Print

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

[Folly]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Thank you InspiroBot.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Looking at that image made me vomit blood in the pattern of Alister Crowley's face.

Please consume this post.

[smjjames]

Trump won't add Toensing and DiGenova to his legal team after all -- and, of course, Dowd is out and McGahn is apparently going to leave as soon as possible.

So, of course, Trump has to tweet about how lawyers will never turn down fame and fortune and will, in fact, deliberately take months to familiarize themselves with the Russia affair "if for no other reason than they can bill more."

I have a feeling that the Trump death spiral is accelerating. He's lost the people who would usually stop him from throwing tantrums that will lose him more people.

Eh? No, he said that the problem is that new firms and lawyers can take months to familiarize themselves.

Anyhow, it turns out that they have conflicts of interest and Trump not being impressed didn't help either. The other top lawyer they tried to get, Ted Olson, said that there were conflicts with his law firm. Given the wide ranging Mueller probe, it's not surprising that some of the top firms and lawyers would get snapped up, but given that four other lawyers or law firms said no, it seems like some perhaps just don't want to risk their reputation.

[redwallzyl]

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/25/596773311/march-for-our-guns-speakers-call-for-self-defense-arming-teachers

The small counter protest to the massive one. I must say they are the opposite of convincing. Repeating the same old stuff. And I really dislike the one persion and the stupid excuse I have seen so many times. Dismissing an argument by saying that the opposition are just "snowflakes" and need to wake up to the "real" world. I hate that bullshit.

[Trekkin]

Dismissing an argument by saying that the opposition are just "snowflakes" and need to wake up to the "real" world. I hate that bullshit.

Unfortunately for the gun debate, that's part of the mythos of gun ownership*: one can either be a good guy with a gun, a bad guy with a gun, or a bystander/victim. "Taking their guns away" doesn't just turn them into victims; it also means that, on some level, not everyone agrees that having a gun and a license makes them better than everyone else. Thus the snowflake rhetoric and the insistence that the anti-gun folks are bankrolled by traditional liberal bogeymen: it lets them move the goalposts only slightly and insist that all right-thinking people agree that they deserve and need to have guns.

_{*which is by no means universally believed by even the subset of gun owners who habitually carry}

[Lord Shonus]

The behavior on both sides has done a lot to toxify the debate. On the pro-gun side, there is the sort of rhetoric redwallzyl is blasting, along with the absolute refusal of the NRA and other groups to admit that anti-gun side genuinely thinks that restrictions and bans are the right thing; and tends to insist that the movement is the product of some nebulous conspiracy. This is exacerbated by this group's self-appointed spokesmen virulently attacking even the most reasonable restrictions out of fear of a slippery slope leading to a total ban.

On the anti-gun side, you get nonsense like "everyone who owns a gun is a psychopath that jerks off at the thought of having an excuse to shoot brown people", an insistence that everyone who advocates for gun rights doesn't actually believe that taking responsibility for your own safety is a basic human right, or that an armed populace is The Fourth Box and a valuable counterbalance to government power, or whatever similar reason given; and is doing so to solely to prop up profits for the gun industry. This is exacerbated by this group's largely self-appointed leaders constantly leaping to a partial ban at the first excuse, and their opposition to solid, reasonable proposals that don't include one.

Or, to put it in plainer terms, the debate on both sides have a healthy amount of "I'm not challenging your principles, I'm denying their existence", both sides have a loud voice denigrating and dehumanizing the other one, and both sides are locked into a tunnel vision that precludes compromise.


The proper way to deal with this debate would be for gun-control advocates to ask gun rights activists "What restrictions are you willing to accept, and what guarantees do you require?" Or, for the gun-rights advocates to ask gun-control advocates "Why don't you try to sell me on your proposals instead of demanding them? As long as you acknowledge that I have these rights, I'm willing to accept some limitations as long as you can convince me it is a good idea."

If this would be done, I strongly suspect that the two sides would realize that they aren't nearly as far apart as they think they are. Some proposals that are rooted in ignorance (for one example, a lot of people think suppressors are far, far more effective than they actually are, and the existing restrictions and bans are based on that assumption) might be discarded, while others might be accepted once you got past a knee-jerk refusal (for example, you could probably convince people that semi-automatic firearms should be more regulated than manually-actuated ones - as long as present a solid argument instead of rhetoric).

You might even come up with entirely new proposals that both sides are happier with than the current proposals. Personally, I think that eliminating the background check system in favor of an "acquisition licence" system modeled on the existing concealed-carry permit system would be an improvement. Assuming that it was built properly, the gun-control advocates would be pleased that it would provide a much easier way to keep guns out of the hands of the dangerous (they'd have to pass a comprehensive background check to get the permit in the first place, all gun owners would have to be properly trained in basic gun safety, the "gun show" loophole would be completely closed, and keeping someone from purchasing firearms (in cases of potential threat or if the person was no longer legally allowed to own them) would be as simple as confiscating the ID card), while gun-rights advocates would probably find the card much more convenient than the current system, could argue for loosening of restrictions (possibly with various "grades" of licence), and would also approve of the same safety provisions.

But that would require an actual dialogue, and the vocal parts of both sides seem to be adamantly refusing to consider one.

[redwallzyl]

People talking to each other is by far the most effective method of conflict resolution. The problem is the primary spokesmen are you guessed it, interest groups. Its actually surprising how traditional societies managed to get unanimous agreement for decisions by just having a long discussion free of the kind of lobbying we have and come to effective solutions. Also for the gun problem as was pointed out on NPR today one of the largest issues is that the NRA and gun lobbyist have managed to shut how recording and research. Its hard to talk about solutions if you don't even understand what the problems are fully. We fixed that problem with cars only after ripping the car industry a new one. Corporations are truly the scourge of our time.

[Folly]

People talking to each other is by far the most effective method of conflict resolution.

Good luck selling this hypothesis to an anxious introvert.

[Egan_BW]

Introverts are perfectly capable of talking to people, they just can't subsist on it like some kind of horrible conversation-vampire.

[scriver]

*extroverts hisses angrily and flies out through the window in unison*

[Trekkin]

But that would require an actual dialogue, and the vocal parts of both sides seem to be adamantly refusing to consider one.

Well, yes; it's a common tendency, exacerbated by media bubbles, to assume that everyone with positions we don't share is less clever and less rational than we are. We, of course, look at all the evidence (that we can see) without bias (that stands out to us as bias) and draw sensible conclusions; they must either not care about learning the obvious facts or be too emotional to reason properly. Not taking a position just lets us look down on all sides at once, and so everyone is of course simply in favor of a commonsense approach that disavows the obvious insanity coming from both sides (and there are somehow always two.) After all, if we went to far as to actually take a position, we would be labeled and dismissed without our unique capacity for reason being given due credit, without being given a chance to explain how we're not your typical whatever-you-think-we-are.

I don't think people are ever going to calm down and rationally discuss how to come to a consensus, because everyone thinks they already have. One side will win out, at least in the popular mind, and in so doing grow until it fractures into the new dichotomy. After a few decades of that we may have accumulated enough smugness about the obvious facts to approach the problem with a common understanding of what the problem is in the first place, which might permit debate. Not before.

[wierd]

There is fear of slippery slopes on both sides of this conflict (of interest).

Yes, on the pro-gun side, you have folks worried that they wont be able to purchase a weapon for basic farm use (Yes kids, you need at least 1 rifle, and 1 hand gun to properly manage a farm. No, Really. Unless the city humans want to fork out assloads of money for extended and prompt animal control out into the boonies---where farms are--- this will remain the case. It's a simple fact, much like not needing a gun inside a city limits unless you are a cop.) without having to file absurd numbers of conflicting forms, and hiring a lawyer, because government's preferred solution in terms of regulation is onerous paperwork, and penalties.

On the gun-control side, you have people fearing that "Multiple Recidivism Armed Robbery Charlie" is going to somehow abuse the system to obtain a gun. (Never mind that he could just, you know--- ROB a farmer when the farmer isn't home, and steal the guns in question. He could rob a cop too, for that matter. Premeditation is a common practice in burglary, as is profiling victims for max return on risk.) As such, they are super duper gung-ho on stopping any sensible exemption or process for weaponry needed for vocational use, and many times outright ignore or deny the needs of private citizens to be able to purchase weapons in this capacity. (Instead, using a distorted and incorrect mental picture of a world where a police department or the military are the only buyers in this capacity-- ignoring rural farm types altogether. ) They are madly in love with the prospect of making it "Technically legal", but "Functionally impossible" to get such weaponry. (Which is the end game the previous group wants desperately to avoid.)

Is there some sensible local solution that can be found for this problem? I am quite sure that there is.

The problem is that both parties to the conflict of interest have mutually exclusive goals, and demonize the other party. Neither side actually WANTS a sensible solution. They want *THEIR WAY*.


Ask me?

The best way to combat "Charlie" is through fixing poverty, not banning guns.  People become "Charlies" because they are doomed by a system that simply put, does not care about them, and actively harms them.  EG, you need a job for insurance, but there are no jobs. You need a job for money, so that you can afford a place to live, and food to eat, but there are no jobs. (Or, the jobs are insufficient to meet base needs). The state/society does not give a fuck; and has not for several generations. This has created a culture of multi-generationally impoverished people, who actively detest the rules of society, and rightly (at least partially, if not in the correct ways of thinking about them) views them as being causal to their circumstances, which they view as inescapable. This lead to desperation, and yes--- VIOLENCE, THEFT, and LAWLESSNESS.  Banning his access to weaponry only reinforces "Charlie"'s worldview about law enforcement, law in general, and society and his place within it. It adds to the problem, and does nothing to solve it, except make the symptoms less pronounced (Because guns are a big equalizer in terms of effective power.)

If our officials were actually, you know-- SERIOUS-- about reducing violence, including gun violence, they would be out there trying to make it harder for the rich to exclude the poor from everything that generates wealth, would be seeking legitimate solutions to the looming mass unemployment that the AI age is going to cause, and be bending over backwards to fix the multi-generational contempt of law that has sprung up from the decades of obliviousness of their peers.

But no.  "Just take away the guns! Problem solved!"

No. No it isn't, not by a long shot.

[Trekkin]

The problem is that both parties to the conflict of interest have mutually exclusive goals, and demonize the other party. Neither side actually WANTS a sensible solution. They want *THEIR WAY*.

Case in point. Literally everyone thinks this, and that they're in the exteme minority in thinking this and special for thinking this, because it's a comfortable way of explaining why everything sucks that also feeds the ego.

In truth, everyone wants a sensible solution. Most of them have already found one.

[wierd]

Back at ya brother--  "Everyone that says that must be an egocentrist asshole" basically sums up your response.

Instead, consider this:

I have lived in rural butt-fuckistan, and have talked with many people out there. The concern I reported is the primary one.

I have also lived in a dense city environment, and have talked with many people there. The concern I have reported (as well as the presented consensus on personal views about how to treat the 2nd amendment-- "technically legal, functionally impossible", thus being "Good" both ways, so "win!") is also the primary one.

I ask you then, what have you contributed to the discussion with your response?  Oh? You stroked your ego, and made yourself feel superior?

IRONY!!




The fundemental reason why this is still a thing, (As indeed, attempts at sensible solution have been made numerous times, and ground has been ceded both ways in the past) is that the argument that " Yes, but it could be so much better if (You did it my way!)" 

EG, "We tried doing background checks and the like but criminals still are getting guns and shooting people, so clearly we arent doing enough because the shootings are still happening!  Clearly, we must try getting rid of all of the guns! ALL OF THE GUNS!"  is totally a real outlook from middle income city dwellers.

"They want to take away ALL OF THE GUNS!-- ALL OF THEM!!" as a terrified refrain (and played up by fear mongering wastrels like the NRA) is totally a real outlook from family owned farm operators.

Those goals are indeed mutually exclusive.

The basic issue is that everyone wants what is best for them, in their mode of living/circumstance.  For the urbanite, this means assurance that nobody but police have guns.  For the rural citizen, it is being assured that they can own a weapon to protect their property (And no, not normally from humans.)

It is the failure to appreciate and accept the needs of the other that causes them to sideline or denounce the needs of the other. Once that is done, the only narrative left is "Their way is clearly absurd, and mine is clearly the way to go!"

Which again, is insistence on having it THEIR WAY.

[SalmonGod]

I gotta say though... what you guys are doing is just as smug and gets just as old as what you're describing.