I think it speaks for lack of mental fortitude to do a 180 on all your values just because there's a bunch of jackasses on "your side." I think it's more constructive to correct things you see fucked up in your "movement," or whatever. Like, many believe that Social Studies Warrior loonies hijacked the progressive movement. If you really hold progressive values, it makes sense to try to take it back, rather than abandoning all your values and becoming an alt-right asshat.
I see this happening in sports too. "I don't like this team or athlete because their fanbase is annoying." How the fuck is that the athlete's fault?
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/roger-feature.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
False flag?
I think it speaks for lack of mental fortitude to do a 180 on all your values just because there's a bunch of jackasses on "your side." I think it's more constructive to correct things you see fucked up in your "movement," or whatever. Like, many believe that Social Studies Warrior loonies hijacked the progressive movement. If you really hold progressive values, it makes sense to try to take it back, rather than abandoning all your values and becoming an alt-right asshat.
I see this happening in sports too. "I don't like this team or athlete because their fanbase is annoying." How the fuck is that the athlete's fault?
I completely agree with this.
But what if the ideology you identified with changed? Or you saw new found errors in it?
Do you think that it’s an embodiment of people equating specific issues - such as free speech and gun rights - to specific teams? Because there’s certainly pro-free speech and pro-gun liberals. Would you also come to the conclusion that this is a symptom of people boxing themselves up behind arbitrary labels (I.e. liberal, conservative, democrat, republican) or can you perceive it as something beyond that?
Important questions to ask.
truly freethinking people
truly freethinking people
I think my take is that there's no such thing, myself not exempted.
Posting a video from Prager U :doge
I think it speaks for lack of mental fortitude to do a 180 on all your values just because there's a bunch of jackasses on "your side." I think it's more constructive to correct things you see fucked up in your "movement," or whatever. Like, many believe that Social Studies Warrior loonies hijacked the progressive movement. If you really hold progressive values, it makes sense to try to take it back, rather than abandoning all your values and becoming an alt-right asshat.
I see this happening in sports too. "I don't like this team or athlete because their fanbase is annoying." How the fuck is that the athlete's fault?
I completely agree with this.
But what if the ideology you identified with changed? Or you saw new found errors in it?
Do you think that it’s an embodiment of people equating specific issues - such as free speech and gun rights - to specific teams? Because there’s certainly pro-free speech and pro-gun liberals. Would you also come to the conclusion that this is a symptom of people boxing themselves up behind arbitrary labels (I.e. liberal, conservative, democrat, republican) or can you perceive it as something beyond that?
Important questions to ask.
I feel like there's a spectrum of political, social, spiritual, moral, ethical, humanitarian, existential, etc. views and truly freethinking people fall somewhere on the spectrum. People that act like "you're either with us or against us if you don't subcribe to viewpoints A, B, C, D" are too simple.
I think you hit the nail on the head that people box themselves into arbitrary labels, or teams. Usually those teams come with specific criterea, or archetypes. Like, I've known plenty of conservatives IRL, through work and other ways. And it's always the same thing. All of them pro-gun rights. All of them at best are highly skeptical of climate change. Like, you'd think there's nothing linking gun rights and climate change. But somehow they always have to have those concurrent views. It's tribalism in its purest form.
Such things sometimes make me wonder if the concept of political parties or platforms may have been a mistake.
Cindi shut the FUCK UP
how would you say that out loud?
shut the FUCK UP! Sounds odd to me, like the whole sentence should be shouted. It's like that Elaine putting exclamation points where they don't belong moment :doge
the US definitely needs more parties. But that's just part of the problem. Even if we had more options, voters are low info and tend to look at the party affiliation next to their name rather than educate themselves about the candidates' individual views and actions. I am guilty of that myself.
btw, although people like to present it as just an MRA movement, it really isn’t. From my understanding, it’s more often used to describe someone who was liberal/on the left who has taken the red pill and are now conservative or whatever.
:obama not a bad rationale.
What do you think about political ideology and its factor into the American political system? There’s conservatives I know who don’t find the Republican Party actually conservative because they spend as much as Democrats. On the other, you’ve got liberals who don’t find the Democratic Party liberal anymore because it and its adherents tend to shut down free speech. These are people dedicated to the ideology and not the party. Would you consider that just as dangerous as parties? After all, things like ANTIFA or Alt-Right are just that - ideology.
the US definitely needs more parties. But that's just part of the problem. Even if we had more options, voters are low info and tend to look at the party affiliation next to their name rather than educate themselves about the candidates' individual views and actions. I am guilty of that myself.
Party affiliation is a thousand percent more important than personal beliefs for Congressional candidates.
btw, although people like to present it as just an MRA movement, it really isn’t. From my understanding, it’s more often used to describe someone who was liberal/on the left who has taken the red pill and are now conservative or whatever.
"Red Pill" is termed like the scene in the Matrix where Neo is unplugged and see's the actual world. These people have a "come-to-Jesus" moment and suddenly understand (what the shitty sides of things) what they wanted to understand.
That said: I have never heard it termed as a Political shift to the other party. Online "Red Pill" is generally men in their 20-40's that have had no luck with women and become assholes (:doge ) in the process. Some go even further and do the "Men Going Their Own Way" deal. Basically gay without the gayness.
A reference to the matrix used in politics.
"You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."
Usually means that a Liberal has become more right winged.
Person 1: "Omg, Jennifer told me that she no longer feels she is Gender Queer!"
Person 2: "Perhaps she is now Red Pilled."
Party affiliation is a thousand percent more important than personal beliefs for Congressional candidates.
Why is that? If you have a bunch of people in Congress that have their individual platforms, that people elected, the general public is getting a better representation in Congress. And especially if those candidates are willing to compromise and work together, we'd see better results than the dual party political warfare we have now in Congress.
Addendum: It isn’t good to dismiss it as just a bunch of virgins. That’s a tendency of liberals/the left: categorizing people rather than actually investigating it until it’s too late. We saw this in the election of Trump and casting all of his voters as racist. It’s a weakness of the left that doesn’t prepare for large cultural shifts because these shifts are outright dismissed until they come knocking on the door, shit wrapped paper bag in hand. At the very least, it should be prepared for and fought in kind, right?
Party affiliation is a thousand percent more important than personal beliefs for Congressional candidates.
Why is that? If you have a bunch of people in Congress that have their individual platforms, that people elected, the general public is getting a better representation in Congress. And especially if those candidates are willing to compromise and work together, we'd see better results than the dual party political warfare we have now in Congress.
Cause of how Congress works. The agenda is dictated by the leadership of the majority party. Electing someone who dissents from their party on some issues won't matter if they won't get to vote on those issues.
We don't even need to talk about it theoretically. People generally agree that there is a majority in Congress right now for a bill protecting Dreamers, but it's a moot point because Paul Ryan won't allow a bill like that to come to the floor. A pro-DACA Republican voted him for Speaker and effectively undermined their own position.
make it stop
please make it stop
:obama not a bad rationale.
What do you think about political ideology and its factor into the American political system? There’s conservatives I know who don’t find the Republican Party actually conservative because they spend as much as Democrats. On the other, you’ve got liberals who don’t find the Democratic Party liberal anymore because it and its adherents tend to shut down free speech. These are people dedicated to the ideology and not the party. Would you consider that just as dangerous as parties? After all, things like ANTIFA or Alt-Right are just that - ideology.
What I find odd about ideologies that are very broad and cover a range of topics, it starts getting arbitrary. And then people that become fanatical with their ideologies, then you wind up with things like ANTIFA. I try to be pragmatic so I would still vote for a Democrat even if I disagree with some of the tactics of its adherents, because in the long run they represent me more than the other options.
make it stop
please make it stop
I'm really disappointed we didn't think of using the term red pill first but then again it's probably the Stalinists who would've gotten the most usage out of it
I see what you're saying. I was speaking purely hypothetically, in a scenario which wouldn't necessarily have the same power structure. I mean, is it a self-evident fact that the way our Congress works is a flawless system? And that the Speaker of the House should wield that kind of power over legislature? Hey, I'm just asking questions man.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I know I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as onespoiler (click to show/hide)voted the most trash song ever on GAF[close]
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I know I'm not the only oneI like A Perfect Circle's version of it a lot. (http://i.imgur.com/G36Lf41.png)
I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will be as onespoiler (click to show/hide)voted the most trash song ever on GAF[close]
Prager U?
Cindi when I said stop caring about labels I didn't mean rip off the expiration date and consume a bunch of poop
Addendum: It isn’t good to dismiss it as just a bunch of virgins.
Prager U?
Cindi when I said stop caring about labels I didn't mean rip off the expiration date and consume a bunch of poop
Don’t be too mad about the video or its source. It is merely there to communicate an example.
(https://i.imgur.com/ouUm5Uy.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ouUm5Uy.jpg)
Prager U?
Cindi when I said stop caring about labels I didn't mean rip off the expiration date and consume a bunch of poop
Don’t be too mad about the video or its source. It is merely there to communicate an example.
(https://i.imgur.com/ouUm5Uy.jpg)
(https://abload.de/img/1_kvj2jl04rx1fggicmqer3p1f.gif) (http://abload.de/image.php?img=1_kvj2jl04rx1fggicmqer3p1f.gif)
Imagine unironically watching The Matrix just to experience it with this recontextualization. Take a shot of sunny D mom brought down everytime Neo denies Trinitys advances.
Agreed. Like for instance. Republicans claim to adhere to the conservative ideals of individual and individual rights and small government while at the same championing a drug war that places people in prison at disproportionate levels for drug use at the federally. There is nothing small government or being for individual liberty about that. But then you look at Jeff Sessions response to the opioid epidemic this past week, which will force the DEA to spend millions (billions?) combatting it. Fiscal conservatism tho? This futile attempt at toeing the party line because it is ideology out of whack while claiming to be for conservative ideology. Thus the ideology becomes co-opted and politicized.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is related, but if you want an effective information gain/understanding process then you need some principles, patience and perseverance.
Also, Mandark is an intellectual coward. He knows this shit, but he wants back in the Matrix. He's Cypher in the whole TRP analogy.
Prager U?
Cindi when I said stop caring about labels I didn't mean rip off the expiration date and consume a bunch of poop
Don’t be too mad about the video or its source. It is merely there to communicate an example.
But nothing can ever be reviewed or experienced without its attendant context. It presents itself as a "U," implying "university," but it has no academic association. It's formed by conservatives for espousing their views. If it was called "Prager O" or "Opinions" or "Prager Politics" or anything other than starting from its faux academic posturing, it'd be more intellectually honest.
As for the woman's views, I'm with agrajag: Why abandon a lifetime of common sense and cooperation over people who are unwilling to discuss it? That's an amazing volte-face which speaks more to the quality of friends and/or the context of her situation. It's weird to hear that she was entirely unsupported by her peer group for "just asking questions," when her arguments take a quick turn for the absurd. She's right to question why a university policy should create racially specific limiting behavior, but her take on limiting other women's freedom to make their own decisions is so far off the mark that I am second-guessing her interpretation on the UT Austin rules as-presented. I feel as though I've watched the birth of the rarest of unicorns, a black, female libertarian.
Agreed. Like for instance. Republicans claim to adhere to the conservative ideals of individual and individual rights and small government while at the same championing a drug war that places people in prison at disproportionate levels for drug use at the federally. There is nothing small government or being for individual liberty about that. But then you look at Jeff Sessions response to the opioid epidemic this past week, which will force the DEA to spend millions (billions?) combatting it. Fiscal conservatism tho? This futile attempt at toeing the party line because it is ideology out of whack while claiming to be for conservative ideology. Thus the ideology becomes co-opted and politicized.
I don't think this is a case of ideological principles being corrupted, so much as people claiming principles as a way of rationalizing behavior that has less noble motivations.
Just in my lifetime I saw the case against gay marriage (and LGBT acceptance generally) shift from one rationale to another while it was the same people doing the advocacy. The real reason is they didn't like LGBT people, and while saying so to their face would upset them, pretending otherwise didn't really accomplish anything.
in a society where police officers are allowed to get away with choking black men to death on city corners for previously selling cigarettes surely they’ll also fight for her ability to own a gun for self defense
Quotein a society where police officers are allowed to get away with choking black men to death on city corners for previously selling cigarettes surely they’ll also fight for her ability to own a gun for self defense
You're saying they should buy guns... to protect themselves from cops? :doge
I don't think that's going to work out the way you think.
Also, Mandark is an intellectual coward. He knows this shit, but he wants back in the Matrix. He's Cypher in the whole TRP analogy.
Let me explain something for the people that don't get it. My posting here can perhaps be best understood as a vain attempt to disprove the old proverb, "do not cast your pearls before swine", and in that view, Mandark often fashions himself the thickest chazer in the sty.You're just trying to get back at him for talking shit about you behind your back ages ago. Get the fuck over it already you absolute ninny.
"Individual rights and small government" appeals in modern politics has mostly just been the advertising copy used to sell the right-wing brand and never really represented the product you were getting writ large. Just a broadly palatable, malleable construct used to slap on top of more central underlying agendas.
Agreed. Like for instance. Republicans claim to adhere to the conservative ideals of individual and individual rights and small government while at the same championing a drug war that places people in prison at disproportionate levels for drug use at the federally. There is nothing small government or being for individual liberty about that. But then you look at Jeff Sessions response to the opioid epidemic this past week, which will force the DEA to spend millions (billions?) combatting it. Fiscal conservatism tho? This futile attempt at toeing the party line because it is ideology out of whack while claiming to be for conservative ideology. Thus the ideology becomes co-opted and politicized.
(https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/roger-feature.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)I was around on the misc during his time and I can tell you not even they wanted him (he was constantly derided). The community he was in (the misc) is steeped in PUA shit and everything is about gains and fucking HBBs and as a scrawny virgin I'm sure that triggered him even further (dude had a lot of issues to start with tho).
False flag?
I don't like guns, but I don't see a gain in taking away guns. I'd prefer a reasonable policy on them. I am strongly against concentration of guns in dense population areas. However, ant-gun policies haven't been great at lowering violence in black areas.
Logistically, you aren't making guns vanish, especially from America.
You're just trying to get back at him for talking shit about you behind your back ages ago. Get the fuck over it already you absolute ninny.
If I could I'd pull some Wanda Maximoff shit and make guns for normal citizens disappear forever.
(https://i.imgur.com/OIbF4WN.png)
vox explainer on the mandark/etoilet feud pls
vox explainer on the mandark/etoilet feud pls
"Individual rights and small government" appeals in modern politics has mostly just been the advertising copy used to sell the right-wing brand and never really represented the product you were getting writ large. Just a broadly palatable, malleable construct used to slap on top of more central underlying agendas.
Agreed. Like for instance. Republicans claim to adhere to the conservative ideals of individual and individual rights and small government while at the same championing a drug war that places people in prison at disproportionate levels for drug use at the federally. There is nothing small government or being for individual liberty about that. But then you look at Jeff Sessions response to the opioid epidemic this past week, which will force the DEA to spend millions (billions?) combatting it. Fiscal conservatism tho? This futile attempt at toeing the party line because it is ideology out of whack while claiming to be for conservative ideology. Thus the ideology becomes co-opted and politicized.
Reagan didn't take to Neshoba County to kick off his presidential campaign with appeals to states rights, to a raucous all white crowd, because he was channeling his inner Jefferson. He was channeling his inner Wallace and the crowd was well in tune to the underlying signals and significance of the guy that was vehemently against things like The Rumford Fair Housing Act.
But that is what is great about Southern Strategy style politics. You can have a campaign rally talking about states rights for Mississippi a rocks throw from the Freedom Summer Murders. Evoke a naive or disingenuous op-ed in The National Review written about how it has nothing to do with dog whistle politics, and some overly gullible journalist at the NY Times being responsible and taking the article's premise at face value, which than inadvertently raises the legitimacy and shifts the focus to the cover letter being blanketed over the underlying agenda.
Point being, there isn't a whole lot of mileage to get out of arguing the face value premises of idiots that have tuned to the channel but haven't gotten through the noise(like your hypothetical black person that see's the tribal signals of individual liberty, gun rights, but misses the obvious big elephants in the fucking room), or arguing the face value premises of people that know what the noise is doing but purposefully try to further obfuscate it. If the former, IMO, the conversation should be a dialogue that sets out to establish the missed context. In terms of the latter, they can mostly just be remorselessly fucked with.spoiler (click to show/hide)I understand Libertarians fall in somewhere here. But TBH, they can just fuck off to their minarchist island to argue about what constitutes justifiable theft and let the influence of the diminishing marginal utility of money, the tragedy of the commons, incessant greed, and the intense statist paranoia innate to said personality types finish off the job.[close]
Today I learned Mandark is gay. Is this it - the mighty red pill?
vox explainer on the mandark/etoilet feud pls
Today I learned Mandark is gay. Is this it - the mighty red pill?
Quotein a society where police officers are allowed to get away with choking black men to death on city corners for previously selling cigarettes surely they’ll also fight for her ability to own a gun for self defense
You're saying they should buy guns... to protect themselves from cops? :doge
I don't think that's going to work out the way you think.
The action certainly was a “bold step” – the sight of the cocky and confrontational Newton, winking at officers from behind his weapon and challenging white authority awed most blacks. Such confrontations with police were common in the early days of the party, as Newton, his law book in one hand and shotgun in the other, capitalized on every opportunity to demonstrate his command of the streets in front of an audience:
[Newton] watched the shaky officer approach, surrendering his license as required but refusing to yield any information not demanded by statute.
“What are you doing with the guns?” the patrolman asked, torn between obvious fear and hostility.
“What are you doing with your gun?” Newton countered…
Visibly tense and on edge, the police [began] to toss hostile questions at Newton…he answered jibe for jibe, seeming to enjoy the long-delayed meeting, knowing that one such confrontation might be worth a hundred members for the party. He was in his element, playing to the crowd as he asserted his right to bear arms, announcing his intention to open fire if the police should draw their guns or try to disarm his men illegally. In the end, the police were beaten. [17]
The guns thus figured in the Panthers’ “staging” [18] of the revolution in three important ways: black men were finally on equal footing with the police, able to defend themselves from brutality; police were intimidated and backed off; and the community of black onlookers was empowered by the individual act of defiance. The clashes with police were specifically targeted at this black audience, and in many instances, their presence on the street was deliberately solicited: “Come on out, black people. Come on out and get to know about these racist dog swine who been controlling our community and occupying our community like a foreign troop. Come on out and we’re going to show you about swine pigs.” [19] The Panthers relied on these demonstrations to educate the community about their rights and the Ten Point Program, as well as to recruit potential members
The Black Panther Party For Self-Defense advocated social justice, equality and freedom by any means necessary. To make their point, they open carried loaded rifles at their protests and on “patrols” where they were “policing the police” long before groups like Cop Watch, CopBlock, The Huey P. Newton Gun Club, and others formed, a generation later.
Some of these contemporary groups have used similar tactics of the Panthers, like some chapters of CopBlock, particularly in Beavercreek, Ohio – where John Crawford was shot for holding a BB-gun in a Walmart. The Huey P. Newton Gun Club has also employed open carry at anti-racist and police accountability protests for Sandra Bland in Texas. Just like these groups today, the Panthers would follow the police around, even jumping out of their vehicles with guns in hand to “police the police” if the police stopped someone without apparent legal causes.
The fact you would take guns away from citizens that are routinely abused by police is telling. Another black red pill. Another liberal con.
:beli
This is asinine and shows a poor understanding of Black gun history.spoiler (click to show/hide)QuoteThe action certainly was a “bold step” – the sight of the cocky and confrontational Newton, winking at officers from behind his weapon and challenging white authority awed most blacks. Such confrontations with police were common in the early days of the party, as Newton, his law book in one hand and shotgun in the other, capitalized on every opportunity to demonstrate his command of the streets in front of an audience:
[Newton] watched the shaky officer approach, surrendering his license as required but refusing to yield any information not demanded by statute.
“What are you doing with the guns?” the patrolman asked, torn between obvious fear and hostility.
“What are you doing with your gun?” Newton countered…
Visibly tense and on edge, the police [began] to toss hostile questions at Newton…he answered jibe for jibe, seeming to enjoy the long-delayed meeting, knowing that one such confrontation might be worth a hundred members for the party. He was in his element, playing to the crowd as he asserted his right to bear arms, announcing his intention to open fire if the police should draw their guns or try to disarm his men illegally. In the end, the police were beaten. [17]
The guns thus figured in the Panthers’ “staging” [18] of the revolution in three important ways: black men were finally on equal footing with the police, able to defend themselves from brutality; police were intimidated and backed off; and the community of black onlookers was empowered by the individual act of defiance. The clashes with police were specifically targeted at this black audience, and in many instances, their presence on the street was deliberately solicited: “Come on out, black people. Come on out and get to know about these racist dog swine who been controlling our community and occupying our community like a foreign troop. Come on out and we’re going to show you about swine pigs.” [19] The Panthers relied on these demonstrations to educate the community about their rights and the Ten Point Program, as well as to recruit potential members[close]
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug01/barillari/pantherchap1.htmlspoiler (click to show/hide)QuoteThe Black Panther Party For Self-Defense advocated social justice, equality and freedom by any means necessary. To make their point, they open carried loaded rifles at their protests and on “patrols” where they were “policing the police” long before groups like Cop Watch, CopBlock, The Huey P. Newton Gun Club, and others formed, a generation later.
Some of these contemporary groups have used similar tactics of the Panthers, like some chapters of CopBlock, particularly in Beavercreek, Ohio – where John Crawford was shot for holding a BB-gun in a Walmart. The Huey P. Newton Gun Club has also employed open carry at anti-racist and police accountability protests for Sandra Bland in Texas. Just like these groups today, the Panthers would follow the police around, even jumping out of their vehicles with guns in hand to “police the police” if the police stopped someone without apparent legal causes.[close]
http://countercurrentnews.info/2015/09/movement-to-police-the-police-started-with-the-black-panther-party-for-self-defense/
This ignores that the Panthers would patrol themselves where police would leave black neighborhoods without protection.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/082236123X/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1518418707&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=this+nonviolent+stuff%27ll+get+you+killed&dpPl=1&dpID=51q-MYL9%2BVL&ref=plSrch
(https://www.dukeupress.edu/Assets/Books/978-0-8223-6123-7_pr.jpg)
The fact you would take guns away from citizens that are routinely abused by police is telling. Another black red pill. Another liberal con.
Just my 2 cents.judging by your username, you definitely have a stake in this argument
Nola is a brand of mayonnaise here, same there? :lolJust my 2 cents.judging by your username, you definitely have a stake in this argument
why do you still care, she's surely not running again(https://i.imgur.com/ouUm5Uy.jpg)
Fucking die you rasping hulk of semi-sentient garbage.
why do you still care, she's surely not running againSunk cost fallacy.
¿Por que no los dos? :trumpsYou're just trying to get back at him for talking shit about you behind your back ages ago. Get the fuck over it already you absolute ninny.
Objection!
(https://i.imgur.com/ouUm5Uy.jpg)
Fucking die you rasping hulk of semi-sentient garbage.
red pill is the right-wing milk shake duck
truly freethinking people
I think my take is that there's no such thing, myself not exempted.
'twas a placeholder until I found that black pill videoThis is exactly how I see Barcelona fans as well
(https://i.imgur.com/1W2qwiQ.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnHMNShKz9k
if you haven't seen this before
Though people will complain about a Rubin interview.
Cindi, discovering that black people of yore liked guns because they had to protect themselves from racist institutions which did not have their rights in mind is not a red pill, it's introductory American history. Feeling smug about liberal disillusionment every day and trying to parade it all over this forum and others because you found your own personal Social Studies Warrior-proof nirvana is nigh obnoxious and just another one of the contradictory ways that you attempt to feel special by setting yourself apart from other people. If you think you're bearish on most social issues then congratulations, you're part of 85% of the American population. What you are referring to as being "red-pilled", i.e. awakening from a nightmarish lie about reality perpetuated by the prevailing power structures, is what other people would call an evolution of their political compass, and it's fairly common for people's feelings about things to shift gradually over time. That's great for you, but until you're out there with the PUA types really deconstructing how society has tried to turn men into eunuchs, or championing a new race-realist perspective and promoting a return of segregation, you're not fucking red-pilled and you don't want to be. Not to mention you barely have consistent views on these things because you were just in the politics thread saying an athlete should be banned from the team for trying to promote liberalism, and two months ago you tried to have etiolate exiled from this forum for whatever reason (probably being too conservative for you).
Wrong thread. Fuck me.10:55pm behind the 7/11 next to the dead hobo bby :-*
tbh I think you like guns cause you're a Texan.
:yeshrug
One time I went to Mupepe’s and he showed me his guns and I could barely touch them because they scared me.
I desperately tried to place the pattern, but could only think of Italian teams before giving up.
There are, in fact, too many guns in America. I think there should be a lot of annoying regulations to go through to get new guns, and I think if you exhibit a lack of safety or neglect you should be subject to having your guns taken away. I also think that police should be trained in using de-escalation and non-lethal means to resolve situations, and failing to do so should have very steep penalties. Yes, I think police should have fewer guns too.
That said, given the current climate I also fully understand and support Cindi's decision to arm herself.
#thedualities
There are, in fact, too many guns in America. I think there should be a lot of annoying regulations to go through to get new guns, and I think if you exhibit a lack of safety or neglect you should be subject to having your guns taken away. I also think that police should be trained in using de-escalation and non-lethal means to resolve situations, and failing to do so should have very steep penalties. Yes, I think police should have fewer guns too.Basically. There is no reason both things can't simultaneously exist without internal conflict. No need to frame things in the way of a false choice.
That said, given the current climate I also fully understand and support Cindi's decision to arm herself.
#thedualities
Just my 2 cents.judging by your username, you definitely have a stake in this argument
Gun murder capital of US besides St. Louis if I remember correctly.
Refreshing to see liberals and progressives support and understand my decision to become a gun owner rather than adhere to a double standard but that doesn’t change liberal state laws such as in California.
Refreshing to see liberals and progressives support and understand my decision to become a gun owner rather than adhere to a double standard but that doesn’t change liberal state laws such as in California.
Texas: 10.5 gun deaths per 100k
California: 7.89 gun deaths per 100k
Shit I just got redpilled.
Of course I'm biased since Mass is second lowest in the country for gun-related deaths (3.18 per 100k.)
Glorious liberal gun-free utopia. :rejoicespoiler (click to show/hide)All numbers are from 2013 fwiw.[close]
Of course I'm biased since Mass is second lowest in the country for gun-related deaths (3.18 per 100k.)
Glorious liberal gun-free utopia. :rejoicespoiler (click to show/hide)All numbers are from 2013 fwiw.[close]
It’s sad to see one of the states of liberty become so corrupted against basic American rights.
Feel for my friends in California. Poor girl had to write a letter to her sheriff for permission for an ltc and she’s a rape victim in SAN DIEGO. Bet it won’t be granted! Can’t wait for California to be sued for their elitist anti-American drivel. Bleed. Them. Dry.
Refreshing to see liberals and progressives support and understand my decision to become a gun owner rather than adhere to a double standard but that doesn’t change liberal state laws such as in California.
I mean for the first 200 or so years of America, the second amendment was largely just interpreted as a barely dusted off, non-controversial line about militias. :idont
Give props to the NRA for a successful marketing campaign though.spoiler (click to show/hide)Black Panthers too[close]
The Second Amendment reads:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Dunbar-Ortiz analyses these words in the context of which they were originally written: As permission granted to the white settler-colonists to seize Native lands by whatever violence necessary, and including the murder, rape, and torture of non-combatants like women and children. She writes, “The Second Amendment’s language specifically gave individuals and families the right to form volunteer militias to attack Indians and take their land.” (p. 20)
I do think there needs to be some gun reform but the problem is that it seems the opposition doesn’t know what good gun reform even is.
Think about how crazy it is that we banned toys that shoot little projectiles, but we have real guns (in residences) that a 2 year old can pull the trigger on. That shows you how out of wack the gun lobby is in this country.
Then you look at the countries they tend to cite as having superior gun laws than us such as Canada or Australia and notice that hey, using a knife or even pepper spray for self defense is illegal in those countries. A woman cannot protect herself if she’s in danger - whether from an abusive husband or a threat of violence such as rape - and that’s frightening.
That’s fair, but I don’t have to pay for a drivers license and vehicles can be weapons as well which far more deaths to boot
Then you look at the countries they tend to cite as having superior gun laws than us such as Canada or Australia and notice that hey, using a knife or even pepper spray for self defense is illegal in those countries. A woman cannot protect herself if she’s in danger - whether from an abusive husband or a threat of violence such as rape - and that’s frightening.
Ah yes, the pit of despair, personal insecurity, and everpresent fear that is... Canada. Vast swaths of the Canadian populace are tired of looking over their shoulders due to unacceptably rising levels of violent crime, scared to walk the streets after dark, and are positively yearning for the peace of mind and serenity that comes from the common sense laws and social structures of the United States of America.
Ah yes, the pit of despair, personal insecurity, and everpresent fear that is... Canada. Vast swaths of the Canadian populace are tired of looking over their shoulders due to unacceptably rising levels of violent crime, scared to walk the streets after dark, and are positively yearning for the peace of mind and serenity that comes from the common sense laws and social structures of the United States of America.