Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Arx]

looks like people are finally catching on to not plastering the gunman name everywhere.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/02/445246613/never-utter-his-name-official-says-of-gunman-in-oregon-shooting

Yeah, this'd be great if the article didn't go 'The Sheriff challenged everyone not to speak the gunman's name ... The gunman, [gunman's name] ...'.

[RedKing]

Nah. NRA conventions have watertight security with full-body check-ups, metal detectors, and bomb dogs.

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not.

Though if the government started requiring that everywhere, those same goddamn assmunches would be screaming about their liberties being revoked by an oppressive police state.
"We don't need all this! That's why I carry a gun to protect myself!"


EDIT: I always find it telling that in all the states that have wide-open concealed carry laws, the same legislators that pass those always make sure to exempt the state legislature offices from that same law.

[smjjames]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/donald-trump-ucc-shooting-mccarthy-gop/index.html (I don't know why the link name has McCarthy in it, theres nothing about him in there)

Trump seems to have given up all thought of trying to deal with it, or perhaps simply doesn't want to alienate his base, who are probably largely pro-gun. There should have been a question asking "But Mr Trump, if it happens again and again and again and again during your presidency, what would you say to those who clamor to get something done about it?"

[Playergamer]

dear god trump actually has a point.

lord have mercy.

[smjjames]

While it's true that people do slip through the cracks, other countries don't have this level of violence, which means that something CAN be done about it and that there is SOMETHING wrong with our system, different culture and second amendment aside.

[nenjin]

We should put the flag at half staff for the Europol thread.

[Helgoland]

Eh, we've endured Russia, we've endured Greece - we will prevail. You just wait and see.

[RedKing]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/donald-trump-ucc-shooting-mccarthy-gop/index.html (I don't know why the link name has McCarthy in it, theres nothing about him in there)

Trump seems to have given up all thought of trying to deal with it, or perhaps simply doesn't want to alienate his base, who are probably largely pro-gun. There should have been a question asking "But Mr Trump, if it happens again and again and again and again during your presidency, what would you say to those who clamor to get something done about it?"

Yeah, but I can't help but notice that only white people get to be "crazy loners".

If the shooter is Muslim/Arabic, it's obviously terrorism and we need stronger anti-terror laws.
If the shooter is black, it's obviously because blacks are violent and hey, maybe those #BlackLivesMatter folks incited this and we need stronger policing.
If it's a white guy (even a racist white guy steeped in conservative hyper-rhetoric), it's "Ehh, some people are just crazy, whaddya gonna do?" and absolutely nope, we do NOT need more laws. If anything we need LESS laws and more guns. Because guns everywhere are so safe -- that's why places like Afghanistan and Iraq are enjoying such peace and prosperity.

[smjjames]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/02/politics/donald-trump-ucc-shooting-mccarthy-gop/index.html (I don't know why the link name has McCarthy in it, theres nothing about him in there)

Trump seems to have given up all thought of trying to deal with it, or perhaps simply doesn't want to alienate his base, who are probably largely pro-gun. There should have been a question asking "But Mr Trump, if it happens again and again and again and again during your presidency, what would you say to those who clamor to get something done about it?"

Yeah, but I can't help but notice that only white people get to be "crazy loners".

If the shooter is Muslim/Arabic, it's obviously terrorism and we need stronger anti-terror laws.
If the shooter is black, it's obviously because blacks are violent and hey, maybe those #BlackLivesMatter folks incited this and we need stronger policing.
If it's a white guy (even a racist white guy steeped in conservative hyper-rhetoric), it's "Ehh, some people are just crazy, whaddya gonna do?" and absolutely nope, we do NOT need more laws. If anything we need LESS laws and more guns. Because guns everywhere are so safe -- that's why places like Afghanistan and Iraq are enjoying such peace and prosperity.

On that conservative rhetoric of 'moar gunz', yeah, I feel like there needs to be a situation where there are lots of guns and everybody is well trained (so that they can't spin it as not) and having 'moar gunz' didn't solve the problem just so it can be proven to them, but that kind of scenario is never going to happen.

[Frumple]

... if by "never going to happen" you mean "has happened repeatedly", I guess? We've had plenty of mass shootings on military bases or near/at police stations and whatnot, and plenty of armed and trained individuals shot and killed. Doesn't budge the rhetoric one bit. Often even reinforces it, because clearly there weren't enough guns in the hands of enough people trained and ready to use them, otherwise it would have happened like the rhetoric insists it would, reality be damned.

[SalmonGod]

But even if we could establish such criteria, the question of implementation would remain: Who gets to decide that they're met, that military action is justified or necessary?

I don't believe anyone is truly in a position to comprehend the millions of lives effected by military action, even on an abstracted level, with enough clarity to justify this level of responsibility in any situation, except unusually clear-cut cases as I mentioned before.

This is why I'm an anarchist.  I cannot engage the line of questioning beyond this point, because I don't think there's any acceptable answer.  Conceding ideology to reality can only go so far until you're completely betraying yourself.  Given a concrete situation, I can lay out preferences for how I would like that situation to develop, but if asked who I think should have that kind of power in a hypothetical vacuum, my answer can only be no-one.

Now see, this is why I'm not. I say conceding reality to ideology can only go so far until your actions and beliefs become useless virtuals and hypotheticals that aren't worth the limited time I have on this Earth considering. Blood and flesh, pain and pleasure: these are the things that drive me. They cut, they sting, and they are oh-so-real. And decisions made by me and others can fundamentally affect this calculus. And if I believe that someone - for whatever reason, in whatever way: good or bad, noble or base, rational or irrational, intentional or accidental - can change this equation, alter the course of events, and manipulate the variables of my life and the lives of others, my only answer is to engage with what is.

I've re-read this several times, slept on it and read it again.  I have to say I don't get it.  Here's the best interpretation I can come up with.

"I don't care about details like outcomes, motives, justifications, etc.  I just think people should do things because they can."

I'm sure that's a horrible interpretation.

Or maybe your statement is meant as nothing more than a stab at the practice of naval-gazing itself.  But on that I would disagree... it's easy to say that abstract hypotheticals don't matter in the face of reality, but the less time a person takes to process those and figure out what principles really make sense to them, the less equipped they are to sensibly deal with complicated realities. 

It's like math.  People have to work with each other on some level to form a functioning society.  If they can't find common ground on the ethical equivalent of basic arithmetic, then how the hell are things supposed to work out when faced with a reality that is the ethical equivalent of quantum physics?

[PTTG??]

But even if we could establish such criteria, the question of implementation would remain: Who gets to decide that they're met, that military action is justified or necessary?

I don't believe anyone is truly in a position to comprehend the millions of lives effected by military action, even on an abstracted level, with enough clarity to justify this level of responsibility in any situation, except unusually clear-cut cases as I mentioned before.

This is why I'm an anarchist.  I cannot engage the line of questioning beyond this point, because I don't think there's any acceptable answer.  Conceding ideology to reality can only go so far until you're completely betraying yourself.  Given a concrete situation, I can lay out preferences for how I would like that situation to develop, but if asked who I think should have that kind of power in a hypothetical vacuum, my answer can only be no-one.

People will always take power. It's better for society to put a partially flawed system in place by agreement of the living and present than to allow those who have the most coercive strength to rule.

Anarchy is naivete.

[mainiac]

Anarchy is naivete.

If the answers were simple we would have implemented them long ago.  The most successful systems are not coincidentally the ones that were debated heavily before after and during.

[Frumple]

Think you mean more "easy and cheap" than simple. Many answers are fairly simple (or at the absolute least not terribly complex), they're just effort intensive and/or expensive.

[mainiac]

True, if we can just assume a can opener of lavish funding, many problems are easy to solve.