This is what happens when you’re brainwashed from childhood to believe you’re born evil, anyone not on your “team” is more evil, and you must blindly obey authority.
Organized religion destroys who we are or who we can be by inhibiting our actions and decisions out of fear of an intangible parent-figure who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says “No, no!”
Great quote. I can’t talk about Dogma without bringing up that time that Kevin Smith participated in a protest of his own film.
Among the sign-waving attendees was Smith himself, making absolutely not the slightest effort to disguise his appearance or voice.
“I don’t think [Dogma] stands for anything positive,” - Kevin Smith, being interviewed by a news reporter while cheerfully participating in a protest of his film, Dogma.
I remember this kind of stuff back from my days as an evangelical Christian…they applaud this kind of nonsense, even though every single one of the users of this kind of software has some way around it. Purity culture craziness.
Except politics, that makes no sense. Politics is literally public debate. You don’t like people trying to solve their problems through open discourse?
I was thinking about most of the bullshit that is part of politics in a more broad sense, I suppose. It would be the hate filled vitriol that keeps spewing out of the mouths of politicians, that I refer to. It’s also lightly referencing how political wrangling has caused endless years of pain in some cases.
To summarize, anything negative you can associate with political dysfunction is what I meant. Putting in a full summary into my short quip probably wasn’t ideal, but since we are talking about it now, cool. Still, it wasn’t initially clear, so it is totally fair to question.
(Politics can refer to actions taken while governing which can relate to debate or discussion: “His decision to arrest the man was purely a political choice.” In that context, an action is taken because of past (or future) debate. Politics, aside from its proper definition, is a little flexible in its use, proper or not. “Political correctness” is a weird usage in that regard as it encompasses an assumed standard.)
All right, I just still think that it’s an empty statement- “I dislike the bad side of X” isn’t exactly stating much, while being actively used as a normative soundbite, something everyone can agree to disagree on while at the same time favoring the position that “all sides are equal, nothing you do matters, everyone is malicious”, which is pretty cynical. Not arguing a case against you or anything, I’m just arguing out loud I guess, but I see these semantic tricks being played out in media that are very obvious when you know what to look for, that manage to infect swathes of people, by far the majority of everyone around me.
Totally cool, and you ain’t wrong. The way I explained my use of the word “politics” was correct. However, your last explanation may have been my subconscious intent. A very peculiar freudian slip, as it were.
It’s like gaslighting yourself. Huffing it hard. I honestly think it has to do with lower intelligence. You simplify things until they make sense to you, regardless if they make sense in actual reality, because you’re too stupid to comprehend anything more complex than racist Disney cartoons from the 30’s.
I think a lot of it is clever people who for whatever reason learned to fear thinking and all their brain mass has evolved to help them justify not doing it
“I just can’t believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun in that small of a space with children present”
What I find particularly concerning about this is that this implies that being evicted would justify picking up a handgun provided you’re not in an enclosed space with children present. Why in the actual fuck would there be any further qualification after “I just can’t believe being evicted would justify picking up a handgun”. Full stop. You’re being evicted. You fucked up. Firearms don’t belong in that conversation at all with the only possible exception I can think of being if you are being directly and illegally threatened with a firearm.
Another way to look it at is that there are situations in which picking up a handgun in a small space with children present is justified; however, being evicted is not one of them.
I have received something like 5 different replies to separate replies of my own, from new accounts with only one comment, all of which end with “not my problem.” It’s almost like a bot keyed off that phrase from my reply in a privacy community post, or there are some butthurt people with too much time on their hands.
Frequency illusion, also known as the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon or frequency bias, is a cognitive bias referring to the tendency to notice something more often after noticing it for the first time, leading to the belief that it has an increased frequency of occurrence.The illusion is a result of increased awareness of a phrase, idea, or object – for example, hearing a song more often or seeing red cars everywhere.
I was just informed that someone is following me around downvoting everything, which is hilarious since my instance has downvotes disabled. It’s definitely some idiot or a group of them.
edit: also, its adorable that you suggest it’s all in my head, it’s not. I have the receipts. And the fact they are all coming from new accounts with only the one comment each is pretty obvious.
I personally find downvotes useful because there are a lot of low quality comments and content. Downvotes help me (and others) to avoid seeing them. Thus not wasting time with uninteresting posts or comments. But you aren’t supposed to downvote everything that someone says.
I place zero value on downvotes because they’re used as a weapon, such as right now for me if my instance actually logged them, or as a harassment strat against lgtbq individuals, etc, and they have the potential and often do hide perfectly valid solutions in help threads because someone suggested an unorthodox method for a specific case that gets downvoted to oblivion because that solution didn’t toe the line with everyone else’s preferred one.
Sorry pal I’m gonna have to give you a downvote for this, lol.
Downvotes are incredibly valid. They mean “not only do I not approve of this content, I think it’s actively bad”. Simply not upvoting and moving on is the shrug of the internet. I probably give out 50x the upvotes as I do downvotes, but when I do serve one up it’s usually because the comment outright promotes misinformation.
Look at the current state of YouTube sans downvotes. You used to be able to look at the ratio to tell if a video wasn’t even worth looking at. Now, you see oh, 100k people liked this. But what if 200k disliked it and it’s actually hot garbage? Oh, we’ll never know!
Removing downvotes is just an attempt to drive “engagement” over quality, part of the downward slide of the internet.
Note: I didn’t actually give you the downvote, lol. A valid discussion or debate should not earn a downvote. I don’t agree with your take, but it’s not trash.
I don’t wonder at all because I don’t see downvotes or care about them, advantages of being on a downvote disabled server. Y’all can circle jerk and I can ignore it.
A corporation shot an 8 year old while trying to shoot an 18 year old? Corporations suck and I’m not defending them in any way, but it seems like a weird comparison to make.
I mean, there’s that whole Banana hit squad thing. Also all those Amazonian tribes murdered for their land to deforest. That’s some corporate bs that didn’t get anyone closed or punished. Not exactly the same, but close enough.
So this article makes it seem like he’s got dementia and was under the spell of a delusion when shooting his partner & daughter. But it’s written so vaguely that it’s hard to know for sure. So I found another article that seems to be much more clear about what happened:
TL;DR: 66-year-old man is in rough shape; has Hepatitis B, Emphysema, and COPD, and needs an oxygen tank. His partner (a much younger woman), their daughter together (8 years old), and his son from a previous marriage (18) all came to his house. The article doesn’t say what happened in the conversation, but he apparently became enraged thinking they were trying to get him out of the house. My guess is that they were trying to get him to go into a care facility due to his many, many ailments.
Dude saw red, grabbed a gun, and started blasting. Shot his partner, then tried shooting his son, missed, and hit his 8-year-old daughter in the back as she was running away from him.
So it sounds much less like dementia (though that could still very well be a factor), and more like a miserable piece of shit reaching for a gun first to solve all of his problems.
I’m not saying it’s better or worse, just that it would be a different story. Dementia changes people. My grandmother went through it; she was an incredibly sweet person before Alzheimer’s, and then once she started sunsetting, she became vindictive and paranoid. Thought people were plotting against her or trying to poison her.
I posted this update because the original article was really badly written, and it was hard to figure out what actually happened.
I think a lot of people commenting have been fortunate enough to not have a loved one, or even someone they are close to succumb to these ailments. I’ve had a relative and two older ladies I grew up with pass away as completely different people than they were during the 30+ years I knew them. The hatred, vitriol, unhinged, and unprompted behavior was gut wrenching. Their sadly wasn’t much of a support system other than what they could get with Medicare and the community of people that only stuck around due to who they were rather than what they had become. It rocked my world and was life changing on my outlook on a great number of things to see in person how the most loving, sweet, caring people I could ever imagine knowing turn into monsters. Two of these women would start baking cookies for us kids growing up if we stopped by unannounced and loved nothing more than an unprompted visit turned to an evening of cards. Their last 3-5 years of life was not who they were, it was a disease, and it was scary.
probably legally but again stupid + drunk and angry with zero thought beyond the moment
something like ‘they’re not gonna kick me off my own property’ drunk as fuck and was interviewed in shock
I know someone that shot at his own mom cause she wouldn’t give him 20$, they got in a fight and she told him something like ‘shoot me if you don’t believe me I don’t have it’
Maybe his intention was just to clear the view, not to kill anyone. He’s allowed to clear the view in his home, right? Anything above waist height has to go, I’ve felt the same many a time polishing my SMG in the garage. Alas, I have neither wife, kids, nor visitors to obstruct my view, for unrelated reasons.
I’ve got bad news for you buddy, second amendment or not, the side who’s got the army behind them wins. You can have whatever shiny gun you like, you won’t even see the drone that blows you up.
In what scenario does the military not pick sides? No matter if it’s from the get go or not.
All out civil war? Same scenario, military gets involved? The side they’re on will be told to hide, they’ll shoot anyone walking around with a gun and it will come from the sky.
The second amendment was written at a time when it made sense, with today’s military it doesn’t make any anymore and it achieves the opposite of what was intended, putting people in danger instead of keeping them safe.
In the scenario where they fracture in command- most likely that’ll be a regional thing at the base level
Politics has been more easily explained throughout American history as “north” vs “south”. In addition to the regular army, there’s all the nat guards that’ll probably go with their states.
Not only do they not have the 2A, they don't need it, guns are plentiful and cheap and somehow ignorant farmers who live in caves and huts keep using them to resist drones and smart bombs.
I'm not advocating for 0 gun regulations, I'm pointing out the "the side with the bigger guns wins" argument is stupid and provably false.
What you’re ignoring for the sake of your argument is that the army would be on its own turf instead of going somewhere where they don’t know the land and there’s a big difference between Americans with guns and foreign militias backed by other countries. Also, don’t look up the death rate of Afghans vs foreigners in the 2000s war because it doesn’t look good for the Afghans.
Don’t know why you would bring up Vietnam, drones weren’t a thing back then, today the military wouldn’t even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side.
If the military today wouldn't even have to get off base to fuck up the opposing side (proven false in recent conflicts btw) why does it matter if they're on their turf? Your own reasoning doesn't make any sense and ignores a ton of conflicts. You mentioned Afghanistan, who's in charge there now, is it the US?
The statement wasn't about how many people on whichever side die, but that pretending that "You don't need a gun to defend yourself because the federal government has missles" is an extremely poor, provably false argument. I support stronger gun laws, it's just a really bad take.
It makes sense because they have maps of everything, that’s a huge technical advantage over invading a country where no one but the locals know the terrain.
They have satellites and drones that can map everything relatively quickly, recon isn't the hard part. Topographical data doesn't win hearts and minds.
Like I said, I'm not against gun control though. I just feel like blanket "no guns!" statements aren't really productive to the conversation. It'd be like trying to discuss abortion with a Christian and demanding "abortions on demand up to 10 months no questions asked!"
It's just such a dismissive, "my way or the highway" take that it makes reasonable discussion impossible and guarantees gridlock.
Satellites don’t let you map tunnels and caves, that’s the difference with fighting in the USA vs in Afghanistan or Iraq or Gaza, in the USA towns have maps of their underground and of all the buildings and heck, authorities have files on the people most likely to be armed and dangerous.
The thing is, people think it will come down to armed conflict. It won’t. It’s much easier duping people into believing the Fuhrer and have them join the movement instead. It has worked innumerable times in history, and is literally what is happening right now and has been going for decades- half the nation willingly votes in tyrants, under the rationale that the non-tyrants will take away the citizens’ rights to defend against being ruled by tyrants.
Flbprprprprprprprblpr is my state of mind since around the turn of the century.
The people downvoting you are the same people that argue that if we arm more people, we can solve the gun problem. And each downvote is an acknowledgement that their argument is garbage.
Or maybe it’s people that think this sort of rhetoric is tasteless when talking about an event where a kid died.
Yes, the man should never have had access to a firearm. But a child died for having the misfortune to be born to this sack of shit. That’s the takeaway here. Not some opportunity to try and stick it to the strawmen in your head.
These sort of “hot takes” are nothing more then mental masturbation, looking for validation from people who already share your own beliefs.
Seriously take a step back and think about the fact that you just built up some fucking narrative to place yourself as the hero against a horde of people lesser than yourself. That’s your response to this news.
You sure showed all the pro gun jackasses! They definitely are bothered by your post and absolutely seething! Whatever makes you feel like you’ve done the superior thing and that you think the right things to think.
Your views aren’t wrong, you’re just being a tool.
A child is dead, and you’re more invested in finding a way to feel superior to others than anything else. Fuck everything about that.
nottheonion
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.