Print

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

[wierd]

It has been my experience, that the people who vote republican, tend to do so out of reflexive fear, rather than outright malice, 9/10 of the time.

That fear takes many forms, but the ultimate nature of that fear is inconsequential; the siren's songs of "we will keep you safe from it" or "We will return the way things were before that terror came to be" are the poisons being offered, basically every single time.

The defense, is to know that such things are nonsense.  You cannot be safe from an irrational fear without confronting its irrationality, and you cannot "return" to a condition or way of life that never existed to begin with.

Both are appeals to "Let us handle it", because it's easier than doing either of the things I just mentioned. In reality, it just gives people who have no justification or right, your power-- and they do terrible things with it.


Fear is a natural reaction to things you do not understand.  It is not something to be, or feel, blamed over.

How you respond and react to that fear; that is what has consequences for other people, and holds such stigma.  And yet, people continue to willfully succumb to it, by giving their support and power to people who use that support, and that power, to cause harm to other people-- and use that fear as a weapon to continue getting that support.

It's easy to jump from blaming people for enabling that kind of thing, to making them faceless monsters that need to be destroyed, rather than people that are prisoners of fear, doubt, and uncertainty-- being controlled by the 1/10 people who actually do hold malicious intent.

I prefer not to fall into that trap.   Even that 1/10, only has malicious intent, because they respond to fear not with paralysis, but with rage.  Responding with your own rage does not help, and only makes the problem worse. 


(And NINJA--)

RE: Ninja

They openly advocate for this, because they feel strengthened by the notion that being more powerful (or being empowered), allows them to act to remedy situations themselves that they find frightening.

Again, 9/10 will be paralyzed by fear, and 1/10 will act malevolently, rather than seek understanding, or to confront the core nature of their fears instead.

[Trekkin]

There are all kinds of people out there. And I doubt that the ones buying up guns are the types to turn tail when presented with the opportunity to kill someone and be hailed as a hero.

Well, the people buying up guns are apparently buying lots of them per person, and even if they intend to use them all in some capacity, they presumably aren't all walking around with their entire arsenal at all times, and the only person with advance notice of a mass shooting so they can prepare all their guns is the shooter. We'd presumably like them to have fewer of them.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that American gun owners are rational people, and can count how many guns they can use effectively at one time (1) and how many attackers they imagine warding off (also most commonly 1 anecdotally, but not usually more than a small group outside of prepper fantasies) and come to the conclusion that the marginal utility of additional guns falls off rapidly. A similar case can be made concerning particularly large and unwieldy guns, including many rifles not intended for hunting.

However, despite knowing this, people continue to buy guns that aren't making them safer than the guns they already have. We can therefore conclude that they are not doing so for defensive reasons, which would in turn suggest that gun ownership alone is not necessarily predictive of willingness and ability to employ them defensively.

[scourge728]

hey, if they all shoot each other there are fewer morons voting for republicans

Huh, I've now been confronted with the image of many of my friends (those who would vote for Republicans) being shot. And also the suggestion that this would be a good thing. What a great image to have in my head. Thanks a lot.

it was supposed to be a joke, I guess I should have phrased it better, maybe added a : P or a /joke or something

[Kagus]

count how many guns they can use effectively at one time (1)

Don't you go raining on my akimbo!


While I'm not going to go and claim that they're the majority, there's definitely a demographic of people who buy many guns per individual because they're collectors/enthusiasts and just think guns are neat.

Like, I doubt anyone's going to claim that a blackpowder muzzle-loaded pistol is going to be an effective tool of either hunting or home defense, but fuck if that wouldn't be a hoot to play around with!

[Trekkin]

While I'm not going to go and claim that they're the majority, there's definitely a demographic of people who buy many guns per individual because they're collectors/enthusiasts and just think guns are neat.

Given the numbers in the article I linked, I'm inclined to agree, but those would be examples of gun owners we'd assume wouldn't be closer to the "good guy with a gun" ideal than a given member of the general public. A collector who has a hundred guns safely locked in a display case at home is no threat to anyone and also not meaningfully different from a non gun owner in the types of crisis usually envisioned as solvable by defensive gun use.

It just looks like purchasing trends are more in line with that being more representative of gun owners than we usually imagine. When we talk about the type of people who own guns, it's perhaps more informative to talk about the type of person who owns eight guns* than the type of person who owns a gun, because that's on average what's happening.

*and is not a buccaneer. Just before someone brings up braces of flintlock pistols and so forth.

[thompson]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It has been my experience, that the people who vote republican, tend to do so out of reflexive fear, rather than outright malice, 9/10 of the time.

That fear takes many forms, but the ultimate nature of that fear is inconsequential; the siren's songs of "we will keep you safe from it" or "We will return the way things were before that terror came to be" are the poisons being offered, basically every single time.

The defense, is to know that such things are nonsense.  You cannot be safe from an irrational fear without confronting its irrationality, and you cannot "return" to a condition or way of life that never existed to begin with.

Both are appeals to "Let us handle it", because it's easier than doing either of the things I just mentioned. In reality, it just gives people who have no justification or right, your power-- and they do terrible things with it.


Fear is a natural reaction to things you do not understand.  It is not something to be, or feel, blamed over.

How you respond and react to that fear; that is what has consequences for other people, and holds such stigma.  And yet, people continue to willfully succumb to it, by giving their support and power to people who use that support, and that power, to cause harm to other people-- and use that fear as a weapon to continue getting that support.

It's easy to jump from blaming people for enabling that kind of thing, to making them faceless monsters that need to be destroyed, rather than people that are prisoners of fear, doubt, and uncertainty-- being controlled by the 1/10 people who actually do hold malicious intent.

I prefer not to fall into that trap.   Even that 1/10, only has malicious intent, because they respond to fear not with paralysis, but with rage.  Responding with your own rage does not help, and only makes the problem worse. 


(And NINJA--)

RE: Ninja

They openly advocate for this, because they feel strengthened by the notion that being more powerful (or being empowered), allows them to act to remedy situations themselves that they find frightening.

Again, 9/10 will be paralyzed by fear, and 1/10 will act malevolently, rather than seek understanding, or to confront the core nature of their fears instead.

I empathize with this argument, however, I fear it's too simplistic. 9 out of 10 Republicans are republicans because they have been socially conditioned to be Republicans. The same is true of Democrats. Unfortunately, people who critically analyse politics and strive to make balanced, informed choices are a relatively small minority, and I'd expect would mostly call themselves"Independents" in the US system.

The brain seems to prioritize social conformity over rationality, and no one is immune from this. It makes teaching across the political divide difficult, as people will instinctively distrust you once they work out you're not "one of them". The solution is to build rapport with people first, but even that has it's limits. I also wonder if cognitive decline with aging is a factor. From my own experience, my father was always politically opinionated, but conspiracies about a left-initiated civil war are new...

[Naturegirl1999]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It has been my experience, that the people who vote republican, tend to do so out of reflexive fear, rather than outright malice, 9/10 of the time.

That fear takes many forms, but the ultimate nature of that fear is inconsequential; the siren's songs of "we will keep you safe from it" or "We will return the way things were before that terror came to be" are the poisons being offered, basically every single time.

The defense, is to know that such things are nonsense.  You cannot be safe from an irrational fear without confronting its irrationality, and you cannot "return" to a condition or way of life that never existed to begin with.

Both are appeals to "Let us handle it", because it's easier than doing either of the things I just mentioned. In reality, it just gives people who have no justification or right, your power-- and they do terrible things with it.


Fear is a natural reaction to things you do not understand.  It is not something to be, or feel, blamed over.

How you respond and react to that fear; that is what has consequences for other people, and holds such stigma.  And yet, people continue to willfully succumb to it, by giving their support and power to people who use that support, and that power, to cause harm to other people-- and use that fear as a weapon to continue getting that support.

It's easy to jump from blaming people for enabling that kind of thing, to making them faceless monsters that need to be destroyed, rather than people that are prisoners of fear, doubt, and uncertainty-- being controlled by the 1/10 people who actually do hold malicious intent.

I prefer not to fall into that trap.   Even that 1/10, only has malicious intent, because they respond to fear not with paralysis, but with rage.  Responding with your own rage does not help, and only makes the problem worse. 


(And NINJA--)

RE: Ninja

They openly advocate for this, because they feel strengthened by the notion that being more powerful (or being empowered), allows them to act to remedy situations themselves that they find frightening.

Again, 9/10 will be paralyzed by fear, and 1/10 will act malevolently, rather than seek understanding, or to confront the core nature of their fears instead.

I empathize with this argument, however, I fear it's too simplistic. 9 out of 10 Republicans are republicans because they have been socially conditioned to be Republicans. The same is true of Democrats. Unfortunately, people who critically analyse politics and strive to make balanced, informed choices are a relatively small minority, and I'd expect would mostly call themselves"Independents" in the US system.

The brain seems to prioritize social conformity over rationality, and no one is immune from this. It makes teaching across the political divide difficult, as people will instinctively distrust you once they work out you're not "one of them". The solution is to build rapport with people first, but even that has it's limits. I also wonder if cognitive decline with aging is a factor. From my own experience, my father was always politically opinionated, but conspiracies about a left-initiated civil war are new...

Back when I had Facebook, I joined a left group and a right group, and the left group thought the right would cause the civil war. I fear that both sides fearing the other would start the civil war could be a self fulfilling prophecy

[Doomblade187]

It should be noted that there are ways to better argue to each political group - framing arguments along conservative guidelines, things like appealing to tradition, and how progressives enjoy discussing moving forward, and equity/equality. The field of political rhetoric is a broad one, and everyone has slightly different views.

[McTraveller]

To get a (civil) war you need at least the following things:

• Two (or more) groups in power with mutually exclusive interests.
  
• A population with a critical combination of disenfranchisement with the status quo, susceptibility to charismatic leadership, and/or herd behavior which can be appropriated by the groups in power to use violence to gain their objectives.

The latter is important: if you have a population that doesn't have enough people who either "have nothing to lose" or are "willing to give everything for a cause", you can't wage any type of war.  As much as people complain about the conditions in the USA, we are nowhere near a critical mass of "have nothing to lose".  We are potentially closer to having enough people in the latter category though - there are lots of causes with charismatic leaders. There are also indications that a lot of people are looking for purpose in their lives.

[Naturegirl1999]

It should be noted that there are ways to better argue to each political group - framing arguments along conservative guidelines, things like appealing to tradition, and how progressives enjoy discussing moving forward, and equity/equality. The field of political rhetoric is a broad one, and everyone has slightly different views.

To get a (civil) war you need at least the following things:

• Two (or more) groups in power with mutually exclusive interests.
  
• A population with a critical combination of disenfranchisement with the status quo, susceptibility to charismatic leadership, and/or herd behavior which can be appropriated by the groups in power to use violence to gain their objectives.

The latter is important: if you have a population that doesn't have enough people who either "have nothing to lose" or are "willing to give everything for a cause", you can't wage any type of war.  As much as people complain about the conditions in the USA, we are nowhere near a critical mass of "have nothing to lose".  We are potentially closer to having enough people in the latter category though - there are lots of causes with charismatic leaders. There are also indications that a lot of people are looking for purpose in their lives.

Thank you for the information

[thompson]

Argument framing is definitely a good one. I've found that progressives and conservatives actually agree on many issues, but if it isn't framed correctly they'll argue about it anyway. It doesn't work for progressive issues where there is no conservative analog, but you can go a long way with it.

[smjjames]

To get a (civil) war you need at least the following things:

• Two (or more) groups in power with mutually exclusive interests.
  
• A population with a critical combination of disenfranchisement with the status quo, susceptibility to charismatic leadership, and/or herd behavior which can be appropriated by the groups in power to use violence to gain their objectives.

The latter is important: if you have a population that doesn't have enough people who either "have nothing to lose" or are "willing to give everything for a cause", you can't wage any type of war.  As much as people complain about the conditions in the USA, we are nowhere near a critical mass of "have nothing to lose".  We are potentially closer to having enough people in the latter category though - there are lots of causes with charismatic leaders. There are also indications that a lot of people are looking for purpose in their lives.

Another key feature is a sharp, usually irreconcilable, dividing line. Class, religion, and culture are the big ones, but they can also be ideological. We don’t have any political issues that are anywhere near as irreconcilable as slavery was. Class? The Gilded Age of the late 19th/early 20th was worse in some ways than now and a civil war didn’t happen then. Politically/ideology? If you look at the 30,000 foot view, it certainly looks heavily divided, but look at the fine grain and it’s far more diffuse than you’d think at first glance. Culture? Even 200+ years later we’re still figuring ourselves out and while conservatives like to tout ‘culture clashes’, there’s nothing worth fighting a civil war over.

Put simply, as divided as we seem to be and it feels like, the kind of sharp irreconcilable divide that usually underlies a civil war just isn’t there.

[nenjin]

Libel and slander that manages to raise eyebrows even today for how savage it was, was also a feature of that era.

[sluissa]

You don't need people who have literally nothing to lose. You just need to convince them they have nothing to lose.

We're doing a pretty good job of that.

[nenjin]

You don't need people who have literally nothing to lose. You just need to convince them they have nothing to lose.

For all the hot talk people do, they have families, property and wealth. They may be too stupid to realize that destabilizing all of society puts that stuff at risk. But I think most of them know it. They don't want a war. They just want a take over so it has as little impact on their lives as possible, other than removing the parts of society they don't like. Which, if you think that happens without consequences, is still pretty damn ignorant.