Random political thought thread.

[Earl Grey]

If we're gonna do guns, can we please do it smarter? Can we just assume everyone is too fucking stupid until proven otherwise, like we do with cars?

To be clear, I agree with you, but you guys seem to be dealing with a ton of people far too eager to move around the goalposts and switch arguments when it benefits them.

They want the freedom to literally shoot themselves in the foot. Oh well.

 

[Lark]

Hear me out here. We don't let people operate a car without taking a test first, because people are fucking stupid and cars are dangerous. We need to assess a basic modicum of understanding before you get to get behind the wheel for the safety of yourself and everyone around you. I think a lot of people even argue that we need more stringent monitoring of that testing process, because of the large swaths of the population that statistically have a higher incidence of problems with said operation of dangerous vehicles.

Yet, every goddamn mouthbreather with a fucking pulse can get a fucking gun. Explain that shit to me. Because I would really like to stop meeting people after they've shot themselves in the leg with their own fucking gun while cleaning it. Every. Goddamn. Week.

"ThE LIbeRaLs aRe CoMiNg FoR oUr GuNs OoooOOooOOoo..." No we fucking aren't. Like it or not, I acknowledge that guns are WAY too ingrained in our culture for them to be going anywhere. I've accepted it. Fearing literally ANY legislation regarding guns on the basis that you're scared of us "coming for your guns" is hindering progress toward making gun ownership safer and more reasonable.

If we're gonna do guns, can we please do it smarter? Can we just assume everyone is too fucking stupid until proven otherwise, like we do with cars?

I think all societies globally operate on some elitist basis, more or less defending entrenched privileges.

Those elites operate with a relative consensus that isnt shared that much, or suspected from what I can tell, and that consensus has got to do with population. For some of them its simply pragmatic, a sort of balance sheet idea, for other's its a properly thought out thing Malthus, Social Darwinism etc.

Anyway, the point is that you should consider every single political topic or talking point with this lens in mind.

Sexual orientation/sexual norms? They are going to support whatever proves the most anti-natalist.

Abortion? Whatever is anti-natalist.

Woman's rights? Whatever is anti-natalist (the real reason the education/schooling of women and girls is supported as a global intervention)

Gun control? What is going to eliminate heads of population.

Slow or inadequate formal responses to disease, famine, war, weather disaster, catastrophic climate change? Anti-natalism, eliminating heads of population.

Population control itself is most of the time a euphenism for some kind of active death wish, maybe not on the self but definitely upon others.

 

[Lark]

To be clear, I agree with you, but you guys seem to be dealing with a ton of people far too eager to move around the goalposts and switch arguments when it benefits them.

They want the freedom to literally shoot themselves in the foot. Oh well.

If there was any justice in the world those people would all be object lessons in natural and logical consequences.

And others would be able to understand and remember the precautionary tale that those peoples lives amount to without the lesson needing to be repeated.

 

[Earl Grey]

If there was any justice in the world those people would all be object lessons in natural and logical consequences.

And others would be able to understand and remember the precautionary tale that those peoples lives amount to without the lesson needing to be repeated.

That's not justice. That's common sense. Even if eating tide pods get outlawed, anyone idiotic enough would still eat them.

Unfortunately, statistics seem to get outright ignored to serve whomsoever's narrative.

 

[Patches]

Gun control? What is going to eliminate heads of population.

I very much doubt it has/had anything to do with keeping the population down. What's the fiscal incentive to that? Stirring up gun nuts and looping them into unrelated right-wing ideologies has been a game changer for right-wing politicians in elections, though. A lot of 'gun people' are single-issue voters who give NO fucks about abortion laws, gay marriage, or conservative fiscal policies. They vote SOLELY based on which candidates are going to protect their precious gun rights. That "liberals are coming for your guns" rhetoric is pushed for that very reason.

But it really isn't true. There are a metric fuck-ton of liberals out there who at least own handguns. If fervent gun owners became a more moderate group of voters the right would never win an election again. So pushing that narrative is imperative.

 

[Coriolis]

Hear me out here. We don't let people operate a car without taking a test first, because people are fucking stupid and cars are dangerous. We need to assess a basic modicum of understanding before you get to get behind the wheel for the safety of yourself and everyone around you. I think a lot of people even argue that we need more stringent monitoring of that testing process, because of the large swaths of the population that statistically have a higher incidence of problems with said operation of dangerous vehicles.

Yet, every goddamn mouthbreather with a fucking pulse can get a fucking gun. Explain that shit to me. Because I would really like to stop meeting people after they've shot themselves in the leg with their own fucking gun while cleaning it. Every. Goddamn. Week.

"ThE LIbeRaLs aRe CoMiNg FoR oUr GuNs OoooOOooOOoo..." No we fucking aren't. Like it or not, I acknowledge that guns are WAY too ingrained in our culture for them to be going anywhere. I've accepted it. Fearing literally ANY legislation regarding guns on the basis that you're scared of us "coming for your guns" is hindering progress toward making gun ownership safer and more reasonable.

If we're gonna do guns, can we please do it smarter? Can we just assume everyone is too fucking stupid until proven otherwise, like we do with cars?

Motor vehicle law is a bad example because so much of it is motivated by money rather than public safety considerations. Think fees for everything, revenue-generating enforcement, the very notion that driving is a privilege and not a right. Even insurance is a money-making venture rather than a safety-focused one.

As an aside, this is a good example of the misapplication of those statistics to individual cases. It is common practice for people in certain demographics to be charged higher rates, independent of their own personal track record. Imagine weighting boys' grades in high school algebra differently than girls, because boys traditionally "do better" (do they? I'm not sure). If the focus really were on driver safety, insurers could charge people in these groups a deposit, to be refunded after maintaining a clean record for some specified time period.

If anything we need to go the other way. If we have a fundamental right to guns, then we should also have a right to cars and other vehicles. In fact, I for one think we have a right to do anything we want -- as long as we don't infringe on the rights of others. This doesn't argue against government regulation of either, to include the imposition of licensing requirements. It does shift the burden of proof on the government, to demonstrate that someone is unfit in order to deny the right, rather than putting it on the individual to demonstrate fitness in order to earn the privilege.

To be clear, I agree with you, but you guys seem to be dealing with a ton of people far too eager to move around the goalposts and switch arguments when it benefits them.

They want the freedom to literally shoot themselves in the foot. Oh well.

As far as I'm concerned, such folks should be free to shoot themselves in the foot - literally or figuratively, as long as they do no harm to anyone else in the process. Darwin's Law at work. Masks primarily protect others, so going maskless is much more likely to harm someone else than the maskophobe. I suppose if these someone elses are like-minded opponents of public health measures, as in Trump's crowded, mask-free rallies, the net effect is the same, but I pity the poor reporter or differently-minded SO along for the ride.

That's not justice. That's common sense. Even if eating tide pods get outlawed, anyone idiotic enough would still eat them.

Unfortunately, statistics seem to get outright ignored to serve whomsoever's narrative.

Individual stupidity cannot be addressed through legislation. At most we can try to confine its reach to the idiot themselves.

 

[Earl Grey]

As far as I'm concerned, such folks should be free to shoot themselves in the foot - literally or figuratively, as long as they do no harm to anyone else in the process. Darwin's Law at work. Masks primarily protect others, so going maskless is much more likely to harm someone else than the maskophobe. I suppose if these someone elses are like-minded opponents of public health measures, as in Trump's crowded, mask-free rallies, the net effect is the same, but I pity the poor reporter or differently-minded SO along for the ride.

My point wasn't to compare the circumstances, but to show that they would change their arguments to whatever benefits them, also that they might use the same argument of 'my body my rights' even when presented with statistics on gun-related accidents to the owner due to lack of training, because they... Just don't... Want to know... How to use their items properly? I don't know.

 

[Lark]

I very much doubt it has/had anything to do with keeping the population down. What's the fiscal incentive to that? Stirring up gun nuts and looping them into unrelated right-wing ideologies has been a game changer for right-wing politicians in elections, though. A lot of 'gun people' are single-issue voters who give NO fucks about abortion laws, gay marriage, or conservative fiscal policies. They vote SOLELY based on which candidates are going to protect their precious gun rights. That "liberals are coming for your guns" rhetoric is pushed for that very reason.

But it really isn't true. There are a metric fuck-ton of liberals out there who at least own handguns. If fervent gun owners became a more moderate group of voters the right would never win an election again. So pushing that narrative is imperative.

I've seen a few left or liberal gun rights groups over time, mind you I'm never sure they arent trojans for more right wing plotters, there was a time when the right did a shit ton of fishing for support in left wing pools, around about the time that Arlington Road came out on general DVD release and served as inspiration to a lot of them.

I wouldnt argue that "gun rights" isnt one of the populist planks but my point was about a more deep running motivation for ever changing that type of thing. Its not even about the crime figures or incidences of domestic terror or spree killing, the availability of firearms features hugely in numbers of suicides in the US. A change to this is likely to have an actual statistically significant consequence. So, I kind of think its unlikely. I'm not being a conspiracy theorist, its not an ideology or policy or plan in a formal worked out sense, its more sociology, class struggle etc.

 

[The Cat]

I very much doubt it has/had anything to do with keeping the population down. What's the fiscal incentive to that? Stirring up gun nuts and looping them into unrelated right-wing ideologies has been a game changer for right-wing politicians in elections, though. A lot of 'gun people' are single-issue voters who give NO fucks about abortion laws, gay marriage, or conservative fiscal policies. They vote SOLELY based on which candidates are going to protect their precious gun rights. That "liberals are coming for your guns" rhetoric is pushed for that very reason.

But it really isn't true. There are a metric fuck-ton of liberals out there who at least own handguns. If fervent gun owners became a more moderate group of voters the right would never win an election again. So pushing that narrative is imperative.

if the left would change their technical wording about a lot of their gun control rhetoric, show theyre not blanket anti gun like the right likes to pretend...the right would never win another election again. i think its ironic that the right seems far more likely to take our guns than the left does...the left just, doesnt seem to have the right terminology...and of course corporate dems dont seem to know that theyre even playing a game with stakes in it.

 

[Stigmata]

if the left would change their technical wording about a lot of their gun control rhetoric, show theyre not blanket anti gun like the right likes to pretend...the right would never win another election again. i think its ironic that the right seems far more likely to take our guns than the left does...the left just, doesnt seem to have the right terminology...and of course corporate dems dont seem to know that theyre even playing a game with stakes in it.

Messaging from the Democratic party has been a big problem since after the Clinton era. Until they can shake their party perception by many in rural areas as the party of higher educated condescending coastal elites, the Republican party will maintain a stronghold on the Southern and other more rural parts of the USA -- voter sentiment from rural voters is that they just can't relate to Democrats.

I've said this before and I still believe it to be true. When the Democrats can field a national candidate from the Southern part of the country (someone rural voters can at least relate to on a geographic level initially) somewhere that can manage to tread that fine line between running on progressive enough policies to keep more left-leaning Democrats engaged, yet also project just enough social awareness to outline the benefits of progressive policy to poor rural voters (almost as if to mansplain it to them but without the obvious condescension) while dodging all the socialism scare landmines, it'll be game over. Polling voter sentiment on progressive policies seems to suggest that more tend to be for it than against, it just hasn't really been sold the right way by the right person.

 

[ceecee]

Who would have bet Roger Waters was going to be the one good thing to happen this week?

Roger Waters calls Mark Zuckerberg a “little prick,” says “no fucking way” to request to use Pink Floyd in Instagram advert | Guitar.com | All Things Guitar

“So it’s a missive from Mark Zuckerberg to me, [which] arrived this morning, with an offer of a huge, huge amount of money, and the answer is – fuck you! No fucking way! And I only mention that because it’s the insidious movement of them to take over absolutely everything.”

“So those of us who do have any power,” he continued, “and I do have a little bit – in terms of control of the publishing of my songs I do anyway. So I will not be a party to this bullshit, Zuckerberg.”

 

[The Cat]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Who would have bet Roger Waters was going to be the one good thing to happen this week?

Roger Waters calls Mark Zuckerberg a “little prick,” says “no fucking way” to request to use Pink Floyd in Instagram advert | Guitar.com | All Things Guitar

Roger Waters has been sort of a lefty for a long time.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Roger Waters has been sort of a lefty for a long time.

Yep, he was a thorn in the Thatcher era gov't from what I understand

 

[ceecee]

Roger Waters has been sort of a lefty for a long time.

Oh I know. But this is a particularly delightful incident.

Incidentally, David Gilmoure is just a straight up mensch.

 

[The Cat]

Who would have bet Roger Waters was going to be the one good thing to happen this week?

Roger Waters calls Mark Zuckerberg a “little prick,” says “no fucking way” to request to use Pink Floyd in Instagram advert | Guitar.com | All Things Guitar

Pink Floyd fans. TBH it kind of falls out that often Roger Waters is the one good thing in a week.

 

[Lark]

Can I ask, what do you americans think about beans on toast?

Not just for breakfast but at any time of the day?

I'm trying to figure out what the main differences are between the US and UK, even if there are any, to try and figure out why some of the political toxicity is so readily transferable between the two societies/countries.

 

[ceecee]

Can I ask, what do you americans think about beans on toast?

Not just for breakfast but at any time of the day?

I'm trying to figure out what the main differences are between the US and UK, even if there are any, to try and figure out why some of the political toxicity is so readily transferable between the two societies/countries.

In my region of the US, you often see baked beans served with burgers and hot dogs at cookouts. I personally don't like baked beans, let alone on toast or for breakfast.

However I do refer to British people colloquially on Twitter as - Baked Beans for Breakfast Twitter.

 

[Lark]

In my region of the US, you often see baked beans served with burgers and hot dogs at cookouts. I personally don't like baked beans, let alone on toast or for breakfast.

However I do refer to British people colloquially on Twitter as - Baked Beans for Breakfast Twitter.

I have eaten these versions of baked beans with BBQ, I like them, although they are different to our baked beans, its like they've been heated, cooled, reheated and mushed a little before being served with the food.

Today I discovered that in Poland you can buy baked beans in screw top jars rather than cans, the beans themselves are a little larger and paler than the ones here but the tomato sauce is the same.

This is the same product and its referred to the same way and the same words used but its three different things really.

 

[The Cat]

Founding Fathers, who art on money;
Convienent be thy names.
Give us this day our daily grift
And forgive us our tresspasses;
while we refuse to forgive those who tresspass against us.
And lead us not into any homo
But deliver us from consequences

For Murica is the prime must be great forever...
Long may we pwn.


satire, but i mean, it sometimes feels like this could be the prayer of some of our "god fearing" politicians