Politics: The Final Frontier

[Hurlshort]

21 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

You didn't answer the question. What is the rationale for feeling shame in these situations? Why should I feel shame when a hacker does something bad when I myself had nothing to do with it? I think I have an idea of what your explanation is, but I'd rather actually hear it rather than make assumptions (especially since I think I emphatically disagree with it...but would rather not launch into a counterargument without actually being clear first).

The rationale is that we are all responsible for making the world a better place. Empathy, self-awareness, humility, etc. What does it cost you?

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, smjjames said:

The point is more that we're dealing with massive numbers and that any number is going to sound alarming no matter what. If it didn't work all that well in Australia, not sure why it keeps getting referred to as a shining example since I didn't know that it didn't work all that well.

 

It's referred to as a shining example because politics. If you believe in gun control it was a great success because... it has to be; otherwise other countries won't do it, and it got guns off the street even if the people handing them in were never actually going to go Martin Bryant anyway. OTOH if you're pro gun it was an abject failure because it only punished law abiding people and criminals got to keep their guns. In truth like most such things it was a partial success though not really at what its stated aim was, but people championing it as wonderful results in others making the same mistakes because they dismiss the problems it had as propaganda.

The 20% figure for Australia was total banned firearms, they got about half of that. Whether that's an objective success or failure is a bit of an open question to say the least.

Exact same thing with the buyback here, which is unsurprising since it's based on the Australian model. If you watch/ read/ listen to most media it too is a shining success. But, if you're expecting the 150-200k banned guns to be handed in within 6 months 200ish at a 2 day event is not actually a great start whatever the media say; it actually suggests you're going to get maybe half of what you expect to*. They also released figures including accessories like magazines (if you read the small print) as if they are guns to inflate the figures. So the actual numbers are well below- well, well below- what they should be. Still, not as bad as the pro gun media make it out to be either, with their 'only 700 guns handed in' headlines based on a figure for before the buyback even started and using 1.5 million (ie total firearms in the country) as the number expected to be handed in.

*or 'expect to', officially they expect the 150-200k figure, but the budget is set for a lot less than that. If there's one thing that is annoying otherwise perfectly reasonable people it's that the government is 100% bullmanuring on the issue. Something Has To Be Done though, and a buyback is Something.

[Guard Dog]

32 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

Hey, I totally agree with this as well. But it never works to just tell the other side to calm down. You have to step back and look at yourself to get there.

I believe I said everyone needs to calm down. People's political allegiance has taken on far more importance than it deserves.  It's actually less important and far less interesting that what sports teams they cheer for. One person voting for the Orange Menace is no more responsible for his election than a person cheering for the the Pats to bet the Rams last February for them winning the Super Bowl.  Supporting a different political candidate should not make two people enemies. No more than cheering for different sports teams. It's a huge problem that people think it does. It's an even bigger problem that some those people are hearing that not only are those "enemies" opposed to them politically they are actively working to harm them. They are not and they cannot. But some folks whose wrapper was a little lose to begin are hearing of an imminent threat when there isn't one and do something stupid. Everyone needs to dial is down a few notches. 

[Bartimaeus]

7 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

The rationale is that we are all responsible for making the world a better place. Empathy, self-awareness, humility, etc. What does it cost you?

That's less specific than I was expecting, so I'm glad I asked. Was expecting something to do with specific communities (e.g. if you're a computer user and a hacker does something bad, as you mentioned earlier, obviously you should feel shame...and yet this explanation would still give no concrete rationale for doing so).

I don't think shame is as effective of a motivator as you might think, especially because when overused, it loses meaning and stops even registering for a great deal of people. Speaking extremely generally here, people with a strong sense of empathy are usually very keenly aware of the literally endless tragedies and crises of the day, and seem to tend to eventually become overwhelmed and consequently numb to them, or at best stick to a very select number of issues that they feel they can make a difference on while trying to manage their own life affairs. For people without much empathy, those feelings seem to generally turn back to the self - i.e. it's about them and how they can get over their sense of shame. They might be motivated to do something good out of it, but it's predicated upon what they currently feel and ultimately fleeting. I am much more interested in ways of encouraging growth in empathy that doesn't involve constant negative reinforcement, personally, especially given my background in coming from a family rife with depression and mental illness, and where multiple people have literally killed themselves as a result of guilt complexes over things they didn't feel like they could solve.

[smjjames]

47 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I believe I said everyone needs to calm down. People's political allegiance has taken on far more importance than it deserves.  It's actually less important and far less interesting that what sports teams they cheer for. One person voting for the Orange Menace is no more responsible for his election than a person cheering for the the Pats to bet the Rams last February for them winning the Super Bowl.  Supporting a different political candidate should not make two people enemies. No more than cheering for different sports teams. It's a huge problem that people think it does. It's an even bigger problem that some those people are hearing that not only are those "enemies" opposed to them politically they are actively working to harm them. They are not and they cannot. But some folks whose wrapper was a little lose to begin are hearing of an imminent threat when there isn't one and do something stupid. Everyone needs to dial is down a few notches. 

It would definetly be nice if the hyperpartianship was dialed down several orders of magnitude, but tribalism is a real thing, it's just amplified by a variety of factors such as information bubbles/echo chambers.

Edited August 5, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Huge difference between the two scenarios. In the scenario of the Great Chainsaw Confiscation "they" came to MY home with guns and violence. Had they left me and mine the hell alone there will be no violence. In El Paso he went to a public space and shot people who had done nothing to him. There is NO principle that justifies that. They are by no means near the same thing.

And the idea of defending my home and property from people who came to take them by force, be they thieves or agents of the government  is arrogance? Well, if this be arrogance then make the most of it. 

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.

[smjjames]

I get the feeling you're referring to a specific incident where mine owners clashed with the government, but not sure what. Also, that example doesn't seem to me to be equivalent in any way to what GD is getting at. Company owned isn't the same as personal property, for one.

In related news, Mexico is looking into taking legal action against the person or firm who sold the shooter the weapon (which was purchased legally) and looking into the (extremely remote Trump-ain't-gonna-let-it-happen) possibility of extraditing the shooter on terrorism grounds. I'm not exactly sure where they're going with this. I mean, we don't go and take legal action against other countries every time Americans get caught in the middle of a terror attack. For the gun thing, if it was illegally accquired, I can see how they might have jurdicision, but if it was legally purchased in the US, how is that going to work?

It could also be in part a 'Get your own s**t together or we'll do it for you! Dammit!' thing, despite having their own s**t to get together.

Edited August 5, 2019 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

38 minutes ago, smjjames said:

I get the feeling you're referring to a specific incident where mine owners clashed with the government, but not sure what. Also, that example doesn't seem to me to be equivalent in any way to what GD is getting at. Company owned isn't the same as personal property, for one.

 

taking clause don't make a distinction 'tween property type. is a non factor, even though gd did raise spectre o' the government violating his home with intent to do harm as meaningful. keep your eye on the ball. 

as to specific incidents, you may take your pick from many. at the time, American coal mine ownership were an oligopoly and systematic exploitation o' workers were repeated in many locations over the course o' a few decades in late 1800s and early 1900s. the mine owners owned everything from the homes the miners lived in to the tools the miners were needing rent from the mine owners. the mine owners defended their ownership rights with as much verve and talk o' principle as gd defending his chainsaw and his guns. mine owners were fighting to save American values and as such their violence were just.

hogwash.

regardless, gd is the guy who raised the "private property" taking as a core issue, and private property encompaseses both real and personal property... plus.

"OK, tell me a constructive way to "ban guns" that does not involve making the private property of millions of people who have committed no crimes suddenly illegal?"

government takes through power o' condemnation/eminent domain all-the-time. heck, every time the fda bans a new drug, making 'em illegal to use and distribute, they don't even need pay folks who legit and legal purchased such drugs previous to the ban. again, happens all-the-time. the drug bans should be more o' a concern for gd and his libertarian notions as fda bans w/o input from Congress. executive branch sudden declares gd's private property to be illegal? where is the outrage?

*snort*

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Blarghagh]

I don't really want to get into this debate, but at least we can put the "good guy with a gun" defense to rest. This was a Walmart in Texas. If it didn't work there, it'll never work.

[smjjames]

I’d love for it to be put to rest, but no amount of arguing or live action examples (in more ways than one) is apparently going to convince proponents of it that the only ‘good guy with a gun’ isn’t Joe/Jane Random Citizen, it’s going to be a cop.

it’ll probably take a shooting at a gun convention to convince them, but even then.....

Edited August 5, 2019 by smjjames

[Malcador]

Cloudfare put a bullet in 8chan's head. - https://new.blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

Time to check usual places for fruitless and raging arguments about free speech.  Well, ok, will save that for working hours.

 

[Skarpen]

6 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Disbanded? Umm no. I don't even seriously think they should be disarmed. That was tongue-in-cheek. But taking away their qualified immunity absolutely should happen. 

Disbanded and reformed GD. 

4 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

The rationale is that we are all responsible for making the world a better place. Empathy, self-awareness, humility, etc. What does it cost you?

Pointing fingers at others and claiming they should feel ashamed and resolve the problem because they share a characteristic doesn't strike me as empathic, self-aware or humble. It strikes very different vibes.

23 minutes ago, TrueNeutral said:

I don't really want to get into this debate, but at least we can put the "good guy with a gun" defense to rest. This was a Walmart in Texas. If it didn't work there, it'll never work.

As stated before it was a gun free zone. Plenty of cases where bad guy with a gun was stopped by good guy with a gun. Claiming it doesn't happend is blatantly lying and saying why didn't it happen in an environment where good guy are not allowed to carry is dishonest at best.

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

Cloudfare put a bullet in 8chan's head. - https://new.blog.cloudflare.com/terminating-service-for-8chan/

Time to check usual places for fruitless and raging arguments about free speech.  Well, ok, will save that for working hours.

 

I don't see the logic behind it. If 8chan was the place where criminals gather and reveal their intentions it would be wiser to leave it and keep a close eye on it's users than to disband them and lose the source. It's like there was a pub where spies gather to exchange info and the counterintelligence agency closed it rather that tap into all this intel.

[ShadySands]

Barr says the US needs encryption backdoors to prevent “going dark.”

[Malcador]

8 hours ago, TrueNeutral said:

I don't really want to get into this debate, but at least we can put the "good guy with a gun" defense to rest. This was a Walmart in Texas. If it didn't work there, it'll never work.

Well, technically it might have - Dayton shooting had cops on him in under a minute.  But he still killed 9.  Seems somewhat strange to consider 'acceptable' levels of homicide and amateurs with guns are of dubious value in some situations - a lot may shoot each other in the confusion. 

Also consider that that stance seems to push for universal armament which is probably going to kill more due to road rage :P

[Malcador]

6 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I don't see the logic behind it. If 8chan was the place where criminals gather and reveal their intentions it would be wiser to leave it and keep a close eye on it's users than to disband them and lose the source. It's like there was a pub where spies gather to exchange info and the counterintelligence agency closed it rather that tap into all this intel.

Seems straightforward enough, they are catching heat for having a very unpopular customer and not a good hill to die on.

[Gfted1]

Well luckily, one perpetrator was captured and placed in a concentration camp.

[ShadySands]

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I don't see the logic behind it. If 8chan was the place where criminals gather and reveal their intentions it would be wiser to leave it and keep a close eye on it's users than to disband them and lose the source. It's like there was a pub where spies gather to exchange info and the counterintelligence agency closed it rather that tap into all this intel.

It was a business decision on Cloudflare's part. No idea if the authorities contacted them to float any plans like that or not but the company thought it was a bad look.

You will think it would have been heavily monitored though seeing as this kind of thing happened several times.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Gfted1 said:

Well luckily, one perpetrator was captured and placed in a concentration camp.

we thought the el paso perpetrator were sent to jail. kinda need segregation And denial o' due process to get an accurate concentration camp label.

post ww2 cyprus were a concentration camp. so too were japanese internment camps here in the USA. that said, post ww2, use o' concentration camp language has folks immediate think o' nazi death camps, which probable ain't constructive if goal is meaningful debate.

regardless, gifted's sarcasm-by-ignorance efforts appear off-target. nothing like repeating a failed effort to drive home a point, eh?

but back on topic, trump is calling for tougher background checks on gun purchases. one wonders if the President is aware the House sent such legislation to the Senate where it languishes in part 'cause trump has threatened to veto it. perhaps the President is so busy ending aids and saving the nation from wind turbines to know what he has said previous 'bout background checks?

HA! Good Fun!

Edited August 5, 2019 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

Havent you heard? The local and international clown college has determined that when a person commits a crime, gets caught and detained, that they are in fact inside a concentration camp. True story.

[Gromnir]

8 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

Havent you heard? The local and international clown college has determined that when a person commits a crime, gets caught and detained, that they are in fact inside a concentration camp. True story.

gotta wonder why trump doubles-down regardless o' how ignorant and wrong he is on an issue. wind turbines... again.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/02/politics/donald-trump-cincinnati-rally-fact-check/index.html

the underlying psychology is baffling. wod and his use o' stalinism were a classic board example, but he were hardly alone in the repeated defense o' indefensible. 

trump is a narcissist, so am kinda/possible recognizing why he not only refuses to admit mistake, but doubles-down. is that the only explanation? curious.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

Dunno. Like many people, Trump likes to run his hotdog gobbler in an attempt to score epeen points rather than understand the other peoples pov. Its a damn shame they cant do something constructive with all their spare time.

[Gromnir]

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

 

This should be in your sig.

[Gromnir]

a derisive retort that a statement or observation were too obvious to be worth mentioning?

could apply with some regularity, but not enough to warrant a signature change. 

thanks for the input though.

am curious to see who wins race to the bottom: trump complaining 'bout wind turbines again or gifted shoehorning concentration camps into another post. which happens first?

more relevant to the thread: a minnesota farm family fights to save its land

trump keeps saying the chinese and canadians and others is paying for his trade wars, but sure don't appear that way. not much o' a surprise, eh?

duh.

HA! Good Fun!