Thread stats: 421 posts, 63 files (58 image(s), 5 video(s))
Politics thread. Spartacus edition.
I'm gonna bump my politics thread for two reasons
1) It was here first
2) It doesn't have weaksauce trolling in the OP
Why does huffington post look like the drudge report?
So...anyone else getting a little worried about Trump? He's ahead nationally and in SC and NH, leading in bellwether counties (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/12/2016-indiana-county-predicts-every-election-trump-fever-213411), and gets better numbers the more outrageously reactionary he gets. He's been in the lead since summer; last election, Romney had been in the #1 or #2 slots consistently by this point. If he does get the nom, we'll either see the splintering of the GOP and one of the most disastrous presidencies in our history, or a landslide Hillary win.
Trump has no real chance of getting the nomination, and even if he did, he would guarantee victory for Hillary Clinton if he did. Across all parties, Trump has the highest unfavorability ratings of any candidate by far. And he's not a second place choice for pretty much anyone among the GOP primary voters--he's first or last. No in between. If two of the top three drop out, the last one is going to pick up all the votes of the other two, and easily trounce Trump who won't really pick up anything when additional contenders back out.
Rubio is the favorite for GOP nomination right now. And also the only one who really stands any chance against Hillary. Also, even though Sanders isn't going to get the Democratic nomination, if he did Rubio is the only GOP candidate who wins against him according to current polls.
He has all but forced the GOP between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, Trump is—as of this moment—the only person who could conceivably topple the Democrat nominee and take the White House. On the other hand, Trump is in that position because he’s exposed the GOP’s racist “Southern strategy” by openly saying racist bullshit that past GOP candidates have only ever dogwhistled; by doing that, he has forced all the other GOP candidates to say bullshit that is nearly as (or exactly as) racist as Trump’s just to keep their names in the news.
The GOP has relied so long on stoking the resentment of white people (especially white men) who were promised everything and received nothing—all while “other people” got government assistance and handouts and such—that a hefty chunk of the racial minority population in this country sees the party as a bunch of racist pricks. (That doesn’t even cover the whole “war on women” issue, which arguably makes it harder for women in those minority groups to think of the GOP on good terms.) Dogwhistled racial animosity has been a part of the platform of the GOP’s policies for so long that the party can’t just yank that plank out by denouncing Trump’s bullshit.
But the Democrats are kinda fucked, too. They have policies and plans and facts all this other good shit (and some of it even sounds good on paper!), but what they don’t have is a story. Peep this article from The Weekly Sift (WARNING: BLOG HAS A LIBERAL BIAS) to see what I mean: http://weeklysift.com/2014/11/10/republicans-have-a-story-to-tell-were-stuck-with-facts/
Trump has a narrative about the country and what he (thinks he) can do to fix its problems. Never mind that it’s empty on substance (even his anti-immigration rhetoric is bluster); it rings true to a bunch of people, and they’ll vote for Trump because he has the right narrative for them. For any other nominee from either party to win—especially in the actual national election—they need to offer a better narrative than Trump. What should frighten you is the idea that no one can do that…and God help us all if Trump’s narrative carries him into the White House.
He has hispanics voting for him because they hate blacks.
He has blacks voting for him because they hate hispanics.
I don't think "worry" is a strong enough word.
The number of hispanic and black voters in Republican primaries is negligible.
This is why I don't understand why the GOP's strategy is to go balls off the rails with their racism and shit. That didn't work in 2012 and that was, from my memory, considerably tamer.
But now we somehow have a businessman turned "politician" speaking about bringing back concentration camps. In 2015.
It's the Southern strategy come back to bite them. Now they're trapped by the contradiction of their base being vehemently racist and that base rapidly dying off. They've tried to toe the line, but Trump has ignored the rules and made blatant what's been subtext since Reagan's infamous "states rights" speech. It could pay off for him, at least in the primary. Or it could could splinter the party.
The party splintering was going to happen sooner or later thanks to the Tea Party Republicans and their attempts to shut down the federal government from the inside. How can any moderate Republican in Congress reach across the aisle and get anything done so long as those Tea Party nutjobs calling all the shots?
But yes, the GOP has a “race issue”, and that problem is primarily of its own making. Too bad the narratives with all those racial dogwhistles have worked well enough to become common rhetoric, which means they’re too much a part of the GOP’s platform to merely yank out in one shot.
So effectively, we're on the way toward the Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Party, with the Tea Party effectively being the US's UKIP--they have almost no chance of winning any national elections or seats in the national legislature, but they sure make a lot of noise and make the rest of us look bad.
That really would be the best possible situation for the country. The Republican party, with the religious fundamentalists, white nationalists and general loonies, might actually become respectable again and be able to put forward legislation that isn't disgusting to thinking human beings. And either way they and the democrats would be able to come to much better compromises. Meanwhile USIP/Tea Party is relegated to the garbage bin of history where it belongs.
This seems like a likely outcome. And yeah, probably for the best. Right now in the US, tbe Democrats pretty much have a monopoly on sanity, so if you're not a nut yourself you prett much have no choice but to vote for them, even if you find their current candidate distasteful. This has the effect of making the Democrats less responsive to their base than they should be.
Basically if we wind up with the Democrats on the center-left, the Republicans on the center right, and the Tea/USIP/Confederates on the far right, we have a functioning political system again.
The only kink in this plan is that American politics are set up to be a two-horse race, and there are a lot of institutional factors in place to support that. So unless there's some adjustment, the fringe right party will dissolve and then reemerge as part of one of the two major parties, and the whole race begins again.
Maximum wishful thinking.
Far right is progressing basically everywhere, except maybe canada. No matter how media and celebrities hammer on them, the refugee/islamist problem is sufficently in the minds of the common people for that the extremists to thrive. Expect them winning local elections for at least 5 years.
Oh someone brought up Trump?
Fucking lol. Dude is on TV and camera 24/7, find me one racist sound bite. Not a CNN quote which has a chunk missing from it, but an actual sound bite.
>base rapidly dying off
lel it's not like liberals have 0,25 fertility rate BEFORE the abortions. Historically the only way you replenished your numbers was brainwashing kids in higher ed, but that's coming to a fast end.
It actually hurts seeing someone fuck up that bad on basic understanding of politics.
The independent (not republican) Libertarian tea party was hijacked by the alt right to make a point and send a message to the GOP. The republican party has been completely out of touch with their constituency, which is why they picked McCant and R-money the last two times.
There are power blocks within the republican party which listen only to big business and ignore their voters, what you're seeing right now is their destruction. It might take a term by Hillary to actually do it though, not denying that.
By the way the Democrat party has these same business power blocks and they're actually more powerful, but you fags don't care because you just put the checkmark next to who has the D beside their name. It's easier that way right? Who cares if Shillary is a puppet for the Kuck Brothers?
>Dude is on TV and camera 24/7, find me one racist sound bite.
This is from a transcript of his initial campaign announcement: “When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” He implied that Mexican immigrants—with the exception of “some” of them—are drug dealers, rapists, or otherwise some form of criminal (not taking the “illegal immigration” thing into account). A good chunk of his campaign so far has been about immigration and stopping it so he can “make America great again” for “you”; by “you”, he means “the real Americans”, and given the GOP’s Southern strategy, one can see how he might also mean “white Americans”.
>it's not like liberals have 0,25 fertility rate BEFORE the abortions
It’s not as if liberal women are the only women having abortions, legal or otherwise—they’re just the ones more willing to talk about it as both a legitimate choice and a medical procedure instead of as “baby murder”.
>Historically the only way you replenished your numbers was brainwashing kids in higher ed, but that's coming to a fast end.
Yeah, now we can do it with the Internet.
>The independent (not republican) Libertarian tea party was hijacked by the alt right to make a point and send a message to the GOP. The republican party has been completely out of touch with their constituency, which is why they picked McCant and R-money the last two times.
No, see, picking McCain and Romney were solid attempts at appealing to the GOP’s core constituency of older white people. The party had no idea that, in both of those elections, those candidates would sink themselves (McCain by picking Sarah fucking Palin as his running mate, Romney by making those “47%” remarks). Alienating women and racial minorities also helped worsen the defeat, at least on the Presidential level.
>the Democrat party has these same business power blocks and they're actually more powerful, but you fags don't care because you just put the checkmark next to who has the D beside their name. It's easier that way right? Who cares if Shillary is a puppet for the Kuck Brothers?
Y'know, you probably had a point there…but if you did, it's lost in the 4chan-esque delivery. Try making a point without sounding like someone who mentally (and possibly physically) masturbates himself over how funny he thinks he is for saying "cuck" and "fag" and "Shillary".
No party in American politics can be respectable, but yeah. Dems will still be the wishy-washy "we care!" party that makes a few nice little changes now and then, but still ultimately serves big business and the MIC, and the new-GOP would be bland, somewhat right of center, and more blatantly a puppet of the rich. It's just be a question of "do you want your imperialism with breast cancer awareness ribbons on fighter jets and jobs programs or more social Darwinism, nationalism and slightly more xenophobia?" Which is still shit but better than having party run by apocalyptic loons and outright fascists.
No, we are definitely in the midst of a reactionary movement. To expect otherwise after eight years of a black "Muslim" "socialist who oversaw the legalization of same sex marriage would ignore American history. The recent terror attacks just amplify it. Whether it translates to electoral changes on a national level in the US (and France, where the FN has swept local elections) remains to be seen. But from Japan to Venezuela to the US to Europe, there is definite right wing and even fascist sentiment on the rise.
>Historically the only way you replenished your numbers was brainwashing kids in higher ed
DAMN THOSE COLLEGES FOR BRAINSWASHING KIDS WITH SCIENCE, STATISTICS, AND SOUND ARGUMENTS
>actually educating people
"It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here. You are not doing that!"
- Every One Of You Cancerous Liberal Turds
>When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
That's not racist. We have an actual problem with criminals crossing the border. How retarded are you that you don't know about the cartel wars in 2015? The Mexican government barely controls the few provinces around Mexico City, that's why it's so overpopulated, everyone is escaping either to Mexico City or to America because the rest of Mexico is run by unbelievably evil gangs.
Matter of fact the only way that comment could be racist is when CNN brings in expert "interpreters" to interpret racism into it, and then you eat that shit right up with a spoon.
>No, see, picking McCain and Romney were solid attempts at appealing to the GOP’s core constituency of older white people.
Hahahahaha is that why during those elections like half the conservatives voted independent or abstained? Romney attracted more Democrat voters than any other president since Bush 2nd term terrorism win.
That's your real problem, you don't evaluate ideas based on merit but on what they sound like. Do you want me to rap it to you? Maybe if it has a nice beat you'll realize how retarded you're being.
You've let the international clique of bankers and special interest groups eat this country from the inside out for waaay too fucking long because what they have to say sounds good. News flash faggot, they have thousand-man departments specializing in making shit sound good to you, so you won't object to the collar being put around your neck.
>Yeah, now we can do it with the Internet.
lol are you talking about your Tumblerina production lines? Those people will suicide when someone questions their divinity, otherwise they're useless. You're getting blown the fuck out all over the internet being used by normal people.
The only things you still control is the established, entrenched, big media. You're "The Man" now, and we're coming to knock you down.
The yellow expansion is all refugees from drug wars.
>You've let the international clique of bankers and special interest groups eat this country from the inside out for waaay too fucking long because what they have to say sounds good. News flash faggot, they have thousand-man departments specializing in making shit sound good to you, so you won't object to the collar being put around your neck.
I love the idea that you're supporting Trump and actually trying to make it sound like you oppose big business controlling government.
>That's not racist. We have an actual problem with criminals crossing the border.
But Trump painted damn near every undocumented Mexican immigrant as either a rapist, a drug dealer, or some other form of criminal. (Again, this is putting the “illegal immigration” thing aside.) He probably thought he’d covered his ass just enough with that “some good people” bit, but I doubt anyone listening to Trump’s narrative cares about that bit. The rise in traffic to white supremacist websites—all confirmed by their owners and all confirmed to be driven primarily by Trump—coupled with the endorsement of one of the most well-known racists in America (David Duke) proves that his rhetoric is capturing the attention of racists in a way that dogwhistled rhetoric from elections past couldn’t. You’re right about America having an issue with illegal immigration; that doesn’t mean we have to paint all undocumented immigrants as rapists and thugs.
>is that why during those elections like half the conservatives voted independent or abstained?
I said they were solid attempts at appealing to the core Republican voting base (Romney and McCain are both older white men, the Republican voting base is primarily older and white, and both men stuck by traditional GOP talking points). I never said those attempts were successful.
>you don't evaluate ideas based on merit but on what they sound like
I’d be more willing to evaluate your ideas if you didn’t deliver them as if this were /pol/. When you want a rational and reasoned debate, you can bring your ideas to the table without the 4chan-flavored rhetoric. The only time I ever bust that shit out during threads like this is to poke fun at people who use it (or poke fun at a certain idea in general), and by that point, it should be obvious that I’m doing so. I mean, what do I look like, a retarded furfag?
…wait don’t answer that
>You've let the international clique of bankers and special interest groups eat this country from the inside out for waaay too fucking long because what they have to say sounds good.
Uh, last I checked, I have not ever been, nor am I currently, a member of Congress.
>they have thousand-man departments specializing in making shit sound good to you, so you won't object to the collar being put around your neck.
Four words: “Make America Great Again”.
>The only things you still control is the established, entrenched, big media.
I have not ever been, nor am I currently, a member of the Illuminati. (Or is the Knights Templar? I can never keep those groups straight. Oh! Maybe it's CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB PEOPLE.)
Oh gees that quote is real.
>I have not ever been, nor am I currently, a member of the Illuminati.
I am. We don't have direct control over the media, but we don't have to. It's easy to make them report on whatever you want. Just put a sufficiently amusing "reality" show on pretending it's real and they'll have to report it because there's too much money to be made from the audience tuning in to be entertained. Make a clown run for president and they'll all report on the clown. Make sure he gets the support of neo-nazis and white supremacists and the closet sympathizers will start making their own arguments about why "No, really, his arguments aren't racist and here's why" while supporting exactly the same methods as the hate groups.
And in the end we funnel billions of dollars into our own pockets and also get to laugh our asses off at you people thinking you have any say in your own government.
u didn't actually quote anybody tho
step up ur troll game or dont troll at all /pol/-kun 1,2, or whatever number u r i don't care
There is a bit of justice in this world tonight. Daniel Holtzclaw, a now-former Oklahoma City police officer, was found guilty on 17 of the 30-something different charges he faced for raping, sexually assaulting, and in some cases stalking thirteen different women. (Read their testimonies here: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jtes/daniel-holtzclaw-women-in-their-ow)
He’ll be officially sentenced for all of his crimes in January; if the court gives him consecutive sentences instead of a concurrent sentence—which means 30 years, as that is the sentence for rape in the first degree, the highest count for which he was convicted—the total sum of his jail time would be 263 years.
May that rat bastard motherfucker rot in hell.
>Did This White Cop Rape 13 Black Women? - The Daily Beast
What do you guys think, did this 14/88 pure Aryan rape thirteen black women?
Goddamn this KKK guy is like something out of Hitlers wet dream, look at his blonde hair and blue eyes.
>What do you guys think, did this 14/88 pure Aryan rape thirteen black women?
Well, he was found guilty, so…
Little known fact: Hispanic criminals and black criminals of mixed heritage are counted as white in FBI statistics. But for some reason black and hispanic get their own categories anyway.
If just the hispanic group is subtracted from the white stats, the white crime statistics are much lower than the European average.
Nice. Now if we could only see this happen to every cop, and every DA and judge.
>Nice. Now if we could only see this happen to every cop, and every DA and judge.
I know anarchism is your gimmick but we do actually need those.
If there are no judges and cops, how do we sentence or catch rapist cops?
That Trudeau guy seems alright.
Aaand trump just took the minority vote.
fml is no one listening to what this guy is saying?
He's a big sweetie.
He's mentally retarded. I don't mean that as a slur, his mental development just isn't up to adult levels. He's on some psych medication currently I think, and is almost definitely on the autism spectrum.
>white people are the least racist demographic
What a surpris-OH WAIT I FORGOT THAT RACISM IS POWER+PREJUDICE SO IT'S OK IF BLACK PEOPLE WANT TO ROUND UP ALL THE MUSLIMS AND GAS THEM.
He's not wrong. Btw, if you're not a retard you know how to check IPs on imageboards, and you will clearly see that this post has a different one.
Re: Current Political Climate:
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a
mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
"To focus only on the educated carriers of intellect and culture in the search for fascist roots, furthermore, is to miss the most important register: subterranean passions and emotions...These “mobilizing passions,” mostly taken for granted and not always overtly argued as intellectual propositions, form the emotional lava that set fascism’s foundations:
•the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment that justifies any action, without legal or moral limits,against its enemies,both internal and external;
•dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and <b>alien influences</b>;
•the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;
•the need for authority by natural leaders...culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny..."
"We are not required to believe that fascist movements can only come to power in an exact replay of the scenario of Mussolini and Hitler. All that is required to fit our model is <b>polarization, deadlock, mass mobilization against internal and external enemies, and complicity by existing elites."</b>
- "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert O. Paxton
Tap into popular resentment and assign blame to an external threat, and the people will ignore the inherent injustice of the system. Raise up national identity as the supreme value ("Make America great again"), and people will ally with their oppressors, blaming an "other"-ized threat for their conditions and not the system.
Fucking A, this is exposing the stupidity of the American public in such a beautiful way. Literally nobody in the media and government likes Trump. It's the normal American public that's retarded.
If he becomes president, it will go down as the worst moment in U.S. history and I kinda want it to happen.
Speaking of fascism: http://weeklysift.com/2015/11/30/the-political-f-word/
Good read, regardless of whatever your political affiliation.
So we're only smart if we want to vote for media/business/bureaucrat establishment, but if we want to vote for anyone else we suddenly become subhumans right?
Dehumanizing those of us voting for Trump leads down this path:
>The thing is, we have to really reach out to those who might consider voting for Trump and say, ‘This is Goebbels. This is the final solution. If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
>If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
>If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
>If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
>If you are voting for him I will have to shoot you before election day.
This is coming from the same hypocrites who claim we live in a democracy, the same hypocrites who claim gun violence is bad, the hypocrites who threaten to shoot us for voting a certain way.
Well I can tell you for one that if you take a run at me or mine you're going to find yourself riddled with bullets before you open fire, and I'm going to take a piss on your fool head as you're bleeding out for good measure.
>Well I can tell you for one that if you take a run at me or mine you're going to find yourself riddled with bullets before you open fire, and I'm going to take a piss on your fool head as you're bleeding out for good measure.
What is it with gun nuts and their persecution fantasies? It was practically sexual the way you described another human being dying by your hand.
The only people with persecution fantasies around here are feminists.
> if we want to vote for anyone else we suddenly become subhumans right?
Not anyone, just Trump mostly.
It is sexual for gun nuts. The gun is a penis extender for the insecure.
More like The State is a penis extender for liberals.
COME ON PEOPLE, THIS GUYS IS TALKING ABOUT RACES BEING A "PROBLEM" AND HE'S OFFERING "FINAL SOLUTIONS"!
GET A FUCKING CLUE!
It's Georgia. Blatant racism isn't something they would have a problem with in Georgia. It's a selling point.
You can't be surprised by this.
Not to imply that the northern states can't be racist, but that if a place is going to be openly racist, it's probably the south.
It's a meme by now. I can't believe someone said something like that seriously.
I get that South generally is red states, but look at the other candidates though. None of the more moderate GOP are getting support.
>I can't believe someone said something like that seriously.
It was the appropriate response.
>I get that South generally is red states, but look at the other candidates though. None of the more moderate GOP are getting support.
It's not just that they're red states, it's that the three most racist states in the country are Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. It is genuinely, thoroughly unsurprising to see them flock to the racist candidate over the moderate ones, not in spite of his racism but because of it.
Posting in /pol/ thread because this has potential to shit up regular SYM. More of a vent than politics though.
>go to toilets
>someone has crossed out "mens" with a permanent marker and written "with urinals" instead (which I assume is a statement against binary labelling of sanitation rooms)
I don't need this in my life. The primary reason for bathroom segregation is not due to the availability of urinals. If you want to be a political activist, go for it, but don't fucking graffiti "with urinals" on a toilet door.
and if it was the person I think it was, they need to GTFO since they are dragging the whole place down (not due to their alleged asexuality, otherkin, etc. lifestyle, but rather their "lazy fuck" lifestyle). Fucking do your work instead of browsing Homestuck and Tumblr the whole time when you are meant to be doing work and handing in those fucking assignments on time, or even one day late would be tolerable.
>The primary reason for bathroom segregation is not due to the availability of urinals
What is it?
The only time "It's 2015" is an appropriate response is if a wild eyed man steps out of a 70s car and asks you in a panicked tone of voice "WHAT YEAR IS IT!"
Sex feels better if we repress images of the opposite sex in every way possible until we get to the bedroom. If we can just see naked women 24/7 suddenly it isn't special anymore.
>The only time "It's 2015" is an appropriate response is if a wild eyed man steps out of a 70s car and asks you in a panicked tone of voice "WHAT YEAR IS IT!"
Or when the audience knows very well what the expectations of modern society are.
As they do. As YOU do, although plainly it infuriates you.
Neither of those examples have a socially obvious connection to the expectations of the times, as Trudeau's answer did.
BREAKING NEWS: DHS FORCED TO STOP INVESTIGATION INTO TERRORIST GROUP
Customs and Border Patrol analyst Phil Haney tracked members of the Islamist Deobandi movement with which Sayed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, were affiliated. But the Department of Homeland Security deleted the records, then disciplined and retaliated against him when he blew the whistle, he says.
>The agencies asserted that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations, tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the their civil liberties, according to Haney.
Ok, so you want the government tracking people's movements and monitoring their communications just because of their associations? Would you want your travels tracked because, say, your cousin deals weed and his supplier gets it from the cartels? It because you post on an image board that members from the shadowy hacktivist group Anonymous also visit?
And that's not even considering the politicized nature of Terrorist Organization designation. See: PKK, MEK, Mujahideen, Contras, etc.
>Ok, so you want the government tracking people's movements and monitoring their communications just because of their associations?
You are retarded.
Civil liberties have already been shat on, this country already spies on 100% of American telephone calls, Obama approved assassination of american citizens based on who they associate with.
But you draw the line at keeping an eye on foreign organizations that fund terrorists, good job, you get the ethics medal.
By the way, these groups weren't on the list, but that doesn't mean they weren't terrorist. It just means they weren't on the list YET. They sure as fuck are now, after the attack.
>Obama approved assassination of american citizens based on who they associate with
That's not new behavior for a president
Exactly so why is suddenly just watching people who could be terrorists a breach of ethics? They're foreigners, not even covered by the constitution.
So erode them more? I don't want the government reading anyone's email, or tapping anyone's phone. I don't want it killing anyone, with cruise missiles, drones it lethal injection.
The Constitution does apply to non-citizens, even illegal immigrants. That's why their children can't be prohibited from attending schools (Plyler v. Doe). Suspicionless surveillance based purely on association is unreasonable.
It is unreasonable to expect a state to not kill people. Order is upheld through a monopoly of force in the first place.
He has a point.
We're killing people for very little reason, watching them instead of bombing them seems like a step in the right direction.
Which is a good argument against states in general, but that's another matter. If a state is to exist, it's power is to be minimized so as to reduce its harm. Minimize power, and its areas of lawful application, and increase oversight and penalties for misuse.
We don't need a death penalty; there are many nations without it. We don't need armed police; there are nations without those. We don't need a military larger than the five next-largest combined, and bases in almost every nation.
>But the Department of Homeland Security deleted the records,
Oh, that sounds good. I don't know enough about intelligence agency operations to know how hard it is for an analyst to get a group specially designated, or what kind of things could be done to alleviate the problem without letting temporarily frozen data grow out of control. But barring that, I think deleting iinformation that can't be released to the public sounds better than just tracking anyone not specially designated as having privacy.
>then disciplined and retaliated against him when he blew the whistle, he says.
Maybe not the absolute best response possible, but I don't think it's the worst either, especially compared to how wistleblowers who thought there was too much survellance were responded to.
>They're foreigners, not even covered by the constitution.
They certainly don't get every amenity of a citizen, but to limit the power of organizations like the Five Eyes to share intelligence in a way that goes against national regulations, I'd like the level of detail on kept on arbitrary foreign nationals to be fairly low in precision.
>It is unreasonable to expect a state to not kill people. Order is upheld through a monopoly of force in the first place.
That doesn't mean I shouldn't discourage the state from using more force than is actually required.
But does this tracking actually reduce the use of bombs or just designate more targets?
More anarchist garbage
>Which is a good argument against states in general
Magic isn't real, hierarchical organization and rule of law is needed for humans to exist in large, hetergenous groups.
>If a state is to exist, it's power is to be minimized so as to reduce its harm.
No, it's powers have to be expanded (just judiciously). Big government is the only defense against far worse things like big business.
> We don't need a death penalty; there are many nations without it.
This, at least, is true. It's a waste of time and money to pass, isn't an effective deterrent to crime, and above all obviously can't be rescinded if later evidence proves the defendant innocent.
>We don't need armed police; there are nations without those.
Those states exist in the pockets of other, larger states and often lack the same kind of properly armed criminals. Lichtenstein isn't Austria, for example.
>We don't need a military larger than the five next-largest combined, and bases in almost every nation.
While I agree in theory that the US pulls to much weight versus the other allies, military spending's role in the US' social and economic woes is greatly exaggerated. I'd like to see the JSDF as the majority staff in Okinawa for example, not the USN, but the USN should still be there to aid our allies.
You're being massively hypocritical here, just saying.
About what, in particular?
The retaining of information? Treatment of whistleblowers? Generals stance toward authority?
I'm perfectly fine with a contradiction being pointed out, so feel free to be specific.
It's fine to treat some whistleblowers badly if others have been treated badly in the past.
It's fine to assassinate people, but watching them isn't fine.
It's fine to indiscriminately bomb people, but taking the time to make sure if they're the bad guys isn't fine.
It's fine to spy on american citizens, but it's not fine to spy on foreigners.
Your head must be bursting from the contradictions.
>Magic isn't real,
>hierarchical organization and rule of law is needed for humans to exist in large, hetergenous groups.
For what reason?
>No, it's powers have to be expanded (just judiciously).
Again, for what reason? Which powers are currently insufficient for the state's goal of controlling human behavior for the benefit of the ruling class?
>Big government is the only defense against far worse things like big business.
That is assuming that "Big Business" is a separate entity from the government, when the two are in fact symbiotic.
>It's fine to treat some whistleblowers badly if others have been treated badly in the past.
That's not hypocrasy, which requires self-contradiction. I'm just saying that I'm not sure how vital clearance was for his career but that I'm glad he isn't being run out of the country and instead simply lost his clearance, which might mean he needs to apply for a new job.
>It's fine to assassinate people, but watching them isn't fine.
I didn't say that, I asked "Does this really reduce assasinations?".
>It's fine to indiscriminately bomb people, but taking the time to make sure if they're the bad guys isn't fine.
>It's fine to spy on american citizens, but it's not fine to spy on foreigners.
No, I said spying on foreigners leads to our intelligence agengies making deals with the nations they spied on in exchange for information on american citizens as gathered by their agencies, stepping around prohibitions on domestic spying, and thus it makes sense to limit spying on foreigners as a way to limit the power of agencies to indirectly spy on Americans.
God damn you are as terrible as the /pol/tards
Actually I guess that makes sense considering you're the one who used to go on about Obama being Bush's third term and nonsensical shit like that.
Corproate personhood and its granting of the corproation's ability to sue does not take into account the fact that those represented by the corproation, the stockholders, are protected by limited liability, but those held liable to the corproation are not. This creates imbalance of power between a large corporation and a private individual, in that an individual does not need to display the degree of negligence required for a shareholder to be held liable. I beleive this part of why corproations hold so much influence, and that it might be compensated for by providing protection to a natural person when they are being sued by an organization of limited liability.
One tiny little area to fix would be arbitration act. It was not intended to apply to every contract between corporations and their employees and customers. Limiting it to inter-corporate contracts and contracts with executives would tilt things ever so slightly more in favor of employees and consumers. Making veil-piercing easier (eliminating the necessity of showing alter ego/improper corporate formation) would help too, by making it easier to strike at executives' personal assets.
Bringing back the ultra vires doctrine may help too. It'd impede innovation, since it's lock corporations into one purpose, but by the same token inhibit the formation of all-encompassing zaibatsu-style omnicorps. Look at Amazon: started as a virtual marketplace, they moved to making their own products (Kindle, Fire, FireTV) then producing their own content. Then they stopped selling Apple TVs so that their customers only had the option of buying their product. Apple, luckily, has many other products and a devoted following, so Apple TV is in no danger, but if that was their only product, getting shut out if the largest online marketplace would have meant death. Confine Amazon to "providing a website and shipping service for the purchase of goods" online, and you've cut off that behavior before it happens.
>its not self contradictory to treat two people differently for the same act
Yeah you're hopeless.
Actually Clinton was 2nd and 3rd term of first Bush. Then second Bush was 4th and 5th term of first Bush. Then Obama is 6th and 7th term of old Bush. Inflation, deregulation, invasion, and undermining of civil liberties. Last four presidents are the same fucking guy.
And we think Russia has it bad...
>Last four presidents are the same fucking guy.
The Bushes would certainly have vetoed many of the strides we've made in gay and minority rights during Obama's presidency, as well as environmental protections put in place during both Obama and Clinton. Clinton and Obama would most likely have not invaded Iraq after 9/11, as there was no real reason to go after Saddam after 9/11 other than the Bush family's special hatred for him.
The idea that "the last four presidents are the same guy," or that the two parties are the essentially the same, is an oversimplification that comes off as really juvenile and naive--and also as a somewhat self-serving complaint from people who aren't affected by things that are actually pretty big deals, like unnecessary wars and marginalization of minorities.
>The idea that "the last four presidents are the same guy," or that the two parties are the essentially the same, is an oversimplification that comes off as really juvenile and naive--and also as a somewhat self-serving complaint from people who aren't affected by things that are actually pretty big deals, like unnecessary wars and marginalization of minorities.
It's also a favorite notion of The Tea Party, relatedly.
Obama has been, overall, marginally better than Bush on some issues. A McCain or Romney win would have been worse in many areas (immigration, LGBT rights), no doubt. But the overall nature of U.S. policy remains the same. Obama has killed more people (most of them innocent) by drone than Bush did. Prior to Eric Holder throwing up his hands and saying that the Feds will defer to the states, the Obama admin conducted 270 raids on (state) legal marijuana dispensaries, more than the twelve previous years. Before deferred action on immigration, more people were deported in his tenure than under Bush's. And, despite the brouhaha over our withdrawal, we now have (special forces) boots on the ground in Iraq again. Guantanamo remains open, and the mass surveillance continues, etc.
Even in the areas Obama's been better than any Republican would have been, its been by having his arm twisted (Biden jumping the gun on gay marriage) or has been a matter of jumping on a wave of public opinion and legal action right as it crests (see: DADT, also gay marriage). He's not a *good* president, just better than what we could have had otherwise.
The point isn't that, from my present point of view, that the Obama Admin has been a continuation of Bush, or just as bad as Bush. Again, he's been marginally better, enough so that, especially given the present crop of GOP candidates, we could even get a third consecutive term of Democratic rule. In the upcoming presidential election, Hillary, while a despicable villain in absolute terms, would be better than any of the Republicans, and Sanders would be a little better than her. But they're all awful people (or, in Sanders case, ok but not good enough to be good). It's like comparing ebola to Hepatitus B. One is preferable to the other, but both will end in the same thing, and the ideal is none of the above. Without a political (and social and economic) paradigm shift, American policy will remain governed by the same interests and continue in the same destructive direction (See: our continued involvement in Iraq/Syria, continued and expanded drone campaigns, and TPP/TTIP).
And yes, I was very unreasonable in the past. I've learned since then and will continue to do so. I like to think I'm less of an awful person now (tbh, I'm still garbage)
>Clinton and Obama would most likely have not invaded Iraq after 9/11, as there was no real reason to go after Saddam after 9/11 other than the Bush family's special hatred for him.
Clinton and Obama both bombed Iraq. They also started wars in a bunch of other places, from the Balkans to Libya, and were either on par or above of the Bushes. You must be a few plugs short of a dragon dildo set to think these guys were peaceful, in fact I get the sense you're saying that just because they're part of the party which you bought all the cool merchandise from.
I also notice you didn't tackle other issues because you know they're exactly the same. Like Obama sucking cocks of multinational execs like Monsanto, Clinton signing away the banking protections we've had since the great depression.
They're all dumb as a pocketful of pennies as well, couldn't pour water out of a boot with the instructions written on the soles, all because the parties needed perfectly controllable figureheads.
>or that the two parties are the essentially the same
It really started with Bush Sr. whispering in Reagan's ear, then having his four years of hell and it's still happening today. Both major parties have realized they can start wars for economic purposes as long as they aren't called "wars", meaning the congress doesn't have to approve. Both major parties have realized they can get away with shitting on civil liberties, so they do. They've stopped listening to the people and started serving corporate multinational interests.
Americans alive today think that's normal but this wasn't happening just a few generations ago.
>gay and minority rights
What are, things that the president can't really influence, for 500 Alex. You know what the president CAN influence?
1. Budgets. Like the science budget. Which had a <1% increase under Obama, while inflation increased 11%. For all practical purposes the science budget has been severely slashed.
2. Civil liberties. Illegal search and seizure, breaches of constitution, smuggling guns to cartels, nigh fomenting a civil war between police and minorities....
3. Foreign policy. Don't make me fucking laugh. Actually you sound like one of the party loyalists who would vote for the Wicked Witch of the West too.
>its not self contradictory to treat two people differently for the same act
I was specifically imlying that the reaction to whistleblowers who oppose surveliece should be ligthened to better match the treatment of whistleblowers who support survelience, not that they should remain different.
The Debate About GMO Safety Is Over, Thanks To A New Trillion-Meal Study
Writing in the Journal of Animal Science, in the most comprehensive study of GMOs and food ever conducted, University of California-Davis Department of Animal Science geneticist Alison Van Eenennaam and research assistant Amy E. Young reviewed 29 years of livestock productivity and health data from both before and after the introduction of genetically engineered animal feed. [NOTE: article is behind a paywall until October 1.]
The field data represented more than 100 billion animals covering a period before 1996 when animal feed was 100% non-GMO, and after its introduction when it jumped to 90% and more. The documentation included the records of animals examined pre and post mortem, as ill cattle cannot be approved for meat.
What did they find? That GM feed is safe and nutritionally equivalent to non-GMO feed. There was no indication of any unusual trends in the health of animals since 1996 when GMO crops were first harvested. Considering the size of the dataset, it can reasonably be said that the debate over the impact of GE feed on animal health is closed: there is zero extraordinary impact.
Won't stop certain peoples from running campaigns on that.
I don't think the debate is over. I mean, some people still think vaccines are bad.
You are indeed still a terrible person because there's no such thing as a good anarchist.
Admittedly you don't want to initiate mass executions of black people so congrats on being better than /pol/-kun anyway.
There's two strains of anti-GMO. One is anti GMO out a purely naturalistic sentiment; "eco-reactionaries" if you will. They will never be satisfied because GMOs are "unnatural" and therefore evil. They'll never be convinced, like anti-vaxxers.
The other strain is ok with GMOs in theory, provided they are safe and used in a manner that doesn't harm the environment, but opposed Big Industry control of 90% of our corn production, IP rights being asserted over neighboring farmer's crops if they get pollinated by accident, and the use of GM tech to allow farmers to dump more and more toxic chemicals onto their crops, which destroys soil microbiology and gives rise to resistant weeds. They're also critical of the economic imperialism of first world nations going to third world nations and saying "oh? Your kids are going blind from vitamin a deficiency? Plant vast monoculture a of this one GM crop we own the patents to!" They're the reasonable, but also doomed to dissatisfaction, because the big agri-chem/bio/pharma companies have a stranglehold on the industry and own the agencies meant to regulate them.
I could smell that strawman from waaaay over here.
>IP rights being asserted over neighboring farmer's crops if they get pollinated by accident
That's not what happened, stop peddling lies decades after being proven wrong. Random cross-pollination would not pollinate perfect squares on neighboring farmers fields, they were clearly test patches.
Also to solve the problem of theft and environmental transfer, Monsanto developed terminator seeds. You luddites still find excuses to criticize every solution, without offering alternatives.
>use of GM tech to allow farmers to dump more and more toxic chemicals onto their crops
Another lie. Roundup resistance allows farmers to use fewer chemicals to kill weeds, in fact only one chemical: roundup. And roundup is lower toxicity, lower chance of entering groundwater, and faster biodegradability than all other weed killers.
If you chance to reply to this comment without a better suggestion for a weed killer, I'm going to consider the argument conceded.
>economic imperialism of first world nations going to third world nations and saying "oh? Your kids are going blind from vitamin a deficiency? Plant vast monoculture a of this one GM crop we own the patents to!"
Wow so bringing medicine to third world is "imperialism"?
Yeah there are two strains of anti-GMO, but I think your comment shows very plainly that the strains are:
1. Naturalistic crazies.
2. Socialist crazies.
There are no people who are genuinely against GMO on grounds of safety or environmentalism, because the safety for individuals and the environment is already shown to be a top priority for GMO companies.
>If you chance to reply to this comment without a better suggestion for a weed killer, I'm going to consider the argument conceded.
Mulch. Pulling them as they come up. Companion planting with ground cover crops that make it so there's no room for weeds.
>That's not what happened, stop peddling lies decades after being proven wrong. Random cross-pollination would not pollinate perfect squares on neighboring farmers fields, they were clearly test patches
I stand corrected. They sued farmers for saving seeds from prior crops. Still shitty, and still ridiculous to assert ownership over all subsequent generations of an organism simply because you developed it.
>Also to solve the problem of theft and environmental transfer, Monsanto developed terminator seeds.
Monsanto has yet to use that tech by their own admission. Which is both good and bad. Good because their seeds could potentially get saved and re-planted, bad because terminator genes would address the issue of contamination (which has already happened, see: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6863/full/414541a.html; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6863/full/414541a.html)
>You luddites still find excuses to criticize every solution, without offering alternatives.
I would be 100% on-board with GMOs if they a) were safe for human and animal consumption, b) unlikely to cause environmental damage, c) offered a functional improvement over existing strains (more nutritious, higher years, pest-resistant, drought resistant, etc.) and d) were open-source and farmers could keep their seeds, replant, and cross-breed at will without being sued. It's the injustice of a company asserting ownership over a plant, because one farmer bought its great-great-great grandparent plant from that company, that I am opposed to.
>Another lie. Roundup resistance allows farmers to use fewer chemicals to kill weeds, in fact only one chemical: roundup.
I picked Forbes since they're a fairly conservative and pro-business source, lest you accuse me of recourse to green activist crazy websites.
>One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.
>But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
>And roundup is lower toxicity
You also failed to address the issue of roundup over-use and its contribution to the emergence of resistant "superweeds", which require even more toxic chemicals to control (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/10/19/herbicide-resistant-super-weeds-increasingly-plaguing-farmers)
There are alternatives to roundup, both chemical (acetic acid) and practical (mechanical weeding, animal weeding, no-till practices, use of mulch and cover crops, and simply ignoring weeds if they're late-season and not water and nutrient-hungry varieties). Watering practices (flood and sprinklers vs. underground drip) also affect weed growth. Such practices result in lower yields in the short term, but maximize soil health, whereas heavy herbicide use maximizes short-term yields at the expense of long-term soil health.
>Wow so bringing medicine to third world is "imperialism"?
Marketing a patented organism as a cure for malnutrition, especially when that organism provides only 20% recommended Vitamin A of uncertain bioavailability (see https://www.grain.org/article/entries/10-grains-of-delusion-golden-rice-seen-from-the-ground) is imperialism. Encouraging monocultures of a patented plant while local activists are encouraging crop diversification to address malnutrition because it is good PR and gives you more of a stranglehold on food production is imperialism.
Again, if it was a matter of "we made rice better! Here you go world! You're welcome!" there'd be no problem.
>the safety for individuals and the environment is already shown to be a top priority for GMO companies.
You actually believe that, don't you?
That's not weed killer though, I specifically said weed killer because we can't sustain seven billion people on manual weed removal.
If you're bringing up organic practices you're calling either for:
A) Murder of four billion people.
B) Enslavement of five billion people.
You do get points for being rational though, at least you're suggesting solutions instead of baseless attack. I may have been premature in my last sentence.
>Again, if it was a matter of "we made rice better! Here you go world! You're welcome!" there'd be no problem.
People need to be compensated for their work Tora. Like, yeah you can say, "we should all just share for freeeeeee!!!?!?!!!!1" but people don't actually work like that in the main. You can be mad all you like about corporate ownership of various developments but without said corporations (or governments) gathering the talent and resources those developments usually don't happen anyway. You can't ask that people, or groups of people, just devote years, decades even, to something for nothing.
>You can't ask that people, or groups of people, just devote years, decades even, to something for nothing.
Why does everyone always act like working against corporate greed is asking people to work "for nothing?" Like these companies have incredible profit margins, and make profits off of their investments for decades after they've made them, getting ROIs hundreds or even thousands of times in excess of what they spend. And yet when people say things like "Hey, maybe copyright doesn't have to last for 75 years after the life of its inventor! Maybe that initial plan of twenty years is more than enough," suddenly they're asking people to work for nothing?
Student suspended for 6 months (appealed down from 12) and his friend expelled for not finding black women attractive.
>When someone wrote “#blackwomenmatter,” Pryor said he joined in, anonymously replying, “They matter, they’re just not hot.”
>The “entire situation” on Yik Yak Nov. 9 actually began with crass comments targeting white students, calling them “dirty hippies with small dicks” who are “always fucking their cousins,” then moving on to mocking Muslims and even “Smurfs,” Pryor wrote.
Don't use YikYak guys, it's a honeypot.
Actually lately Monsanto profit margin is technically 0% because they're losing money, they're getting rid of 2,600 jobs because you faggots think you're morally superior. That's 2600 families that are fucked now.
During their height, Monsanto profits were 10-15%, about the same as the healthcare industry or the average farmer. Which is to be expected considering they're providing the same commodity to the customer: life.
Things with larger profit margins are services mostly, not producers. Things like accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, payroll, real estate, legal, banking....
>make profits off of their investments for decades after they've made them
Their "investments" are tens of billions of dollars in debt, all debt which has to be paid off. This is not a profit.
>copyright doesn't have to last for 75 years
It doesn't you ignorant turd, it lasts 30 years, Monsanto lost their Roundup patent in 2000s. Any old fuck can produce it now.
>It doesn't you ignorant turd, it lasts 30 years, Monsanto lost their Roundup patent in 2000s. Any old fuck can produce it now.
Patents and Copyrights are different, numbnuts. Copyright is indeed life of the creator plus 75 years. Patents are shorter, but still too long in a lot of cases.
And Monsanto's profits aren't down because "faggots think they're morally superior," it's because they take the profits they make and reinvest them into growing the company because growth is all that matters in capitalist economies. A stable money making enterprise that doesn't grow is a failure to investors.
>damn those guys for wanting to improve themselves!
>>damn those guys for wanting to improve themselves!
More like "those guys are bad businessmen for not being able to live within their means." This isn't even about socialism, it's about you defending the "honor" of a company that isn't able to get its shit together well enough to be profitable.
So, they're getting rid of 2,600 jobs for the sake of improving themselves?
That's perfectly fair of them, but has nothing to do with anyone else thinking they're morally superior.
Is food not life? Let's get some facts straight:
18th century: before GMOs and evil chemicals the world could support about 1 billion people. This was thanks to massive irrigation and clear cutting of entire forests over and over, so more fertile land could be found. If we continued in this way, people today would not know what a tree is, outside the few trees we might decide to farm. By the way the world population was kept down by starvation, more than two thirds of the planet at this time was permanently starving. Children born into starvation, lived barely hand to mouth, and died young from nutritional deficiency.
19th century: Then the west introduced evil fertilizer chemicals, which allowed us to stop clear-cutting forests to find fertile land. Do remember to thank the west that you know what a fucking tree is. Say, say "thank you west for the trees". On far less land, fertilizers allowed the world population go above 1 billion, and effectively cut down starvation to below half the planet which allowed population to start growing gradually.
Early 20th century: In the early 20th century the despicable west introduced evil capitalist pesticide and weed killer chemicals, which meant the world no longer had to use slaves or very lowly paid workers to manually remove weeds and pests. This is a job no machine can do even today, the only option is raw human labor. Say "thank you capitalism for no more need for slavery". The world population also hit two billion, and starvation was brought down to less than a third of the world.
Mid 20th century: The despicable, selfish west invented something called the "green revolution". Which is bringing the entire world the advancements of Europe in agriculture. Irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, to everyone, for free. The world population jumped to 6 billion and starvation was lowered to around 15%. The west is currently still hated worldwide, so remember to say, "thank you europeans for feeding billions".
Late 20th century: Now we're introducing to ourselves and the world simultaneously GMOs, which are supporting another billion and a half people with less environmental damage of the previous fertilizers and pesticides. The world population is projected to hit 9-10 billion because of GMOs and starvation to be brought below 5%. Thankfully, we know to charge for it this time, because the last time we brought the rest of the fuckers on this planet free shit they decided to hate us. You don't need to thank us for this last one, we evil whites enjoy the environment too.
I understand fully what the other anon is feeling right now. If you want to roll back this development to before 18th century, you're essentially saying you want to murder 7 billion people by starvation, this is literally the worst way to die for a human being. The body eats itself from the inside out. So excuse me if I get emotional when actual murderers and torturers start justifying their depravity to me by essentially saying "hurrr we're too stupid to know any better" all the while ignoring facts.
>So excuse me if I get emotional
Excusal denied. Also, it sounds like you giving credit of the entire history of the west to one business entity that wasn't even around until the 20th century?
That is some of the most distorted history I've seen outside a Texas schoolbook. You don't get credit for saving a drowning child if you tossed them in the lake to begin with, especially if you then abandon them on the shore to freeze to death.
Tone doesn't carry over the internet, so I have to ask: is this satire? Are you being satirical right now?
Meanwhile Canada is selling bottled air to China.
>“Our first shipment of 500 bottles of fresh air were sold in four days,” co-founder Moses Lam says in a telephone interview with the Telegraph.
>A crate containing 4,000 more bottles is making its way to China, but he says most of that shipment has been bought.
>A 7.7 Litre can of crisp air taken from Banff National Park in the majestic Rocky Mountains range sells for roughly 100 yuan (£10), which is 50 times more expensive than a bottle of mineral water in China.
What do you guys think their profit margin is?
I imagine the majority of the price in both bottled water and bottled air is in shipping and packaging.
Holy fuck. I feel like I'm having seizure knowing the absolute 1984 tier bullshit going down in China.
Labor as well, and there might be costs with getting access to a tap, well or spring if its spring water.
It's unbelievable that the situation in China is starting to resemble Spaceballs, an old movie no one in this thread is going to recognize.
It's not just China, we also do business with and call an ALLY a country which basically has the same legal system as ISIS.
>also rape culture.
SAUDI MILLIONAIRE ACQUITTED OF RAPE CHARGE AFTER CLAIMING HE TRIPPED AND FELL INTO A TEENS VAGINA
>The court heard Abdulaziz gave the two women vodka to drink before leading the 24-year-old woman to another room to have sex. When the 18-year-old awoke the next morning, she told the court Abdulaziz was on top of her and raping her.
>Abdulaziz said he accidentally fell on the 18-year-old woman after she seduced him. He said she pulled him toward her and placed his hand between her legs. He claimed he was only trying to offer her something to wear or a taxi ride home.
>“I’m fragile,” he said. “I fell down but nothing ever happened, between me and this girl nothing ever happened.”
>His DNA was found inside the 18-year-old girl and he claims he could have had semen on his hands after having sex with her 24-year-old friend.
Oh, someone beat me to it. >>403463
Good taste on that by the way. Also, nice job making not-quite-29 feel almost old.
>successfully delete one post
>password changesd right after that so I can't delete the second one too.
I really need to manually set the password each post, but then I need to remember to press the +. Anyway, yeah, this does sound bad. At this rate maybe people will actually think to spread out away frm the coast a bit, or at least bottle their own air from further inland.
Prime Minister Millhouse? This man is 41 years old and he acts like a stoned 13 year old, sometimes I don't think he's sure where he is exactly or how he got there.
>mixes up foreign politicians
>claims to have met ones he didnt
>uses power to attack liberal competitors (almost 40 by now)
>wanted to separate quebec if he lost the general election
>takes random selfies
>including with a topless underage girl at mardi gras
>claims the baltic countries dont exist
>thinks the root cause of terrorism is exclusion
>faked spontaneously calling his pregnant wife during a speech
>faked falling down a flight of stairs
>thinks male babies should be aborted more often
>doesnt know what nato article 5 is (the only article that matters)
>wants to grow economy from the heart (wtf)
>laughs at ukrainian war and compares it to a hockey game with russia
>pays his nannies with state funds
>charges nonprofits for his presence
>admires dictatorships, especially chinese and north korean
>upon finding out what isis is, he thinks we should "drop parkas not bombs" (wtf)
>went to a wahhabi conference
>mosque he visited was run by extremist imam who believed in stoning raped women
>pretending to be muslim is punishable by death in sharia
>"we have to rethink elements as basic as space and time, to go all science fictiony on you in this sense"
He's talking about the economy here ^.
>socially obvious connection
You should do stand up with that kind of material.
Like I get what you're trying to do here, but it is kind of self-contradictory? You are implying that the connection he expects you to draw is not socially obvious in 2015, but for you to mock the connection that he's expecting you to draw, you have to know what that conclusion is--in other words, you have to have drawn the connection before you can dismiss it. Which means it *was* obvious to you, you just disagree with it.
Therefore, the comment you've made is entirely nonsensical.
why are you wasting so much effort on a retard from /pol/
i mean i know that paragraph probably took you a minute to cook up, but it's more than he deserves for his lazy trolling
Not for raising pharmacy prices though.
This is a verified account. And it posted this tweet. Fucking hilarious.
Bill Murray can still save us.
> you have to have drawn the connection before you can dismiss it
What are you talking about? The 'connection" we're supposed to draw is in the question. That's what this >>403383 is all about. It's possible to make any statement tailor made for it.
>why is your mom a whore
>because its 2015
"See if your mom wasn't a whore you wouldn't have drawn that connection, you have to draw that connection before you can dismiss it. Which means it *was* obvious to you, you just disagree with it."
- You Being Stupid
no one respond to this post so we can give up arguing on this stupid point
I mean it is fairly obvious that your mother is a whore.
>nuh uh! you are!
Are you five years old.
Adults come up with their own insults.
>I am an adult and you're not
Unoriginal as fuck.
And this is why we made the /pol/ SYM a separate thread.
When dealing with fellow adults, yes.
Are you implying that /pol/-kun is a child?
Are you saying you'd call a child's mother a whore for the child having different sociopolitical views than you?
Sorry Poke, I will definitely strive to be more polite to the white supremacist in the future.
Point to something white supremacist this guy has posted, if anything he swings to center LEFT.
He's using universally negative terms to dehumanize enemies and excuse his crude perceptions of them.
This is a common cult tactic, they use universally negative label words for outsiders who are against the cult, this makes it "ok" to hate them.
It doesn't surprise me that SJWs do it, the entire movement is a cult.
For example look at this girl.This person just arrived and she laid into him, they didn't talk before so she knows nothing about the guy. So why are insults like "incest supporting" used? Well because the non-sequitur insults out of thin air have a different purpose.
She's trying to make a person feel bad about himself, to neg him and break him down with random insults. On people with low self esteem it does work, so SJWs tend to prey on young people which fit in that category
This guy is obviously a bit too mature for that to work, listen at the end when she gets frustrated that her cult techniques aren't working.
Also kind of misogynistic to use that as an insult you bigots
>This is a common cult tactic, they use universally negative label words for outsiders who are against the cult, this makes it "ok" to hate them.
>It doesn't surprise me that SJWs do it, the entire movement is a cult.
Oh Joy Government cramming Patriot Act Part 2 into a massive spending "must pass" bill. Because we've not been told by whistle blowers that their datamining is already a crapshoot, lets add more data to it.
Governments solution to problems "just get bigger" clearly isn't working.
Notice how that doesn't label a person, but a philosophy/movement? You know, the things that labels are actually for? No of course you don't.
My suggestion for anyone in this cult is to get out of it before collectivism permanently damages your the ability to tell right from wrong.
>Governments solution to problems "just get bigger" clearly isn't working.
Eh, it works for some people.
Works for those with money, Speaker gets a nice shiny fence around his mansion while the rest of the country gets the bill. Rich of the world seem to the fortifying. Perhaps they know something they aren't telling us.
Probably that ponzi schemes don't last, not even when they're global scale.
>Notice how that doesn't label a person, but a philosophy/movement?
The philosophy of social justice, which states that entire groups of people defined by arbitrary superficial characteristics are to blame for the sins that their ancestors who had similar characteristics perpetrated towards other groups of people defined by different but just as arbitrary superficial characteristics.
Characteristics like skin shades or crotch shapes.
Oh and that individuals in the present day who have done nothing wrong must suffer to expiate the sins of random people in the past who are unrelated to them, but may share an arbitrary characteristic with the modern individual. Suspiciously, this expiation usually takes the shape of servicing the person who invented the entire flawed situation.
For example.... a modern Polish immigrant coming to America and being burdened with the sin of African-American slavery, and being commanded to donate to an SJW cult leader or he's racist. The Polish immigrant is confused because neither he nor his ancestors had anything to do with this, but he is blamed anyway and ordered to fork over cash because he may share the shade of skin or general crotch shape with a slave trader that died centuries ago.
Get out of the social justice cult son, it's not good for you.
You have a hateful and twisted view of the idea of social justice.
Oh I get it, you're a white guy, now it makes sense!
Speaking of, my life got immensely better when I installed the Chrome script that changes the word "SJW" to "Skeleton." It makes the people bitching about SJWs look even more hilariously crazy than they already are.
Where does the hate come from? Me who wants people to stop being harmed? Or the people adhering to an illogical system of beliefs that harm people?
Doing good for the sake of the group always turns into something immoral friend, because evil people can redefine groups so you end up doing good for the sake of the groups they belong to instead of the ones that need help. It is easy for evil people to define themselves out of the "bad group", and define their enemies into that same "bad group", this is how evil people work, how they have always worked. One day you will find yourself attacking good people in an arbitrarily defined "bad group" just like the woman in that video, and you will stand shoulder to shoulder with the real evil.
But I know these people, they have good intentions! You claim. Fine. Let's assume the leaders of social justice groups which are peddling bullshit and scamming donations have good intentions. It still doesn't matter, because (just as the example of the Polish immigrant) even with good intentions behind the arbitrary definitions, the lines and labels will never perfectly describe people and the innocent will always be harmed. So right off the bat you're signing up to do bad things to good people with the hope that the harm you do hurts more bad people than good.
This is morally and logically unsound.
What you mean to say is that my view is different enough to bother you, and the reason it does is because you have never looked at reality from this perspective. This is not your fault and no burden is put upon your shoulders, you are in fact encouraged NOT to look at the flaws of social justice. This is common for all dogmas.
If you want to see the truth look into what social justice means.... I never lied in my post. The definitions of social justice and acts of social justice warriors are all public, I encourage you to find the stories that do not fit in.
I don't know if you even read this deep into the post, but for the time being let's forget the empiricism of "google it m8" and try to arrive at some basic flaws of social justice through inductive reason.
First the axiom: Justice is essentially morality and fairness with all the arbitrary parts excised and the remainder clearly defined. Because of this, all actions guided by philosophies other than justice are by definition unjust themselves, because they would have been one of the excluded parts that constitute "revenge" (or something similar).
Now the induction: Either social justice has the same meaning as justice, or it does not. If they mean the same thing, then why use the additional word? If they do not mean the same thing, if social justice means something different from justice, then "something different from/other than justice" is by definition "injustice."
I'll say it one more time, leave the cult. You still have a choice. Leaving is not yet punishable by death. It's true you will probably leave behind some people you consider friends right now, and that seems like the END OF THE UNIVERSE to a lot of people.... but it's better than the road you're heading down, you don't have to trust me on that.
If I say no, will you be more likely to listen to what is truth.
Is truth more compelling coming from the mouth of a person of Sub-Saharan African stock, because people of similar shade were mistreated at some point in history by people who have similar shades to me.
What about a member of the Boko Haram, is the truth from a darker shade mouth still compelling.
Barring language, does truth sound different coming from the mouth of a Mexican Hispanic denied citizenship in the United States.
What about a Hispanic from the European country of Spain, their descendants are likely related to the descendants of Spanish colonists in Mexico, does the truth have a different quality coming from there.
Does truth have a different flavor to it coming from the mouth of a Japanese citizen thrown into concentration camps by the American government. What about a Japanese soldier using his bayonet to move the bodies of the children he has killed, is the flavor of truth the same from that source.
Is truth more right or wrong coming from the mouth of a disadvantaged Muslim. What about the mouth of a Turkish Muslim, whose ethnicity took part in imperialism and colonialism.
If I say my people were enslaved by Turks for 500 years, lasting from before the start of the American slave trade to long after if was finished, will you be more likely to listen to what is truth.
Either you will take truth from any mouth, or you will make your home in the land of falsehood.
Truth can come from any mouth, it just isn't coming from yours.
Is that so.
Do you recall what I wrote about people who believe in social justice standing shoulder to shoulder with evil? I wasn't being figurative, it often literally happens.
Like those wanting to ban "hate speech" (disagreement with SJWs) on facebook standing shoulder to shoulder with Anetta Kahane, a former member of Stasi.
The Stasi, the Nazis, and Social Justice. One thing in common, they define people by arbitrary labels, assign arbitrary sins to that group, and hurt the innocent for for looking like that group.
Proud of living in an automated bubble.
You have my condolences.
Well anyway, I hope I thinned the bubble somewhat, even if I didn't destroy it.
I'll leave you now in peace to think about what we discussed, or to choose not to think.
>One thing in common, they define people by arbitrary labels, assign arbitrary sins to that group, and hurt the innocent for for looking like that group
Nothing like you, obviously.
>Do you recall what I wrote about people who believe in necromancy standing shoulder to shoulder with evil?
Oh sure, everyone says that. Don't forget that healing spells are also necromancy though, my friend! At least in fifth edition. In earlier editions I think they might've been conjuration.
>they define people by arbitrary labels
"Social Justice Warriors".
>assign arbitrary sins to that group
Wanting "offensive" or "hurtful" speech banned everywhere ever.
>and hurt the innocent for looking like that group.
Conflating people who maybe think Internet services should do more to combat hate speech/harassment with actual literal Nazis.
Social Justice Warriors are pretty well defined. Stop pretending they don't exist, academia bullshit prove they do.
Also define hate speech/harassement. Cause for now , it seems to be conflated with mocking and disagreement.
Yeah, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. Stone already typed a book trying to explain to you what harassment is, and I'm not about to waste time doing the same thing, given it hasn't stuck to you. And if you care to play that entire "but it's not MEEEEE. I'm the OTHER right wing moron" game that you /pol/tards love to play, go read through the last couple of politics threads, which should be easy to find given how slow this place is.
And to anyone reading this, don't respond to him until he comes up with some new "le ebin trole" material.
Define them then, because in internet reactionary it means "anyone to the left of Francisco Franco" or "anyone remotely offended by racist or sexist language."
"Hate Speech" is a legal and social term. It has various definitions depending on jurisdiction; Canada defines it as "advocating genocide" or "inciting hatred against any "identifiable group", "communicating statements, other than in private conversation, "advocating genocide" or "willfully inciting hatred against any identifiable group." The American Bar Association defines it as speech that speech that "offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits." The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the protected status of hate speech that is not defamatory of individuals (races and religions are too large to be deemed affected by slander) or inciting immediate violence.
>First the axiom: Justice is essentially morality and fairness with all the arbitrary parts excised and the remainder clearly defined. Because of this, all actions guided by philosophies other than justice are by definition unjust themselves, because they would have been one of the excluded parts that constitute "revenge" (or something similar).
If that was the case, then everyone would just call their phisosophy justice because that's what they think it is, and no one would be able to talk about philosophies because every philosophy would be called the same thing.
>Now the induction: Either social justice has the same meaning as justice, or it does not. If they mean the same thing, then why use the additional word?
To refer to a subset of the process of bringing about justice, or to distinguish it from an implicitly asocial justice adhered to by others who do not go out of their way to point out that their idea of justice involves less concern for the effects of societal structure than is involved by what a social justice proponant sees as justuce.
>If they do not mean the same thing, if social justice means something different from justice, then "something different from/other than justice" is by definition "injustice."
No, as in addition to the above social justice could simply have differences that are considered arbitrary for the purpose of acertaining justice.
They're also an entirely derrogatory term, and treating them like a formally organized group makes about as much sense as presuming there's a League of That Guys who secretly conspire to ruin all of tabletop gaming, and not just a large number of people who all lack awareness of what they bring to a discussion.
>Canada defines it as "advocating genocide" or "inciting hatred against any "identifiable group", "communicating statements, other than in private conversation, "advocating genocide" or "willfully inciting hatred against any identifiable group."
Eh, not the best definition. A Canadian dude got charged under that law for disagreeing with a feminist. He didn't call for all women to be killed or anything, he just disagreed.
Meanwhile Bahar Mustafa gets off scott free literally saying "kill all men".
Hate speech laws are objectively bad.
Read thread before posting stupid I HAVE YOU NOW SKYWALKER posts.
If something isn't justice then it's injustice.
If you append any political philosophy to justice, it becomes injustice.
I think you're confusing justice for "what I want". Your desires are not justice.
And learn English fucker that post was hard as hell to read.
>Meanwhile Bahar Mustafa gets off scott free literally saying "kill all men".
That must be so triggering for you. Are you coping with it okay?
>If you append any political philosophy to justice, it becomes injustice.
Justice itself is a concept varying depending on the social and political climate of the day. At one point, returning a runaway slave to the owner was justice because you were returning stolen property.
> At one point, returning a runaway slave to the owner was justice
Uh, no dude, that was never just.
Justice covers everyone equally, that slave wasn't covered, therefore that wasn't justice. Same thing for assuring women and men without property are not prevented from voting.
This is one of the main reason why the West fought a centuries long campaign to exterminate slavery and fight injustice around the world.
You're confusing interpretations of law with justice. Which is retarded because by that logic sharia law is just.
>You're confusing interpretations of law with justice.
It's the Justice System, dude. You may not like to acknowledge it, but the legal system is absolutely and unquestionably one of the meanings of the term Justice. You're trying to redefine the term to fit your argument, because you've come up with some sort of inane philosophy you want to support. But you can't assume everyone else is going to accept your ideolect as meaningful.
>by that logic sharia law is just
It is just—to people who absolutely believe in the precepts of Sharia law. "Justice” is a nebulous concept with a meaning that changes based on who you ask (and when you ask them). bin Laden likely thought 9/11 was “justice” for America’s “crimes”. Lots of people think state-sponsored executions of heinous criminals are “justice”. I’ll even bet on Christians in Texas thinking the defeat of HERO was “justice” for “those who hold traditional values”. You can come up with an idea of what you think justice means. You might even get some people to agree with it. But good fucking luck with getting all seven billion people in the world to agree on the same definition.
OK we've come to rule 3, SJWs always project....
Let me ask you something. If all laws are already just, meaning perfectly equitable, then why is it that we need judges to interpret the fairness of laws? Why do we need lawyers or lawmakers to change laws anymore?
Talk to anyone concerned with law, dude. They will tell you interpretations of law aren't always correct. Their careers are based on that fact.
"Sharia Law is Just"
Mr. Stone !zWb42fBPMM - 2015
Justice isn't concerned with countries or groups of people fucktard, it is concerned with a single person as the most indivisible part of society.
>"Justice” is a nebulous concept
So are jet engine mechanics to someone who doesn't understand it. To those that understand it, it seems precisely defined. You clearly don't understand justice and have nothing to contribute on the subject.
I agree anonymous, women SHOULD learn their place.
>"Sharia Law is Just" - Mr. Stone !zWb42fBPMM - 2015
Removing the context of my quote doesn’t make your point for you.
>Justice isn't concerned with countries or groups of people fucktard, it is concerned with a single person as the most indivisible part of society.
Even so, “justice” is still a nebulous concept with a definition that changes from person to person. The individual family members and friends of, say, a murder victim might believe in different forms of “justice” vis-á-vis the fate of the murderer. The victim's parents might believe life in prison is “justice”. Another family member might want the murderer to die (“eye for an eye”). The victim's spouse might think a limited prison term with a focus on rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society is a proper punishment. And that definition might also depend on the circumstances of the murder itself. Beyond that, there’s the notion of who gets the final say in what “justice” for the victim truly is. If you’re going to talk about “justice” as a concrete idea with a single defintion that everyone can agree on, you need to address these flaws in your argument.
>So are jet engine mechanics to someone who doesn't understand it. To those that understand it, it seems precisely defined. You clearly don't understand justice and have nothing to contribute on the subject.
Much like Quantum Physics, if you think aren't confused by the rules of justice, you haven't understood it. In your case, you're just a manichean who thinks that manichean philosophy applies to everyone, like any other religious bigot trying to write off infidels.
>nebulous [adjective; neb·u·lous \ ne-byə-ləs] — not clear; difficult to see, understand, describe, etc.
I am no illiterate. “Justice” is still a nebulous concept. Its definition changes from person to person and is informed in part by the individual’s lived experience.
Well, since you're an idiot, I'll help you out with understanding how words work:
The problem is, anon, you are a) assuming a universal concept of justice, b) assuming that it aligns perfectly with your sense of fairness, and c) assuming our current system of law aligns with it.
The latter two are decidedly false--every individual sense of fairness is the product of culture, upbringing, and personal experience, and every legal system is a compromise between moral absolutes and the vagaries of human behavior. The first is unknowable without access to God and His Magic Storeroom of Platonic Forms (along with, presumably, the perfect sandwich and a bluray of the perfect animu).
>The state or characteristic of being just or fair.
Two different 20-year-olds—one in America, one in, oh, let’s say Iran¹—are caught stealing a candy bar from a store. The American thief is sentenced to a couple of days in county lockup and a fine. The Iranian thief is sentenced to have a finger cut off. Iranians might view the American thief’s punishment as too lenient. Americans might view the Iraninan thief’s punishment as too harsh. But under each country’s legal system, the punishments are considered just/fair. When I talk about “the nebulous concept of justice”, I refer to how “justice” means different things to different people in different parts of the world.
¹ — I have no knowledge of Iran’s legal system. I chose the country because of its authoritarian regime. My piss-poor assumptions are not meant to disparage the average Iranian. I am a white lower-middle-class American dumbass from the South; forgive me my trespasses.
>a bluray of the perfect animu
Funimation already released Cowboy Bebop on BD, so we don't need God for that.
Exactly. For starters, one of the main places where "SJWs" and anti-SJWs differ in their sense of Fairness is that Social Justice is based on the concept that Equality of Opportunity must be enforced and preserved, while anti-SJWs, operating under the assumption that Equality has already been achieved (racism is over, sexism is over, etc.) try to act as though you can treat society as though it were color-blind / gender-blind / sexuality-blind, etc. and achieve fairness even without society having those traits. They argue that defending the rights of white straight christian males is SUPER NECESSARY because (since they mostly ARE straight white christian males who want to look out for their own wellbeing) their starting point is "Everything is already equal--therefore it's discrimination to give others "special privileges."
People who are disagree with the idea that everything is already equal are much more likely to agree that special concessions have to be made to grant social minorities to ensure that they have Equality of Opportunity. If black people are less likely to get jobs than white people due to racism, proponents of Equality of Opportunity who agree that society doesn't naturally GRANT Equality of Opportunity would be in favor of scenarios like Affirmative Action even if they disagree with individual aspects of Affirmative Action--because Equality of Opportunity doesn't currently exist and therefore must be compensated for with social reforms. Meanwhile those who deny that unfairness is built into the system as is--or who acknowledge that unfairness is built into the system but who feel that the law shouldn't do anything about it--will consider it Unfair/Unjust to do anything to ensure Equality of Opportunity at the expense of the aspects of Equality that they prefer to focus on.
There is a universal concept of justice, if there weren't, it wouldn't exist as a term of any meaning.
Honestly if you think justice is so nebulous and worthless just stop calling it Social Justice and start calling it Social.
No need to waste bytes on the word.
Hell I'll even stop calling you SJWs and start calling you SW.
>and c) assuming our current system of law aligns with it.
lol what's suggesting I assumed that?
Now you're confusing justice and punishment. Dumbass read a book. Goddamn.
>you're confusing justice and punishment
This is a definition listed on that Wikitionary link: “Judgment and punishment of a party who has allegedly wronged another.” Wanna try again?
If you want equality of opportunity you would be against affirmative action or diversity quotas, right? Social warriors want sameness of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
It's the #3 listed, and the CONTEXT you bitch about is colloquial usage where people substitute it for revenge. Next you'll find a Justice™ brand soft drink and claim justice is a fizzy pop.
>If you want equality of opportunity you would be against affirmative action or diversity quotas, right? Social warriors want sameness of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
Nope. Sorry. Your inability to understand simple concepts is hurting your ability to keep up with the conversation again.
>the CONTEXT you bitch about is colloquial usage where people substitute it for revenge
I listed several examples where people would think of “lesser” punishments for serious crimes as justice, then contrasted those with “harsher” punishments. Some people can easily conflate “justice” with revenge; that makes a single definition of “justice” (at least in terms of “fairness”) hard to reach.
Feel free to address my comment by talking about and countering what it says, instead of talking around it.
Study more. Take some actual classes on civics and sociology.
You're still talking around it friend.
I'm sure you have something resembling a backbone or courage somewhere.
Backbone and courage have very little (read: nothing) to do with not wanting to explain concepts that can be googled in the year of our lord, 2015.
Same reason (and don't derail with this comment) I don't talk gun control with gun nuts anymore. They don't understand the concepts and think that stricter background checks somehow mean taking everyone's guns away. After a certain point, you stop bothering, because the people you're speaking with are either too stupid to understand concepts or are being disingenuous.
>think that stricter background checks somehow mean taking everyone's guns away.
Honest, good-faith question: in what way would you change the way the US's system of background checks to ensure tighter gun safety?
Here’s a smarter idea: http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/12/08/missouri-gun-bill-echoes-abortion-limits.htm
Cute. But I'm really weary of both sides of the gun mainstream debate. Liberals think that they're somehow protecting people when really, they're just further criminalizing the poor, minorities, and the mentally ill without addressing the underlying social causes of violence in general (firearm or otherwise) and leaving them at the mercy of a state that is not on their side. Conservatives want guns to bolster the pre-existing social dominance of their constituents and as props for their reactionary fantasies.
>Liberals think that they're somehow protecting people when really, they're just further criminalizing the poor, minorities, and the mentally ill without addressing the underlying social causes of violence in general (firearm or otherwise) and leaving them at the mercy of a state that is not on their side.
Every other civilized state has similar class/ethnicity issues but way less gun massacres.
>the mentally ill
The mentally ill are no more prone to violence than anyone else, statistically speaking. We definitely have a mental health issue in this country, but the issue isn't "a bunch of crazy people are shooting people." It's "mental health issues are so stigmatized and misunderstood in this country that gun nuts use us as scapegoats for irresponsible and/or angry young criminals and terrorists so they can make sure no one can have an honest discussion about gun control."
Conversely, there are countries that have high rates of civilian firearm ownership (including, in the instance of the Czech Republic, carry permits for ordinary citizens) without our levels of violence. Conversely, there are nations with stricter laws but higher rates of violence (many Central American nations and Jamaica, for example).
And while other nations have similar issues, they are not identical. America has cultural factors at play that even similar nations like Canada and Australia lack. That isn't to argue some sort of American Exceptionalism, just that our unique historical circumstances need to be taken into account as much as the historical circumstances of Japan or Lithiania would need to be. Not every nation is built of colonization the way America, Canada, and Australia are, or have histories of slavery the same as ours. Not every nation shares a border with a nation it took nearly half their land from, which is also in the second decade of a narco war.
In many other countries, there are often less gaping wealth gaps, better health care, and less diverse populations (that is not to argue that minorities cause crime, but rather, majority reaction is a large component of our violence is either majority reactionism-be it the KKK or the Charleston shooting, or the sort of violence that attends the poverty and alienation discrimination and abuse produce.)
I agree entirely. The mental I'll are scapegoats for gun violence. It's far easier to blame a small and already disfavored group than accept that "normal", "sane" people can desire and carry out evil, and it's far easier to make their lives harder than address the evil on our "normal healthy" society
Abortion isn't covered by the constitution nor s abortion necessary for maintaining liberty from foreign or domestic powers. No one would agree the same restrictions be placed on speech or religion.
It's stupid on multiple levels as well, it implies that anyone who buys a gun is morally corrupt. Most gun owners already have a good sense of empathy, evidenced by the fact that 90 million gun owners never commit murders. If this stupidity was enacted, a criminal wouldn't be bothered by dead babies or whatever stupid bullshit you want to show them, it would only bother people with a strong sense of empathy. So this law is not targeted at criminals, it's targeted at law abiding people.
The only laws criminals respond to are ones with a cop and a bullet reliably waiting for them if they break it, these voluntary bullshit REGULATIONS don't affect the criminal world in the slightest.
Well you said it, I didn't. Name a civilized country with 60% or fewer monoculture which has a lower homicide rate.
>there are countries that have high rates of civilian firearm ownership
>there are nations with stricter laws but higher rates of violence
This is the rule, not the exception. Countries with more firearms restrictions tend to be more violent.
Gun ownership among law abiding people has no effect on homicide, this is true on international scale...
... and on national scale.
Thinking that holding a gun infuses you with the gun spirit which makes people into criminals is hogwash. The causes of crime are deeply seated psychological factors, not a hunk of metal people can hold.
the sources for these graphs are publicly available firearms ownership rates and homicide rates. they can be found by googling "firearms ownership by country" and "homicide rate by country". the relationship can be checked in fifteen minutes by plugging the values into excel, selecting the columns, and clicking "plot graph". so please no attacking sources.
55% of Americans support banning Muslim immigration, 45% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans.
Holy shit son.
And people wonder how Hitler rose to power.
>His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
— from an assessment of Adolph Hitler by the United States Office of Strategic Services
"The fascists find their human material mainly in the petty bourgeoisie. The latter has been entirely ruined by big capital. There is no way out for it in the present social order, but it knows of no other. Its dissatisfaction, indignation, and despair are diverted by the fascists away from big capital and against the workers. It may be said that fascism is the act of placing the petty bourgeoisie at the disposal of its most bitter enemies. In this way, big capital ruins the middle classes and then, with the help of hired fascist demagogues, incites the despairing petty bourgeoisie against the worker."
--Leon Trotsky, "Whither France?" (1934)
Lets get rid of guns so when Trump's boys come round shouting Moslem Heraus we have nothing to answer them with but meek compliance.
The fascists find their human material in the same place where the communists find their human material, this is why it was so easy for Nazis to convert Weimar Bolsheviks into the SS.
>The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind.
Really good read.
Solid stuff and I'll definitely have to get that book. Ty, Stone.
Two issues, vis-a-vis, "rights vs. freedoms", is that freedom require a means to exercise. What good is a freedom without the means to enjoy it; who has the freedom to assemble to demand redress when you're working two shifts and lack the money and time for political activity? Or for that matter, the freedom to refuse to serve gays and lesbians when your hardware store has been priced-out of business by home depot, our your bakery by the Ralph's bakery counter and the celebrity-owned gourmet cupcake chain? It seems two classes of people favor the "freedom" side: A small but powerful one that will actually benefit from that "freedom", and another, larger that merely imagines they will.
As for "rights", as the article defines it, who decides them? Who enforces them? And what incentive does a state have for protecting the rights of a minority, especially a despised one, like the newly-freed slaves? The slaves were eventually abandoned, and the old order, altered a bit to fit the de jure end of slavery, was swiftly restored. The Northerners, by and large, were more concerned with the politics and economics of succession than the rights of the slaves, and when the will for Reconstruction was exhausted, so too was their protection. The same repeated with the Civil Rights Movement, only this time it was the social pressure of the oppressed group that moved the ruling class to action. A few laws were signed, major changes did occur, but in time the same dynamics rolled back in, and we got mass incarceration and the rise of the modern GOP and its Southern, small government (ie: "fuck poor people, black ones in particular") strategy.
While a good analysis, it ultimately loops around to the powerless being at the mercy of the powerful; the same class of people who want "freedom" are those who are supposed to uphold our "rights". Granted, one is lawful neutral-to-lawful evil, while the other is lawful-to-chaotic evil, but still.
>phrase "conservative rhetoric" in first sentence
This isn't going to be biased.
>Rights on the other hand, only exist if society provides some method of enforcement.
Yeah this guy is dumb. The entire bill of rights is a restriction on what the government can do.
>Yeah this guy is dumb. The entire bill of rights is a restriction on what the government can do.
...you mean methods of enforcing the protection of those rights? Yes, I'm glad you agree and are following the conversation then.
>This isn't going to be biased.
I’ve mentioned in the past that Weekly Sift has a liberal-leaning bias. I’ve never tried to mislead anyone into thinking otherwise.
>Lets get rid of guns so when Trump's boys come round shouting Moslem Heraus we have nothing to answer them with but meek compliance.
Ahaha you think anyone is going to buy that you care about the rights and safety of Muslims.
First amendment says the government can't restrict speech or religion.
Second amendment says the government can't restrict gun ownership.
Third amendment says the government can't house soldiers on private land.
Fourth amendment says the government won't search people without cause.
And so on until the tenth, which restricts federal government from interfering with the state government.
Bill of rights is entirely a restriction on what the government can do.
Well gun-control was originally proposed to disarm minorities in a form of Actual Oppression, so he's not really off-base.
It's not so much that he's saying he doesn't know the history, he's saying that the other guy is likely concern trolling.
DARN IT BLACKS SHOULDN'T OWN GUNS!
>French Black Code
>Louisiana colonists must stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat "any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane"
Really glad that cop beat a black dude up for using a golf club as a cane.
>U.S. officials arrive in New Orleans
>Take charge of new American territory by disarming the existing free black militia, and otherwise excluding "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews
They just can't be trusted.
>North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms
>North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms for citizens only (free blacks not included)
They took rrrr drrrr.
No I'm just faking my love of Muslims in order to protect Mexicans, who are my true love.
Nobody is fooled by this, except maybe Poke who's going to be right there with you voting Trump anyway.
Boy, it must make it pretty easy to fool yourself into thinking you're always right when you can just make things up in your head about your "enemies."
When you constantly act like a /pol/tard, you can't get upset that people label you as such.
>what incentive does a state have for protecting the rights of a minority
Their incentive is they get shot by guns if they come after the rights of a minority.
>if you dont agree with me on every iota facet of my worldview, that must mean you eat babies you fucking nazi
Who the hell taught you manners? This is an imageboard, there's a clear record of what everyone said. None of the people you're trying to misrepresent have said anything like what you claim, you are lying and your lying is easy to expose.
For example Slowpoke and the /pol/ guy have consistently made anti-trump posts, and now you say they're both trump voters.
You're a dirty little liar.
So let me put this in language you understand: Everyone gets that your mom took antidepressants while you were gestating which fucked up your brain something fierce, but that don't give you free rein to act the jackass.
>Their incentive is they get shot by guns if they come after the rights of a minority.
Unless those minorities are muslims, of course. In which case they get to go to camp.
>"Sharia Law is Just"
>Mr. Stone !zWb42fBPMM - 2015
lol he might be a hillary supporter
Stop trying to start shit about a subject you don't comprehend.
>that must mean you eat babies you fucking nazi
Well, you said it, not us. Anything else you want to confess to us? I'm all ears.
Removing my quote from its context doesn’t make your point for you.
>As for "rights", as the article defines it, who decides them? Who enforces them?
Generally, people sympathetic to those minoroties. This sympathy is garnered in different ways, but I suspect one source of it is that once there are enough things to be considered a minority on, those in the majority in everything are themnselves a minority. If rights gorups would mutually benefit from aiding each other, for instance if both stand to gain a right to vote on something of public interest, then they can work together and cause the change towards a minority-respecting regime. Hence women's sufferage allying with the civil rights movement.
>And what incentive does a state have for protecting the rights of a minority, especially a despised one, like the newly-freed slaves?
Really, this is based on the details of what incentives the state has in general. In the case of freed slaves, it probably involved being part of a larger state that was already supporting them to begin with, meaning people trying to act agisnt the rights of minorities had to deal with those minorities and their supporters being able to freely travel in and out of areas that locally gave them greater protections, which lets them more easily regroup and gather to plan mass actions in support of the cuase.
Oh, right, those actions would consist of demonstrations orchestrated to sway public opinion, by either going unappossed and thus appearing ever more popular or meeting such levels of resistance as to let them claim martyrdom. Just repeating the message over and over in public really does a lot.
You know what... I'm not sure we actually have a Trump supporter here. Not a single one.
ARE YOU COMING TO THE DEATH SQUAD RALLY, FELLOW TRUMP SUPPORTER?
Trump looking to make the Republicans eat themselves and implode makes me want to see him get nomination.
Democrats lining up to show they can be bought by anyone with a big enough Checkbooks also heading for implosion but it'll be a little longer as ther coffers run dry and they continue to lose state legislatures.
3rd parties and independents could make some serious gains this turn, if they would get off their asses before September.
>3rd parties and independents could make some serious gains this turn, if they would get off their asses before September.
Not really. The way the American system works, a third party candidate winning the presidential election is effectively impossible. You can't just get the most votes of any candidate, you have to get more than 50% of the electoral votes in the country to win, and even the most successful third party candidate would have zero chance of that. Third party candidates are only there to take votes away from their nearest analog between the Democrats and Republicans.
Not for the presidency at least with this one but they could make some gains in the lower elections such as senate and congress. Presidency is still too much a "Its your turn" Bullshit which is why its come to bite them in the ass with Hillary for the Democrats since her health is really becoming a question if she'd even make it four years or be able to handle the long hours.
On the GOP side they wanted their secure Figurehead Beltway in Jeb or Rubio but they've been shitting on the base too much and now putting on the facade as much as they have in the past and its shot that whole game all to hell hence they've ended with a front runner that hates politicians almost as much as the base they've created.
A breakup of a major party would lead to a new two party dynamic. Platforms would adjust, constituencies would migrate, but it'd be the same game with different actors. A GOP breakup and the emergence of another right of center party might lead to the abandonment of southern evangelicals as a key constituency, and the elevation of business interests over culture wars.
Aside from local and levels or very rare instances, independents don't have a chance of benefitting much without changes to campaign finance. Unless you're trump or richer, you need a party apparatus to run a campaign. The system isn't set up for it, by design, I might add.
True in part because they were supposed to operate as servants of the people and of the states with little to no paymemt for the job.
System we've got now is the worst scenario founders could have imagined. Representatives paying little heed to those they serve and more interested in growing fat off of them.
Trump breaking part of that system by not greasing palms or paying the usual election kingmakers is a start to weakening their power.
>Trump looking to make the Republicans eat themselves and implode
Hillary is a greater threat in that regard.
The best candidate so far is being attacked because he has a penis.
Last heard Sanders is outpacing her in funding. But she's bankrolling the DNC which is headed by a Clinton friend. So unless she gets blown out in the primaries the fix is in fpr the dems.
There are also accusations being tossed around that the DNC is rigging the process for Hillary. One such accusation says the DNC deliberately booked the few Democrat debates at times where there would be fewer viewers watching (the last debate was held opposite a Saturday night football game) so not as many people would see Sanders in said debates.
>Trump breaking part of that system by not greasing palms or paying the usual election kingmakers is a start to weakening their power.
Donald Trump, man of the (white) people
I love Sanders, but there are quite a few misogynists among his followers, and Bernie really ought to make a stand and tell those people not to follow him so as to distance himself from their bullshit for the same reason that if Trump doesn't want to be associated with white supremacy he should come out against those elements of his fanbase. I firmly believe Bernie will do more for women's rights than Hilary will, but I also think he ought to tell off those members of his fanbase who are following him more to stick it to Hilary than to follow him that they need to grow up.
>guys, I'm serious, don't vote for me. I disapprove of you and your ilk supporting me, and I gotta say, find a new candidate.
that's a pretty good strategy.
For the first time ever, poke is correct, a good politician cannot be openly and ideologically pure, they have to be willing to make use of unsavoury people and methods for the greater good
>For the first time ever, poke is correct
It happens every once in a while.
It's not about ideological purity. It's about saying "Hey, I don't want to be President so bad I'll accept support from X." Like in Donald Trump's case, "I don't want to be President so bad I'll embrace the support of David Duke." Or in Sanders' case, "I don't want to be President so bad I'll accept the support of people who are only against Hilary because she's a woman." Part of Bernie's strength as a person is a willingness to give up strategic advantages when they're wronghearted--like when he went to bat for Hillary about the email scandal during that one debate.
well hey that's the kind of ethics i would hope people would have if all that were on the line is a class presidency, or an employee of the month title.
>I love Sanders, but there are quite a few misogynists among his followers
Name 20..... or maybe this is bullshit. Why aren't you asking Hillary to distance herself from the vast sums of money she's receiving from corporations that run prisons for Mexican immigrants?
Because you're swallowing the character attacks by Hillary, the same propaganda that dirty money is buying. Hook, line and sinker.
>Name 20..... or maybe this is bullshit. Why aren't you asking Hillary to distance herself from the vast sums of money she's receiving from corporations that run prisons for Mexican immigrants?
Go to any thread with Bernie Sanders supporters in it, bring up Hillary, and watch the gendered insults flow. I don't know these people's names because they're mostly anonymous internet commentators, but they are present in pretty much every conversation I've seen. A lot of his followers aren't following him because they believe in his cause, but because they hate Hillary, and a lot of them hate her because she's a woman rather than because of legit reasons to think she's not the best candidate. I say this not as someone who has listened to Hillary's character attacks, but as someone who has been in Bernie events for the last year and constantly see the dudebros heaping scorn on Hillary not for legitimate reasons, but for reasons like "she's ugly" or because she didn't handle Bill's adultery the way they think she should have, or any number of other things that have no justification being brought up as reasons to prefer Bernie. Monica Lewinsky should not have anything to do with this election, and yet I still see her brought up when people go to attack Hillary, because the first thing they think of when they want to discredit her isn't "She is too cozy with wall street," it's "she couldn't satisfy her husband." And that's fucked up.
OK so you or someone you know sort of got the vibe that some people in Bernie rallies don't like Hillary because of Lewinsky. Have you considered that they might be plants? She has like four times more money and for now Bernie is her chief competitor, I wouldn't be surprised if she paid off the BLM girls to interrupt.
Not to say I don't believe you because I've spoken with Bernie supporters myself, but I'd really like to see a few articles where Bernie supporters are being bigoted a some kind of paper trail. Because so far I've linked articles where Hillary supporters outright saying not to vote for Bernie because he has a penis.
Only SJWs and actual Nazis think Trump is popular because the majority of the country is Nazi.
Trump is popular because the Democrats and GOP have lost touch with the people, the people are sick of political correctness, and they're grasping for any alternative.
It could have been the guy with the boot on the head.
Trump is deeply, deeply unpopular. He just has a loud fanbase in the minority of the Republican party. Being well liked by 15% of the country and hated by the rest (remember, Trump has the highest unfavorability of any candidate, in both parties--even Hilary and Sanders' unfavorable rating among Republicans is not as high as Trump's) is not that impressive.
People aren't "sick of political correctness," (the only people who even spare any thought for political correctness are people who act like assholes to other people then resent it when people treat them like the assholes they are) they're having fun watching a trainwreck.
>Trump is deeply, deeply unpopular.
>Being well liked by 15% of the country
The next three guys can't put together enough of the vote to beat him in the RNC. He's going to win the RNC and get the party vote. He's also doing better among independents than any other candidate, and even 1 in 5 Democrats support him for fucks sake. If it's him vs Hillary, then he's going to wipe the floor with her unless she has him shot.
Only Bernie has a better independent vote than Trump, but the DNC are doing their best to stop him from getting the nomination.
>People aren't sick of political correctness.
73% of USA disagree with you. That number is climbing since 2010, so no "right side of history" for you.
Not "Nazi", that'd imply some degree of ideology, but definitely proto-fascist. As the quote I posted above said, the white middle class in this country is disaffected and feels under assault, economically and culturally. Trump, by attacking immigrants and China, NAFTA and minorities, and promising to "make America great again" (wink wink) appeals to that resentment. See>>403673
The only group people sick of "political correctness" are straight white dudes who don't want to acknowledge minorities.
Also, as stated earlier, several threads ago, political correctness is for politicians. For the rest of us, it's called "not being an asshole."
When people complain about PC, it is almost always a person complaining that he can't get away with saying fuckshit about women or minorities anymore.
>Have you considered that they might be plants?
What is it with dipshits on the internet and thinking all the toxic people that they're surrounded by are "plants" or "false flaggers"?
It's far more likely that you're just surrounded by shitty people. And if it bothers you that people take notice of these shitty people, do your part to kicking them out of your group instead of coming up with batshit crazy off-the-wall conspiracies as to why they're there in the first place.
Like I don't get it. Instead of going through mental gymnastics to explain why these awful people in groups, why don't you just extend the middle finger to them and tell them to fuck off?
Trump is good at campaigning, so good in fact that Obama is taking pages from his book.
The largest contribution to Trump are idiots who keep dismissing him and ignoring him. Trump wouldn't have half the power he has now if media paid attention to him when he was starting out and still making mistakes. Instead they ignored him because "he's just a clown".
Now it's too late and he has an actual power base.
If the GOP didn't win in 2012 by appealing solely to old white people, I don't think there's much of a chance for it to work this time, given everything they say and propose is more extreme.
62% of population are non hispanic whites.
Women are 52% of the population due to biology, and I guess you don't count gay white men or white transpeople, so... a bit less than half of the 62% are cis white men.
So under 30% of the general population might be cis white men.
Meanwhile... 73% of the general population is against PC speech....
Your math is a bit off.
>Your math is a bit off.
Funny how I at no point posted any numbers. You also managed to ignore the context of what I said, so congrats.
>get offended whenever someone mistakes you for someone else
>do little to dispel this
>The next three guys can't put together enough of the vote to beat him in the RNC. He's going to win the RNC and get the party vote. He's also doing better among independents than any other candidate, and even 1 in 5 Democrats support him for fucks sake. If it's him vs Hillary, then he's going to wipe the floor with her unless she has him shot.
He has the support of about a third of Republicans, which make up a little less than half the country. It would take less than two of the next two frontrunners to beat his numbers in the primaries, and the GOP is almost certainly going to spare no expense to ensure he cannot win against an Establishment candidate.
>He has the support of about a third of Republicans
When did two thirds of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for Trump if he won RNC? Are you the guy who fucked up his calculations earlier?
I said he "has the support" of 1/3, not that his disapproval rate is 2/3rds among republicans. Is disapproval rate is the highest of any candidate by a long shot. No one has Trump as their second choice, though. So anyone who isn't already planning to vote for him in the primary is unlikely to do so. And is unlikely to vote for him for President. If he somehow manages to get the nomination for the Republican primary, the Democrats will unquestionably win in 2016 (the only Republican candidate who really stands a chance against Hillary or Bernie based on current polling is Marco Rubio), and it will likely deal a serious blow to the stability of the Republican party in general.
>not that his disapproval rate is 2/3rds among republicans
OK but you said it immediately after,
>anyone who isn't already planning to vote for him in the primary is unlikely to do so
So fess up, when did two thirds of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for Trump if he won RNC? This would be huge news and I heard nothing of it.
>So fess up, when did two thirds of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for Trump if he won RNC? This would be huge news and I heard nothing of it.
I was talking about in the primaries.
>interesting how you agree with other people hmmm
You ALSO get real offended when people call you a /pol/tard and yet mysteriously only ever come to the aid of /pol/tards
Slowpoke is a dipshit who capes for racist right wingers. It's old news, fam.
Whenever I or someone else tries to rile up /pol/tard, he jumps to their defense with the efficiency of a minuteman, but when they do the same to everyone else, he stays silent.
>Anywhere dude. If Trump is losing votes I need to know about it.
No one has Trump as a second choice. He's first or last. Current polls show him at about one third of republicans nationwide. The two candidates with the strongest followings aside from him also have about a third of the vote each, but neither is as close to a third as he is. But the only candidate from whom Trump is going to pick up any voters if he drops out is Ben Carson. Meanwhile, if Rubio or Jeb or Cruz or Christie or Fiorina or Paul drops out (which they almost certainly will--especially Paul and Jeb, who aren't likely to keep their campaigns going for much longer), everyone EXCEPT Trump gets more votes--because again, Trump is no one's second choice. He is first or last. That is a bad position to be in with a field this stratified. If he only had one other serious candidate to face (like Hillary), "First or Last" wouldn't be a big deal. Butt with the better part of a dozen candidate still remaining? That's a terrible position to be in.
Vegas odds still favor Rubio over Trump by a wide margin. And they tend to know their business. Five thirty eight also considers Trump's chances of getting the nomination fairly low, in the 10-20% range--about the same as Bernie Sanders.
This used to be because i actually cared about my "side" actually looking decent and maintaining a respectable image, so I'd call out the more liberal folks on being twats, while not caring what the Nazi idiots did.
Now i just think most of you are at least kind of sociopaths, so i don't really have a side anymore, i just interject when i feel like it.
Relax I'm still here. Just decided to speak their language for a bit. BTW do you really think I'm racist or nazi???
>Now i just think most of you are at least kind of sociopaths
You don't know what a sociopath is.
But I do know for certain you're an idiot. Merry Christmas, retard.
>But I do know for certain you're an idiot. Merry Christmas, retard.
I stopped taking this thread seriously before you started namefagging, so i don't know or care. If you aren't, cool. If you are, it wouldn't surprise me given the utter lack of empathy or morality displayed by basically every other person in this entire thread except for that poor innocent fella who thinks sticking to your convictions and remaining pure of character is worth throwing away your chance to rule the world for a minimum of four years.
There's nothing to "see" about that. I've long grown tired of your act and treat you accordingly. If you don't want me to treat you like the /pol/tards we have here, then understand where I'm coming from.
When you have some dipshit here spouting his tired sexist/racist/retarded shit here, you start to lose patience with this person. You want everyone to treat this shit like an academic debate when retards like /pol/kun are in no way deserving of it. They create strawmen, are disingenuous, and only post here to rile people up. After a while, this gets tiring. Imagine trying to explain the age of the earth to the most staunch of evangelical Christians. After a while, nothing is sticking, and you've no desire to approach it from a rational viewpoint. What does it matter? It doesn't matter how well I argue or what facts I bring up. He doesn't fucking care.
Well, this is why I do it. You honestly want me to treat some retarded fucknugget on the internet with even the tiniest iota of respect. Fuck him. And I respond to you harshly because you defend it. If he came in here tomorrow and said, "FUCK NIGGERS, JEWS, AND FAGGOTS" you'd probably defend him, all because I'm not treating him with the "respect" he deserves. He doesn't deserve coddling, and he sure as fuck doesn't deserve my respect. If you don't want to get caught up in the crossfire, stop white-knighting fucksticks.
Also all this "lacking empathy" is real funny, because it sounds like that "How dare you be intolerant to my intolerance!" bullshit I see all too often in internet circles.
Not everyone is deserving of respect, just like not all ideas or opinions are equal.
You know I mostly agree with you but can we drop "retard" from the lexicon because that's kind of diluting the message.
Fucknugget's fair game though, carry on with that one.
I mean hey, if that's the way you want to respond when I actually put effort in a post and try to explain my position, then fine. Go fuck yourself, you remedial jackass.
Sorry, my position it kinda seemed more like you were getting in my face, so to speak.
It's fine. I'm not going to tone myself down. I feel strongly about the issues I talk about here. Many of which have something to do with either me or someone close to me. I'm not going to act polite when people take an extreme opposite on a position that would greatly affect me or people I know. So yes, I get heated, and I care little for feelings. Maybe you think that makes me "sociopathic" but I can't sit here and be concerned with feelings while other people are being treated like second class citizens. And yes, I may get angry, but why shouldn't I?
Is late and I'm tired so I'm not gonna go into a lengthy post, but the answer (which hilariously actually involves empathy) is that if you, in your eyes, calmly stated your opinions and a member of an opposing party came up and went "YAR GO SUCK A QUEERS NUTS YEH FAT CUNT" it would do absolutely nothing to change your mind and would actually delegitimize his cause in your eyes.
in this story, you play the role of the angry Irish person
You have several objections to this comparison that i can go full Joseph Joestar and predict, but I'm tired of tong with my thumbs. Fun exercise: try and find the solutions and responses to your complaints yourself, instead of asking me for them. I do this a lot, it's a good drill in connecting with other people.
Transparent SJW is transparent.
Also extreme positions? It was just evaluating Trump chances, not even defending his positions.
Now let me see, the average voter isn't an internet/academia dweller, so it will vote on those criterias:
>Will I get a job/a better job:
Small advantage for Trump as he's a businessman and he plays upon "will take our jobs" with his strong stance on immigration.
>Will I get freebies?
Advantage for Democrats, especially for Bernie.
>Will I get security?
Big Advantage for Trump. No matter how inane you found his "No muslims entering the USA" proposition, it is actually pretty popular. People tend to be less rational when they have a significant change to get shot/bombed.
A sociopath is one who cannot feel empathy for others which, given the position you have taken up, really applies to you more than anyone else in this thread.
I never said anything about tone police, you dummy. Also, I'll come back and make an actual response to slowpoke later.
That's funny because Slowpoke is the nicest guy we have here by a decent margin, whereas you sound like the hooded fat guy next to the torture rack.
>actually trusting only police to own guns in society
>actually believing they only shoot black people
>actually trusting people who fantasize about killing other people in “self-defense” to own guns
>actually believing the police are always justified in shooting black people
Doesn’t feel good to have someone generalize you with a shitty argument, doesn’t it?
This thread is not about politics.
It is about people pretending to be retarded and bait.
>if i wear a seat belt im fantasizing about ramming a school bus and having my legs crushed by the steering column
I think you're transferring your deep seated desire to kill other people, and your fear that you wouldn't be able to control yourself around guns, onto actual gun owners. Sargons law.
>your deep seated desire to kill other people
I have only ever had the full desire to kill one person—and that person is me. (Please don’t go nuts thinking that I am suicidal right now. My mood is in the crapper, but it ain’t that far down.)
>if i wear a seat belt im fantasizing about ramming a school bus and having my legs crushed by the steering column
Plenty of gun owners buy a gun for personal protection and a sense of safety. They don’t fantasize about killing other people. But a not-zero percentage of gun owners buy guns specifically because they have NRA-fueled fantasies of being “the good guy with a gun” when “a bad guy with a gun” starts shooting. Some of the latter group see themselves as “the last line of defense against government tyranny”; those types want nothing more than a violent showdown with government agents (see: the Oath Keepers pointing their guns at federal agents during the Cliven Bundy nonsense).
I also feel insulted at the idea implicated in that image—that I want “more government” by way of more police(/brutality)—because I’d rather see less policing if it means we stop sending cops to “handle” mentally ill people and other situations they’re not generally trained to handle.
Guns are tools whose sole purpose is destruction and death. People don't buy tools for projects they're not intending to embark on, some of them just buy the tools and then never get around to the project.
I bought an entire toolkit when i first moved out on my own. I had no plans to build or even really do anything with them, i just knew that sometimes people need tools and I'd prefer to go ahead and get them in case i suddenly needed them.
Which i have.
Sometimes you do need to kill or maim someone though. Not for sport of course, but out of necessity.
I don't even own any guns, but i find that a kind of unavoidable fact.
>Sometimes you do need to kill or maim someone though. Not for sport of course, but out of necessity.
>I don't even own any guns, but i find that a kind of unavoidable fact.
Where do you live that you haven't been able to make it through life without killing or maiming anyone? I've lived 32 years without ever being in a situation that even needed to be de-escalated, much less where I needed to consider killing anyone. Maybe you people who keep getting in these situations need to learn to stay in your lane.
>People don't buy tools for projects they're not intending to embark on,
Yes they do, most tools are bought with no intention of using them. I have a rubber mallet and ball peen hammer in my garage I've never used, but I have these things in case I need it to hammer out a dent on my car without paying $500.
You forgot to finish that sentence:
>"I'd better get a gun in case I need to kill someone who wants to kill me."
911 is not a proper response to someone trying to kill you, the cop can only feasibly get there in time to take pictures of your dead body. That's why the expression exists, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
The fact that you're making excuses as to why it's okay to kill people ("they were going to kill me first!") doesn't change the fact that you're planning to kill people.
I’m all for gun control and shit, and even I think your logic is half-baked.
"I live in a gated community with rent-a-cops, guards and rich uncles lobbying the mayor for a <1 minute response time by police.
I'm personally a pussy that doesn't trust guns in the hands of people I don't have on my payroll. I don't even trust guns in my own hands because I have power trip murder fantasies, and I assume everyone else has these fantasies because my brain can't process that I'm inherently a worse person than the national average.
Therefore you plebian peasants in your shitty low income housing and crappy farms with 1000x more crime should not have the right to defend yourself.
Enjoy dying in a gutter while the emergency medical service and police takes 15-30 minutes to get to your cold corpse, if it's any consolation I'm relying on constant predation by criminals to keep you plebians in check and me at the top.
Hey don't blame me, it's your own fault for not paying more taxes in your district and affording a larger number of police officers per population in your district.
I know it's cheaper to buy a handgun once per lifetime and have instant response to rapists and murderers 24/7, but that's just not how I personally want this country to work. Either you're rich or get the fuck out.
>"I live in a gated community with rent-a-cops, guards and rich uncles lobbying the mayor for a <1 minute response time by police.
Actually, I live in a relatively poor part of of a poor city with fairly high crime rates. But yeah, go back to your talking points about how you have to kill to be a man.
>you haven't been able to make it through life without killing or maiming anyone?
I have, actually, I've managed to talk people down instead. But, being very very poor for most of my life, i grew up around a lot of criminals and children of criminals. I've had a knife pulled on me twice, and I've had someone hold a hammer against my legs and tell me they were gonna shatter them to pieces. If i hadn't been able to deescalate the situation, i would prefer to not just be butchered or crippled, unable to defend myself.
Also, being that i understand that 7 billion other people have experiences different to mine, i know that a LOT of innocent people are killed in cold blood daily. If the death rate doesn't drop at all, but all those victims instead become would-be murderers or rapists killed in self defense, I'd still call that better than what we have now.
>If the death rate doesn't drop at all, but all those victims instead become would-be murderers or rapists killed in self defense, I'd still call that better than what we have now.
You would not, however, consider it to be better than what we have now if the death rate dropped because fewer people were armed with deadly weapons? Gun deaths have outpaced deaths in automobile accidents in 2015 as a major cause of death. Many of these would have been prevented by gun control measures, especially the accidental ones. You're okay with the number of deaths being reduced when you get to choose who dies and who doesn't, but not when it discourages vigilantism?
If i had to choose between a million murderers being killed in self defense VS five hundred thousand relatively innocent people being killed for the thrill, i would choose the million murderers, if that answers your question.
For what it's worth, though, statistics point towards complete armament of the people doing more for violent crime than complete disarmament.
>For what it's worth, though, statistics point towards complete armament of the people doing more for violent crime than complete disarmament.
I'd like to see those statistics, given that every nation that has implemented stricter gun control has seen much greater drops in gun violence, and nearly identical drops in violent crime in general, to the United States. Which suggests strongly that arming people doesn't make violent crimes any less violent but disarming people does make gun rampages a lot less likely.
>death rate dropped
>prevented by gun control measures
Gun ownership has no correlation with homicide rates. If anything, the correlation is negative (ie more guns = less deaths) on a global scale. We've already been over this, relevant graphs have been posted on /baw/, and the information is public. It's time to put this myth behind us.
>Gun deaths have outpaced deaths in automobile accidents in 2015
>DISINGENUOUS ALART!!! DISINGENUOUS ALART!!!
What you meant to say that in 2015, cars finally reached the same safety level as firearms.
It really kind of shits on your point when gun deaths are used as a baseline safety statistic.
I did say complete armament, not mild armament, as most of the US is. Bit rushed but 'ave a gander at uh, i think it's Kennesaw GA.
You mean a city of fewer than 30,000 where only 10% of the population lives below the poverty line (those living below the poverty line being the ones most likely to commit violent crimes), and where a sizable majority of the youth population is female (men, especially young men, being far more likely to commit violent crimes than women)?
A city where as soon as it became law that every household had to own and maintain at least one firearm, violent crime immediately dropped to 15% of the national average, yes.
There are better stats with more than one datapoint.
Although I doubt statistics will penetrate the emotional shield over the rational mind of people that religiously believe guns are bad.
You're right that cherry-picked and misleading NRA talking points are unlikely to penetrate people with a grip on reality, yes, you fucking disgusting shill.
>publicly available wide ranging statistics
>from municipal, state and national level all the way to international
Do you want interplanetary statistics? Galactic?
Do you understand what 'cherry-picked' means? I think you don't.
Why does this graph not actually track the data that's important in the argument? It says what the national crime rate is, it says what the adoption of concealed carry laws are, but it doesn't ever actually track the crime rate in places without concealed carry versus places that do. Not to imply bad faith here or anything, but it seems like someone is trying to imply a causal relationship by showing correlation specifically to mislead.
Don't ask this guy, he doesn't know shit, he just posts the talking points his NRA masters provide.
>the act of pointing to individual cases
>ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position
I'm offering you planet wide datasets which include all variables, ie the opposite of cherry picking.
lol you're still going with that? NRA is unpopular among gun owners idiot, this is why they hemorrhaged members in the 90s and before, they were supporting gun restrictions. There's even a word for it.
The NRA is on your side, not on my side, if you weren't the one actually spouting talking points from liberal media you would understand that.
>it doesn't ever actually track the crime rate in places without concealed carry versus places that do
Yes it does... continuously. Places that don't have CC are any place in America in 1990s. Places that do are any place America in 2011. This is why it's a line graph and not a bar graph you retard, go back to school.
According to that chart, only 70% of places in America had CC in 2011.
>no medicine has 100% cured patients, therefore its all useless
Like I said, go back to school.
No, I'm saying that what you said "All of America has CC" is false based on the chart you presented. I am calling into question your methodology because the things you are saying are either counter-indicated by the chart or are non-sequiturs from the information presented there. This isn't "this isn't totally effective therefore it's not worth doing," it's "you have provided no information that supports the thing you are saying and I'm not convinced you understand causal relationships."
OK you're just autistic, my bad. Here you go mate:
>Yes it does... continuously. 25% of places in America in 1990s, 70% of places in America in 2011.
Satisfied? Of course not chum, you're a liberal. You already have the answer, so you'll just keep asking random questions hoping to get the answer you already religiously believe in. And you'll never get it buddy, because it's fucking wrong.
>I'm not convinced you understand causal relationships
I'm not convinced you understand correlations, friendo. Causative relationships are not needed to disprove a hypothesis. If your claim is that X causes Y, and in reality Y falls while X rises (as per>>403773), your claim is on shaky ground pal.
And if your claim is that X causes Y, comrade, but in reality when places with X are graphed against Y (pic) it turns out places with higher X have lower Y.... you're going to need to buckle down and provide more proof than just making the claim again, affiliate.
How's that sweet NRA paycheck working for you? I can't believe they're paying you to troll a forum with like twenty people, max.
I can't believe you're being this retarded for free.
No, that still doesn't address the point--you are not showing how the crime rate differs in areas with CC and areas without CC. There are multiple variables that affect crime rates, and now that I see your attitude when asked for more statistically significant responses, I'm beginning to think you are intentionally obfuscating the fact that those variables exist so as to manipulate the conclusions you are trying to get people to draw.
>you are not showing
Yes I am, and I explained how I am. You complained about the explanation, and your concerns were addressed.
Did your short term memory just blank out the conversation?
No, I am apparently just expecting too much from you by expecting you to actually understand the things you're talking about.
Come on man, you need to stop being an anti-gunner.
After all, it's twenty sixteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen!
This shouldn't be up for debate.
>After all, it's twenty sixteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen!
Mmmmm, the butthurt, it sustains me
>he thinks thats butthurt
>having trouble telling others emotions
Narcissist, sociopath, autistic spectrum... or all three?
Seriously, how did you do it? Can I get in on this scam with you? I could use some extra money on the side.
And did they provide the endless supply of deeply retarded image macros, or are those your own creations?
>you have to kill to be a man
Missing the point, people who are serious into gun and self defense training are not doing it because they want to kill someone. They're doing it because they want to be absolutely sure of how they will react in a life or death situation.
Same as people who get CPR/first aid training, they're not hoping someone starts dying in front of them, they just want to be sure they react as correctly as possible. This gives them reassurance and confidence in their ability to deal with bad situations. Just reading the comments, a few people in this thread fall into this category.
Other people in this thread fall into a different category. Instead of depriving reassurance and confidence from abilities, these people derive comfort from NOT KNOWING about life or death situations. Completely ignoring these things and hoping they'll never happen to them, the less they know the better they feel.
The problem is that people in Category B can't stand being reminded of their ignorance and inability, it ruins their sense of safety so they have to lash out and demand that Category A doesn't even exist. Whereas the continuation of the problem is that Category A can't ignore it and pretend violent situations don't exist.
They or a loved one have been through a real enough situation to dispel all illusions, and once that happens there is no going back into the shelter of ignorance. So when someone tries to turn them ignorant, Category A fights back because their sense of safety depends on competence.
Both Categories feel like their safety is harmed by the other Category, so there can never be resolution. Category B will naturally grow in times of peace, and Category A in times of strife, and they'll never come to a "compromise". I'm personally (obviously) biased for Category A because I feel they're more in touch with facts, YMMV.
Every time this thread seems about to die it comes back, puking and plagued by spasms.
As long as /pol/kun's here, he'll make sure it never dies.
>if i dont know about things, they cant hurt me
Category B chimes in.
Obama just passed an executive order with commonsense gun control.
Stop talking about gun control, the problem is solved forever.
Time for your bunkers tinfoil hats, obongo is coming for your precious bullet birthin' babies.
They weren't satisfied with mountains of gun control before, I don't see how now would be any different, crime will still happen.
These people won't even be satisfied by deleting the 2nd.
They won't feel safe until everyone but them is lobotomized and permanently attached to an IV drip of pacification drugs.
>They won't feel safe until everyone but them is lobotomized and permanently attached to an IV drip of pacification drugs.
E-GAD YOU ARE RIGHT!
THAT MUST BE THE TRUE AND SINISTER PURPOSE BEHIND OBAMA CARE!
When you think about it, that's really the only explanation for people actually expecting society to function without people killing each other easily and en masse.
Highly relevant article. It raises some interesting points, but, ultimately, it will support whatever your viewpoint is. If you're pro-gun ownership, the fact that mass shootings, intentional killings with guns, and homicide in general were all declining for several years before the post-Port Arthur laws shows, plus the fact that mass-killings were rare in Australia before Port Arthur and have continued after it (both with and without firearms) after it (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia) shows that gun control is worthless. If you're pro-gun control, then the fact that the new laws accelerated the already-existing declines, and the fact that non-firearm homicides and suicides didn't replace the firearms-related deaths, will stand as proof that gun control measures do reduce violent crime.
Separate info from the Australian Institute of Criminology showing a (relative) increase in knife/sharp instrument use to firearm use in homicides.
>increase in non-firearm crime due to gun control
The point of these laws isnt so much to decrease homocide as it is to decrease mass murder. I believe homocide and suicide rates are irrelevant to saying "gun control is worthless".
Also, as an Australian, I have no knowledge of a recent Australian school shooting. It's rare. America has had literally hundreds a year, and most people can name at least five famous ones off the top of their head. Either you need to make it harder to get guns, or less likely for someone to want to shoot people. There is no harm in enacting a reversible gun control bill, but there is harm in doing nothing. You know KC Greens picture of a dog on fire? Don't be that.
>The point of these laws isnt so much to decrease homocide as it is to decrease mass murder.
Mass murder makes the news, but I see no reason to care more about headline-grabbing forms of murder than the general risk of death.
And as far as the reversibility of bills, talk about that when security theatre gets taken out of airline travel. Security measures stick even when they're proven ineffective.
The thing that really gets me is that Obama is not trying to reduce or remove the existing guns, simply increase the responsibilities of merchants and owners while decreasing sales to those who may be dangerously mentally ill being able to purchase guns.
Hell open carry laws are getting stronger than ever and in light of Obama's comments sales have exploded.
He's doing exactly what the Republicans have been saying we should be doing, really. He's focusing on enforcing existing laws rather than implementing new ones, and doubling down on mental health as a cause for concern in background checks. Everything he said was really just clarification of policies that already exist in vaguer forms.
Of course, despite the facts that he's doing exactly what they said, they're still going to treat him like a tyrant for calling their bluff because "if Obama did it, it's evil," but they're getting exactly what they want. Or at least what they say they want.
It's something that is only likely to do a little to combat gun violence, but every little bit helps. This isn't a situation that's going to be solved by a single magic solution.
Short of classifying current owners as felons or mentally ill, it would be hard to so legally. Ex-post facto laws are prohibited. I don't think imminent domain works with chattel property either.
The story my grandmother always told on that point was her father paying taxes the first time in 1913. She said her mother assured him it was only temporary, to which he replied, "No tax is ever temporary." The same goes for most criminal laws. It is far easier to pass a law than repeal it.
Graph doesn't show that, it just shows a gradual decline. If anything it stagnated the decline, not accelerated, considering that America had a higher drop during the same time.
That line is specifically "knife and sharp implement". Not "all other means", for example why isn't it including blunt instruments?
Another example is fire, an extremely popular spree killer tool in places without guns, in some ways it's even more effective than guns. But I don't see people rushing to ban flammable liquids, or going around saying inane statements like "did you know flammable materials are linked to FIRE?!?!?". It seems the tool only gets blamed when its guns.
>Also, as an Australian, I have no knowledge of a recent Australian school shooting.
Well isn't that a slight against you for being uninformed?
>America has had literally hundreds a year
American media counts events where NO ONE DIED as "mass shooting". America has 15 times more people, and a far more predatory media atmosphere.
>Either you need to make it harder to get guns, or less likely for someone to want to shoot people.
Or you can stop listening to American media hysterics and demanding other countries change their laws to suit you, and start paying attention to events and laws in your own country.
>cant buy video games you like, cant speak as you please, cant change a lightbulb without calling an electrician, cant be a human person
>can only be peasant piece of trash
But hey if you break all your shitty laws at least you get free room and board in a prison. What's the difference anyway, even people outside of the prison get treated like criminals.
Actually most people are fine with the new laws. The one thing which even REPUBULICAN CHILD DEVOURERS are finding that's a serious flaw, is that the new "mental health" bans may affect people who are mentally stable, just on social security.
>Actually most people are fine with the new laws.
Are you even paying attention?
>In his remarks yesterday on addressing gun violence, President Obama tried his best to lower the rhetorical temperature. “I’m not on the ballot again; I’m not looking to score some points,” he said. “I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable. We don’t need to be talking past one another.”
>It was right around that time that Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign posted an “OBAMA WANTS YOUR GUNS” message online, alongside a fake image of the president in a military helmet, which appeared to be designed to resemble a Nazi propaganda poster from World War II.
Most SANE people are fine with the new laws maybe, but it has not been possible to describe a Republican elected official that way in a long time.
>cant buy video games you like, cant speak as you please, cant change a lightbulb without calling an electrician, cant be a human person
>But hey if you break all your shitty laws at least you get free room and board in a prison. What's the difference anyway, even people outside of the prison get treated like criminals.
Do you even know which hemisphere Australia is in?
I was referring to the graphs in the NYT article. There is a sharp drop in Australian gun homicides 1996-1997. Which is to expected as roughly 20% of the country's gun owners turned in their guns, reducing the percentage of gun ownership from 7% to 5%.
Again, the cultural distinctions are clear: less than one in ten households had guns prior to Port Arthur, while roughly one in three have them in the u.s. And the response to a particularly horrific massacre in Australia was "yes, this is the sensible thing to do," rather than to buy more guns and proclaim that "the NWO can have my guns when they pry them from my COLD DEAD HANDS!"
The same one that has Russia, China, North Korea, and the Middle East?
I don't know about the other parts, but Austrailia is actually pretty notorious for its video game policies.
>The same one that has Russia, China, North Korea, and the Middle East?
Was pretty sure I removed this part for being dumb before posting, but I didn't and now the password is incorrect so I can't replace the post.
Elected official nothing, if you are still a Republican supporter at this juncture you are an objectively awful person and the country would be better off with you dead in a ditch. Which, statistically speaking, is on your agenda anyway since you want some violent revolution against the government.
At least go rent a gun at a range and shoot it, costs less than a bowling trip.
Easiest way to find out it doesn't fill you with murderous urges.
>yes, this is the sensible thing to do
You want this really awesome kid to be raped in the ass and killed by a 6 foot tall convict.
Why are you such a pedophile fetishist?
I've used and even shot guns before, at bottles and cans and things. I just have no desire to own one because the only reason I would ever need a gun is if I was willing to kill someone. Which I'm not. You, apparently, are. You might have only specific circumstances you'll allow yourself to indulge in that, but you have made decision in your mind that there are circumstances under which you would kill people. That makes you a terrifying person, to me. Because while only you know the circumstances under which you're willing to kill, everyone who knows you own the gun knows you've made the decision that you're willing to do so.
>killing is objectively wrong in all situations, those willing to kill are [monsters], there is no situation in which killing is ever an acceptable decision
I disagree, and I think that's kind of a wrong mindset to have.
>I disagree, and I think that's kind of a wrong mindset to have.
And I disagree with you and think yours is a wrong mindset to have.
Honest, good faith question, please not to be associated with the anon who was on a similar vein earlier.
Would you ever call the cops on someone? Knowing how trigger-happy the police force is/can be, would you ever ask them for assistance? Or are you opposed to you personally being the killer of someone, not simply being the reason they died?
The cops are in theory not supposed to kill people in most circumstances. I would avoid calling the cops until a situation is unmanageable, because it does have a risk of death associated with it due to their overzealousness and general incompetence lately. But calling the cops is not requesting them to kill someone (in fact they are supposed to do everything in their power to preserve life for everyone involved, including the perp), and if I did call the cops on them I would be doing so in the hopes that the cops would not kill them. However I lack the ability to prevent some things with non lethal means and the only people I can legally call on who do have the ability to prevent those things through non-lethal means are sometimes too chicken shit and incompetent to do so.
If I could call Superman instead, I would.
I personally feel there's a bit of hypocrisy there, you seem to adopt a "well it's not what I wanted, but I guess it can't be helped" attitude when it's other people doing the killing for you.
>I personally feel there's a bit of hypocrisy there, you seem to adopt a "well it's not what I wanted, but I guess it can't be helped" attitude when it's other people doing the killing for you.
No, I will gladly testify against any cops who go over the line and kill a perp. But you're suggesting that it's hypocritical to be unwilling to kill someone and also ask for help when I am in danger, just because I can't be certain whether or not the people I ask for help are good at their job or not. That's a ridiculous stance to take.
>But calling the cops is not requesting them to kill someone
You're more likely to save lives just by open carrying your gun. Most criminals won't even start something if they know someone is armed. Literally the same reason police openly carry a gun and wear the uniform.
I fail to see why you trust a barely trained government employee to use their gun properly, but don't trust a fellow citizen who shoots 1000 plus rounds at the range every weekend.
Is it the uniform?
Can... can you pretend everyone has one?
>I fail to see why you trust a barely trained government employee to use their gun properly, but don't trust a fellow citizen who shoots 1000 plus rounds at the range every weekend.
Opening fire on stationary targets at a shooting range is far different than opening fire in an “active shooter” situation with possible innocent bystanders running around. Police are trained to handle such situations; the average Joe Q. Gunowner is not.
>I fail to see why you trust a barely trained government employee to use their gun properly, but don't trust a fellow citizen who shoots 1000 plus rounds at the range every weekend.
I have no way of knowing how many rounds my fellow citizen shoots "at the range" every weekend. Even if I did, I don't TRUST the cops, I just have nothing else to depend on. And wannabe vigilantes would pretty much always be worse than the cops in terms of overzealousness and lack of discipline or training.
I don't think it's ridiculous. You said yourself, you would call on them if you couldn't handle things non-lethally. How do you think a cop would be able to handle that any better?
Calling people who ARE willing to kill a person--but only when you know there's no way to handle a situation without killing--to help you out (by killing them, most likely) is hypocritical of you in a world where you call others terrifying for understanding that sometimes people have to be killed.
It's fine to take a middle-ground position, (i.e., "I'm unwilling to ever kill anyone, but I understand that sometimes there are no non-lethal solutions), but don't call others terrifying or wrong for being willing to defend themselves and their loved ones at all cost, when you're just as willing to call what amount to government assassins to "handle" your "situations."
>How do you think a cop would be able to handle that any better?
They're specifically trained to do so, compensated well to put their lives in danger to do so, and can bring force of numbers to back them up in accomplishing the task. That is the entire concept behind their existence. Additionally, if things do go out of control and someone ends up dying, there is paper work to make them accountable. This does fall apart sometimes, but it's the best protection we have.
The sort of vigilantism you are advocating offers zero accountability (especially in states with "Stand your Ground" laws), and encourages untrained people to make situations worse by escalating the situation or taking shots that put bystanders at risk because they thought watching a Die Hard movie and going to the shooting range a few times made them action heroes.
I'm...not advocating vigilantism? I honestly have no idea where you got that from in my posts.
I too, long for the days when a good old fashioned mob was killing people instead of the cops.
>stationary targets at a shooting range
You haven't been to a range in awhile, have you?
>I have no way of knowing how many rounds my fellow citizen shoots "at the range" every weekend.
More than a cop.
>Even if I did, I don't TRUST the cops, I just have nothing else to depend on.
OTHER PEOPLE MORE COMPETENT THAN COPS?
>You might have only specific circumstances you'll allow yourself to indulge in that, but you have made decision in your mind that there are circumstances under which you would kill people. That makes you a terrifying person, to me. Because while only you know the circumstances under which you're willing to kill, everyone who knows you own the gun knows you've made the decision that you're willing to do so.
This perfectly describes a police officer, who you feel safe with. Maximally brainwashed people are hilarious.
Police are not required to be specifically trained to do anything, or to put their lives in danger to protect yours.
Unless you've been under a rock recently, you will have heard of the damage the lack of training for police officers is doing.
An armed citizenry, fully accountable to the laws on the land (unlike a police officer), are a far safer group to be around.
>encourages untrained people to make situations worse by escalating the situation
>watching a Die Hard movie and going to the shooting range a few times made them action heroes
Again, this describing police officers.
>OTHER PEOPLE MORE COMPETENT THAN COPS?
Ah, no, you see I actually have a realistic understanding of my own limitations and don't base my beliefs about the best way to deal with situations on juvenile power fantasies.
Okay, thought experiment time. Let's say you feel more comfortable with the idea of armed citizens protecting the populace instead of the police. Fine and dandy! Now imagine that one of those armed citizens—Joe Q. Gunowner—is caught in an "active shooter" situation at a heavily-trafficked public area—let’s go with a college campus. People are running everywhere. Everyone is in a panic. Joe pulls out his gun and opens fire in the direction of the shooter.
He kills an innocent bystander before taking the shooter down.
What legal liability, if any, should Joe have to face for killing the innocent bystander? What criminal charges, if any, should he face for killing an unarmed civilian? What duty did he have, if any, to wait for a clear shot at the shooter?
So, Americans, what's the over under on a handgun ban? Long guns being left just fine but handguns being restricted to military, police and those willing to pay and attend special training and clearance only.
That's essentially what we do in Canada (though greatly simplified.)
>What criminal charges, if any, should he face for killing an unarmed civilian?
None, if that's what an officer would get. Maybe a misdemeanor worth a few months probation and a small fine.
>What duty did he have, if any, to wait for a clear shot at the shooter?
I wouldn't say much more than a officer does, which as far as I'm aware means convincing the court they used reasonable judgement.
>realistic understanding of my own limitations
You mean a low self esteem, and an overinflated esteem of men in uniforms.
Your self esteem is literally the only thing holding you back, there's nothing inherently superior about police officers, you can train yourself to be superior to them within less than three months. And you can have fun doing it.
>don't base my beliefs about the best way to deal with situations on juvenile power fantasies
There, you're already head and shoulders above most policemen.
90% of their job is writing tickets and learning bylaws of a city regarding where people can pee.
>Joe pulls out his gun and opens fire in the direction of the shooter.
Barrel discipline - do not point the barrel at a target unless you're shooting it.
Sight discipline - do not point the barrel at a target if it's blocked.
Trigger discipline - do not put your finger on the trigger if you're not firing the weapon.
Gun owners follow these rules more than police, which is why there's 100+ times more private gun owners and yet police accidentally discharge their weapons more often.
But let's say you're right.
>What legal liability, if any, should Joe have to face for killing the innocent bystander?
>What criminal charges, if any, should he face for killing an unarmed civilian?
It's murder you idiot.
>What duty did he have, if any, to wait for a clear shot at the shooter?
All of the duty if he doesn't want to get the chair.
Only police officers are protected from consequences of committing murder, because the state protects its enforcers. You are arguing against yourself here dumbshit.
>(though greatly simplified.)
Allow me to expand on what is needed for someone to carry a gun in self defense in Canada.
To own a gun a person first needs a PAL, personal acquisition license, which allows them to own hunting rifles. Getting it is possible for most Canadians who know something about guns.
Then they need a RPAL, or restricted PAL, which allows them to buy restricted weapons. Getting the second requires a person to be rich as well as know something about guns. And the guns can't be used for self defense because they're always stored, at home and elsewhere.
Then they need an ATT, which allows them to transport a weapon in a locked box and with a trigger lock. Getting this requires a person to have serious connections, and various politicians to write letters vouching for the person.
And finally an ATC, which allows people to carry a weapon without the above lockbox. Getting the fourth requires the person to be a police officer, forest warden or bank security guard (lol lobbyists). Forest wardens only carry long guns for protection against animals.
All these licenses are continually paid and re-licensed every year, and the papers must always be on the owners person, if they're ever caught without them they lose RPAL and PAL. Unless they're police officers of course.
And finally using the gun in self defense results in a murder conviction unless the defendant is a cop or has multiple cameras/witnesses proving it was self defense.
As you can see Canada stepwise bans people from self defense, until the only people who can do it are police and bank officers (lol lobbyists).
By the way, restricted weapons make no fucking sense.
I...own 12 guns in Canada, that's fucking ridiculous and a hell of a lot more complicated than it actually is.
Also, being rich? Good lord man, what kinda bull plop are they feeding you?
Oh wait, you are talking about for self defense, I apologize.
I see what you mean, not to impugn the American desire for self defense it's just a very foreign idea to us.
Yeah you likely just have a PAL.
>a very foreign idea to us
No offense but you must be very young. Canadian firearms ownership was first regulated in a restrictive manner in 1995 firearms act, and it wasn't until 2003 registry bills that this affected the average gun owner.
Prior to that Canada had slightly looser gun laws than America, allowing the ownership of up to 10kg of explosives for example.
Okay so, Americans want personal defense, handguns being better suited than rifles, they want to open carry under the idea potential perpetrators of violence will be dissuaded.
With these things in mind would the idea of mandatory training and reasonably frequent reexaminations be objectionable if it was the prerequisite for handguns and open carry?
I believe CCW permits in the vast majority of states already require this, the NRA got together with state police to make courses that meet state police firearms training requirements. And even in the few states where it's not a requirement people usually get the course anyway, because they like to shoot guns.
That's why I'm kind of surprised people think police is more competent, they usually do the bare minimum, because it's just a job for them.
Whether it can be carried across state lines is a bit more complicated, picrelate.
Anyway fact remains most people with CCWs and owning guns don't do crime. Crime is done by criminals, who prefer to buy guns on the black market (untraceable) or steal them. If people are interested in curbing gun crime, focus on curbing black market and developing proactive measures to prevent gun theft.
Topic is stale.
I have potentially more important news!!!!!
And from what I understand your police haven't been doing well lately, especially when it comes to "protect."
I'm going to put it out there that despite my earlier condescension I don't look down on the United States, nor do I believe you can staple another countries solutions to the US, if society were that easy we'd all have a utopia.
For some reason I lold my ass off.
By the way
>focus on curbing black market and developing proactive measures to prevent gun theft.
Obama just mentioned something regarding this, talked about smart guns or government-provided safes. Which I support, even if I don't like the guy for other reasons.
>Anyway fact remains most people with CCWs and owning guns don't do crime.
The people around them, on the other hand:
"Guns don't kill people. The fact that toddlers kill people with guns five days out of any week is just a clear epidemic of mental illness among toddlers and not an indication that allowing anyone who wants a gun to buy one without ever checking them for responsibility is a bad idea."
>bad parents allow unsupervised kids into pools
>ban all pools nation wide
I'm not feeling this argument. Onus of responsibility is on the parent that fucked up. I have 0 kids and I don't intend to pay for that retard parents mistake. I won't vote to be punished for some retard parents mistake, I won't tolerate people who vote to punish me for some retard parents mistake, and I'll fight back against your bullshit however I can.