and he is defending his property from those who wanna unionize. those rickety shacks where the miners live? those is the mine owner's property. the miners can leave any time; they don't need to work for the mine owner. sure, the miners all owe debt to the mine owner and they has only ever been paid in scrip which is only redeemable at the company store and in businesses owned by the mine owner, but nobody forced the miners into their bad situation.

the dirty unions and the government is trying to force the mine owner to give up what is his... his property, his home.  so why shouldn't he hire security to defend what is his?  heck, the mine owner at least believes he is acting lawful, whereas gd is willing to injure and kill even though he knows he has broken law.

defending his stuff.

only way we get gd principle argument is if we got some weird kinda dystopian scenario wherein is actual no longer US Constitution working. current fed system gets replaced by functional tyranny o' one or tyranny' majority and need see that gd has lost substantive and procedural due process. guns and chainsaws as symbols? gd is defending such as a last ditch effort to stand 'gainst the oncoming tide o' darkness... or whatever?

is that the argument?

caution: such reasoning is exact what el paso killer were using to justify his violence.

HA! Good Fun!

ps all o' this is moot anyway. is no way US outlaws firearms. legally there is such near insurmountable hurdles as to make this a pointless debate. government shouldn't be afraid o' an armed populace... and it ain't. gd imaginary demons aside, is not corrupt government apparatus which wishes to take guns away from the populace to keep 'em meek and controllable. the gun control movement is a populist development born out o' not complete unreasonable concerns. perhaps folks is too easily swayed by graphic media depictions, but is not unreasonable for folks to be concerned when they realize just how much damage one k00k with firearms may exact on just anybody, anywhere.

the thing is, those semantics which hurl questioned is not gonna disappear. like it or not, the 2nd amendment is an absolute bar on any kinda absolute federal firearms bar. is not a single Justice on the Court who would support an absolute firearms bar, no matter how liberal you believe 'em to be. and Congress... Congress couldn't even pass a bump stock ban. in spite o' gd fears, SCOTUS won't pass a blanket ban 'til evey Justice is replaced with pod clones engineered on Krsylyaxz IV. worst-case/best-case scenario from an all Stevens clone SCOTUS is having clock turned back and once again letting communities come up with their own reasonable gun control laws.

am personal in favor o' more enlightened gun control efforts, and we hope to see such in our lifetime, but the fear o' gd, and perhaps the hope o' others that THEY are only one more mass shooting away from breaking down gd's door to get at his firearms is just not possible.

It IS moot. It's a discussion on an internet forum. And an entertaining one. If you want to talk actual facts and have near 0 concern of ever having "the man" kick down my door to take my firearms, or much of anything else. So asserting the willingness to defend to the death my material possessions, in which I was being genuine you should know, really is writing a check I know will never be cashed. I will admit that was a concern for a long time. Heller & MacDonald set that fear to rest, likely for the rest of my life. 

I really do not have any more affection for my firearms than I do for any other thing I own that does not run to greet me when I get home. I do have a pretty big collection. Eight pistols including the aforementioned Colt .32 which will never be fired again. I have 10 rifles including a Taylor Arms replica of a Missouri River .50 Hawken muzzle loader. It is also for show although unlike the Colt it is a functional weapon. With the exception of a Browning 10mm and a Ruger SR-22 none of them are semi-auto. None of the rest would look out of place at the OK Corral or in 1917 France. So I have nothing to fear from any kind of assault weapons ban. 

Now, I do draw a huge distinction between one man defending his home from whatever and someone who carries a weapon into a public place and shoots people who cannot harm him. It is a problem to me that we live in a country where doing nothing can become a criminal act. But that is a philosophical argument because the world and country are what they are. The flaws of the United States system of governance are many and don't outweigh it virtues. But it is a hell of a lot closer to a tie than it should be. 

I am not actually opposed to an "assault weapons" ban. However such a ban MUST be clear about the definition of an assault weapon. That means such a bill must be written by people who actually know a thing or two about firearms and don't get hung up on cosmetics and factors that don't affect the performance of the weapon.  It also must be so clear even someone as dumb as a police officer can properly interpret it. To simplify I'd suggest a complete ban on new sales of semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. That is it. Simple and clean. It should grandfather in all legally owned weapons and ban new sales. In the short term it won't help. Long term it might. 

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

does anybody genuine take the video game as inspiration for evil claims serious in 2019?

I doubt even the talking heads blaming video games on TV really believe it's to blame for gun violence. It's just that the more obvious factors aren't palatable for them to blame.

 

[Malcador]

Multiplayer games are to blame.

[Guard Dog]

Blaming unrelated things for stuff that came after isn't new. Those who were around in the 80's remember D&D being blamed for a number of deaths. In the late '80's Al & Tipper Gore were crusading against heavy metal music. In fact if you remember a band called Cinderella they even wrote a verse in a song about it:

Tipper leads the war against the record industry, says she saw the devil on MTV.

 

[Azdeus]

Lootboxes are to blame.

[Ben No.4]

Not to say that “games cause violence”, just looking for some nuance. Not to throw my full weight behind GD, but rare is the phenomenon that relies on a single cause. And thus, even though it undoubtedly is a major contributing factor, it seems doubtful wether widespread availability of guns is solely to be blamed for the high gun violence in the US.

What certainly holds true - as far as I’m concerned - is that games are always embedded in a surrounding culture. So let us look at that that culture. 

One things that stands out the me is the lack of female shooters. Just googling for a few seconds, pew research tells me that 62% of US gun owners are men. So gun possession seems to be gendered, and same for gun culture: whereas 43% of gun owning men consume gun-related media, this holds true for only 33% of gun owning women. Furthermore,  while 43% of these women use a gun for sports, 58% of the men do so. Now, these obviously aren’t enormous differences, but they are there nether the less and actually quite distinct.

This is the article: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/29/how-male-and-female-gun-owners-in-the-u-s-compare/

 

What of gun culture carries over the pond? I mainly see movies and, especially, video games. And it doesn’t appear to be particularly far fetched that games can and do cater to, portray, and thereby strengthen an image of make heroism linked strongly with physical violence, aggression and, often, guns. 

This seems to hold true when looking at the player base: Around 5% of Shooter players, around 25% of RPG players (both notoriously prominent in their depiction of violence) are female - so not a lot.

https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/01/19/female-gamers-by-genre/

 

So am I saying video games cause mass shootings? No, definitely not. Such a statement is ridiculously oversimplified to the point of misleading. And while wide availability of guns is certainly a big factor in the facilitation of violence, there seems, to me, to be a strong interplay with gun culture (and that of violence) in its promotion. And if this were the case, then those producing culture might feel the incentive to critically examine what they themselves portray as heroic and why. Naturally, no single game can cause or change such a culture beyond its own relationship to it. It doesn’t have to, either.

A great example of a more mature, nuanced treatment of violence is in pillars of eternity: When you infiltrate Raedrics Keep, you can slaughter your way through the halls of the fortress. Yet Raedric will tell you that these people merely worked on a payroll. What hit harder for me personally was that some of the guards, when spoken to after the mission, tell you that your actions will not be forgotten by them. The moment stayed with me. And these small nods towards what violence can actually mean are often rare in video games.

[Guard Dog]

Mike Gravel has dropped out of the running for the Democrat nomination. Never heard of him? Probably why he's dropped out. He endorsed Bernie Sanders on his way out. That leaves 23 with just 9 qualified for the next debate in September. Gabbard has the number of unique donors and looks like her poll numbers are going up. She is likely to be the 10th. So my horse is still in the race. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

15 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

 So asserting the willingness to defend to the death my material possessions, in which I was being genuine you should know, really is writing a check I know will never be cashed.  

 

you said "private property" at the start, which includes money. is no meaningful difference 'tween your chainsaw and your cash. is no legal difference. is no practical or meaningful change in character or quality save that the cash is actual fungible.

grouse as you do, you still manage to pay your taxes. no difference. am knowing you pay taxes 'cause you got a job and is using the internet and living your life relative ordinary. your government, a government composed o' your friends and neighbors, insists you turn over to them X value in property. they use the tax revenues to pay for all kinds o' things you likely don't approve. chances are many o' your neighbors don't like taxes anymore than does gd. "why should i pay a school tax when i don't have any kids?" they do anyway. you do anyway. if you don't pay property tax on home residence, then a lien will be placed on your home and it will be sold to pay debt you owe. you know this. you still pay taxes.

you will violate laws and kill innocent men and women 'cause o' an imagined quality. you will challenge 'em to come to your home and take and when they eventual do, only after exhausting legal process and no doubt giving you multiple chances to pay your bill or surrender your property, you will claim your home were violated.

is no heroics and principle is no more convincing than we would find in any number o' 8chan manifestos.

we ain't gonna convince each other on this, which is fine. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

[ShadySands]

Quote

It’s possible that the reason more older Democrats prioritize choosing a candidate who can win in the general election is that they have lived through other administrations and have seen how they’ve governed, according to Rey Junco, a senior researcher at the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Junco said older Americans could be “more concerned about the autocratic tendencies in the current administration” than younger Americans, and as a result want a candidate that has the best chance of winning in 2020.

But by prioritizing electability, older Democrats may wind up backing a candidate with a major weakness: an inability to drive youth turnout. While younger voters tend to lean heavily Democratic — in 2016, for instance, they backed Hillary Clinton by around 20 percentage points — the challenge has always been getting them to the polls. But when they do mobilize, younger voters can have a profound impact on the election. The blue wave of 2018, for example, was powered in part by Gen Z, Millennial and Gen X voters, who cast more votes than Baby Boomers and people from older generations, according to the Pew Research Center.

Click the picture for the full article

Edited August 6, 2019 by ShadySands
It's so hard to say goodbye to how easy it used to be to format and edit posts

[Guard Dog]

48 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

you said "private property" at the start, which includes money. is no meaningful difference 'tween your chainsaw and your cash. is no legal difference. is no practical or meaningful change in character or quality save that the cash is actual fungible.

grouse as you do, you still manage to pay your taxes. no difference. am knowing you pay taxes 'cause you got a job and is using the internet and living your life relative ordinary. your government, a government composed o' your friends and neighbors, insists you turn over to them X value in property. they use the tax revenues to pay for all kinds o' things you likely don't approve. chances are many o' your neighbors don't like taxes anymore than does gd. "why should i pay a school tax when i don't have any kids?" they do anyway. you do anyway. if you don't pay property tax on home residence, then a lien will be placed on your home and it will be sold to pay debt you owe. you know this. you still pay taxes.

you will violate laws and kill innocent men and women 'cause o' an imagined quality. you will challenge 'em to come to your home and take and when they eventual do, only after exhausting legal process and no doubt giving you multiple chances to pay your bill or surrender your property, you will claim your home were violated.

is no heroics and principle is no more convincing than we would find in any number o' 8chan manifestos.

we ain't gonna convince each other on this, which is fine. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I’m under no illusion that I am staking out any legal or moral high ground here. The moment I touch a firearm in response to the lawful action of authorities I have crossed the Rubicon. “Here have I abandoned peace and desecrated law”. No going back. But how far must we bend  in acquiescence to the State? If any right, any liberty, any material possessions, even our very lives can be demanded of us by the state with the blessing of the legislature and support of the majority of our fellow citizens are we ever safe? Do we own the State or does it own us? 

At some point we reach for the “higher law” as John Brown called it and say NO. That is really what we are talking about here. I will and do pay my taxes. I “render unto Caesar “ but there is a line up to which I will comply peacefully. This far and no farther. That is something every one should agree on IMO even if those lines are drawn in different places. Imagine some late day Herod demanding families give up their male children to the State with the blessings of the legislature. How far do we submit? Many of the worst acts done in the history of this country were legal and supported by the majority of the people. Would you tell Red Cloud he was wrong? Would you tell John Brown he was wrong. At some point we have to say no. I am 100% in favor of civil disobedience. But for me, civil ends at my front door.

Anyway we have beaten that to death. Reply if you like. I am always interested in your opinion. That is my closing argument 

[Raithe]

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, ShadySands said:

image

is more pronounced this cycle, but the core issue is the same for democrats every Presidential election, no? is more registered democrats, period. regardless o' electoral college issues, if every democrat and every republican actual voted, post eisenhower we would always have had democrat Presidents. democrat candidates who get young people and apathetic voters to show up to polls wins. 

obama's "yes we can" got democrats to vote... though admitted outspending mccain by huge amounts also helped. weren't his record on issues or his performance at debates v. mccain, debates which he avoided complete. 

am knowing we mentioned previous that we were convinced bernie woulda' been a better choice for democrats in 2016. last Presidential election, too many democrats didn't like clinton, and too many more simple didn't care enough to vote. as close as election were, getting a few more democrats in battleground states to vote woulda' been enough, or such were our thinking.

we have equivocated 'bout bernie since 2016. bernie does fantastic with democrat-lean independents, but the independents who functional decided the last election by voting johnson or trump is not the same independents who is responding to polls during the primaries. could bernie get enough democrats to vote to make up for the loss o' conservative lean independents?  maybe, but am honest not confident. heck, bernie should be popular with those rural and poor who didn't get relief after great recession and has only seen their situation worsen under trump. dunno.

regardless, this is actual a common problem for democrats and there doesn't appear to be an obama kinda candidate hidden 'mongst the multitude o' persons current vying for votes. 'course is worth recalling how obama didn't look like a realistic candidate 'til after his surprise showing in iowa. 

if there appeared to be a candidate who could genuine energize the historical torpid and indolent democrats, then we would go all chips in with her or him. in the alternative, seems perfect reasonable to pick the guy most likely to sway those handful o' up-for-grab votes which decided the last election, an election with terrible turnout and no popular candidates from any party. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps young people are stoopid, but in a good way. only the folks too dumb to know their efforts is pointless is ever gonna bring 'bout meaningful change. am glad young people is more focused on issues than on practical considerations. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

Tulsi Gabbard hasn't been in the news much. Here is why: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/5/tulsi-gabbard-2020-presidential-campaign-hits-snag/

Her National Guard unit is in Malaysia for two weeks of Drill. This is a candidate I can find few faults with. She could easily have gotten an exemption and alternate duty  but she fulfilled her obligation, stepped away from the campaign trail, and went to Malaysia with her unit. Compared to Trump and all his draft deferments and all the other candidates except Buti-something & Bullock (both served and are completely out) who could not be bothered with military service she is deserving of respect. 

It is a damn shame she isn't getting more traction. In fact the NY Times & MSNBC have taken an interest in running her out of the race.  Out of all the Democrats running she is by far the best candidate. 

[Gromnir]

pps @Guard Dog

ultimate loss o' liberty is death, and you hand the government you is angered with a legit excuse to kill you when you attack officers trying to collect property for which they paid you? Gromnir has not suggested or advised acquiescence btw. mlk did not acquiesce. thoreau did not acquiesce. is many things we would fight and even die for. kill for a chainsaw, particularly if we had already been dutifully paying taxes for decades?

red cloud had US law on his side btw, even though he weren't an American citizen as is gd. not quite the same. even so, red cloud went to washington dc and realized just what his war with the US entailed. red cloud were never fighting to keep his things. red cloud were fighting to save others. when red cloud saw  nothing but death in his fight, he gave up his weapons. are you gonna call him a coward 'cause he decided to protect his family and children rather than dying pointless to hold on to firearms? would you tell red cloud he were wrong?

ok, am now done.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 6, 2019 by Gromnir
edit got lost somehow. fixed

[Guard Dog]

Well how about this? https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/connor-betts-dayton-shooting-profile/index.html

Not sure what will come of this but it will keep the talking heads talking