So it’s the responsibility of the FBI to prevent school shootings, whaaaat?
Should we be taking the above as what passes for an argument on the left?
I wasn’t aware the left had any arguments. That’s news to me.
Unless that old way happens to be socialism and then suddenly it’s the leftist trotting out texts and ideas from the 19th Century and swearing by them.
I realize the “We’re the ideology of hip, new ideas” sloganizing has worked well for the left, but it hasn’t actually been true re: economics and justice since before your grandfather was born. I mean, that’s why all the rich old billionaires are mostly on your side the of aisle now; they might be old but they aren’t so fucking old that socialism is ‘new fangled’ even to them.
Particularly in America? Whatever you want to say about the ‘newer waves of Feminism’ in the United States, they are even worse in places like the UK, Germany, and Sweden.
So your revolutionary, bold idea is “Let’s not allow the peasants to arm themselves”? That’s the ground breaking, forward-thinking idea that only the progressive mind can conceive of that’s supposed to be blowing my dumb cracker mind?
If you had empirical fact on your side, one would think you would have relied on that in your screed instead of the “liberals so smart, conservatives so dumb” bitching. Perhaps the reason why so many conservatives don’t adopt your ideas is that -like you- liberals all to often forget to include all that amazing empirical data you totally have on your side when you’re arguing for your points.
The inherent superiority of the leftist has always been just accepted.
Of course they do. They have “It’s [current year]”. They have “If you disagree, you are a [insult of the week].” And they have the all-powerful “One time in history we changed something and it worked out well, and I am advocating we change something, therefore it will work out.”
Well those are not actually arguments, but they’re hilarious nonetheless.
Yea, couldn’t agree more.
It’s policy that matters, not personality.
There’s no democrats or republicans, just republicrats.
They agree on most things, and where they disagree, it’s slight.
One or the other, it matters not, the rich get richer, and so does Israel, at the expense of the poor and nature.
The difference between democrats and republicans is largely one of personality, not policy.
Exactly, you aren’t aware.
Everything you come out with, whether it’s more off-the-cuff remarks or some caricatured youtube video or meme, just further proves what I’ve been saying about you. The fact that you’re so brazenly trotting out all of your gibberish has Dunning-Kruger written all over it, it’s an embarrassment.
You will get nowhere, I repeat: nowhere, if you keep closing your mind and ears to opposing viewpoints and anything approaching a mindset that will allow you to even begin to objectively analyse and explore any rationale that isn’t parallel to your own. There’s a reason why newly cliché psych labeling like “the Dunning-Kruger effect” and “cognitive dissonance” is everywhere now, it’s because human minds are generally by default averse to that which challenges one’s identity such that one risks a feeling of loss if it turns out that their worldview isn’t 100% consistent and infallible - which it never is. We’re not built for objective argument (for good reason, mind you), but we can be trained to be better at it. It’s abundantly clear that you missed the sessions though. The less trained you are, the more vulnerable your identity, the more you will resort to lower methods to maintain your fragile ego, the more you will fight back with irrationality and cherry picked evidence, instantly forgetting all the rest. If you want to get somewhere you will step out of the shallow-end and away from its easy dopamine hits and risk drowning. Probably not for everyone, but it’s just frustrating to hear someone acting as and claiming authority when they so clearly have nothing to back it up.
I will say it here, just to give you inspiration (or so I naively hope): I am in the process of moving away from Leftist thought.
I’ve based my life, ever since I first noticed that there was something wrong with how things were at a very early age, on solving humanity’s problems. I’ve been trying to get into the conservative rationale as hard as I can over the past few years, just to see if I could find reason to do so, and countless times I was not persuaded. It’s taken just a couple of concepts (in game theory and ethology) to finally understand that there is actually something valid to their thinking, but I finally did it and reached a tipping point. The partial opportunist at this point will claim they are not surprised that I am finally seeing the light, but they miss the point - I still have all the countless and strong arguments that I have developed in favour of the left, I am simply becoming more rounded and ridding myself of bias. I remember reading in Nietzsche, I think it was Twilight of the Idols, a good summation about intellectual thought: that it is capable of seriously holding a set of beliefs without fundamentally investing in them, and for all I know, I will fall into conforming with what is ambiguously attributed to Churchill’s words about being a liberal while still young because I have a heart, and conservative by the time I am old because I have a brain. It will be embarrassing for me if I do, but I am after truth, not ego - as I wish everyone else was. The irony is that if everyone else was, we could actually achieve Leftist “utopia”.
Anyway, it is fucking hard to go down this route, I just wish the hordes of people out there, of which you are one, would even consider beginning it. Think honestly, if you are so capable: what will it take for you to do so too?
And no, I am not claiming that all leftists do the above - not at all. All it takes is enough of those who don’t on one side, and enough on the other, for both sides to devolve into arguing about the loudest and most flawed of the opposition being so obviously wrong, thereby affirming their own side, increasing polarisation even further and decreasing progress even further. I am advocating breaking the cycle and re-discovering the enlightened middle-ground, not exclusively of course, but the whole thing is so out of balance, all the good points are being forgotten in favour of partisan point-scoring.
The above “argument” to which you were referring was simply exposing how the “arguments” of the opening poster could just as easily be reversed with just as much validity (or lack thereof). It was a jibe to expose just how ridiculous he is being. It could be taken as an argument for the left just as much as the opening poster of this thread could be said to be representative of offering arguments for the right.
An example of the left resorting to just as low and catchy poking strategies would be the kind that you brought up. Any implication that this is the extent of leftist argument, or even typical of it as a whole is just plain dishonesty. It might be typical of the kind of low, point scoring tactics that we hear most about because they are catchy and therefore newsworthy (nothing to be proud of), but we need to discern between genuine arguments on both sides - not quibble over the periphery.
I am aware that Socialism has been attempted in the past, even before the lives of the oldest living people began, but it can hardly have ever been said to be the old way that things used to be. Things have been predominantly capitalist for a long time now, even before Socialism really took off as a counter to the failures of said Capitalism. Of course it was rarely if ever some kind of “pure” Capitalism, and there have been old attempts to counter Aristocracy that one might try to pass off as Socialism in spirit, but Capitalism has been more and more predominant since Feudal times because it has worked better than the alternatives that we have tried so far in the environment of the time. There have always been attempts to overthrow oppressive systems throughout history, and even in the rest of the animal kingdom, and just because the form it takes as “Socialism” hasn’t stuck so far, this constant conflict over power is never going to stop. Every now and then it will be justified enough to catch on, until a newer incarnation of established oppression sets in. Does that mean that Socialism is inevitably going to work? Not necessarily, but the attempts to renew the balance of power will keep going until something does work, whether or not it is like or referred to as Socialism.
The problem we now have is that Capitalism is inevitably resolving into an established balance of power, more and more visibly so. So far it obviously hasn’t been visible enough to stoke a successful revolution, and it’s clear to see why - in the decades before the near-global recession that we had a decade ago, there continued to be amazing inventions and bubbles that sustained things and kept wealth on the rise for even the poorest. Since then, we’re waiting for something new to sustain Capitalism. We’re set for AI to soon take over, and this could go either way. It could be the new bubble that we’ve been waiting for, or more likely (I think), it will strain our ability to push the unskilled into even more meaningless work just for the sake of conserving our tradition of “you have to work to deserve a living” - when a robot could do it better. It’s long been prophesied that humans won’t have to work anymore with all the new technology that we’ve been creating since the industrial revolution, but so far we’ve managed to maneuver ourselves into a workable corner - but I think (or hope) that this process has a limit. Whether or not you call it Socialism that replaces current ways if things happen in the way I think more likely, these changes are on their way.
I’m European and I speak with people from other European countries and hear of the odd instance of newer waves of Feminism here, but never actually see it. I listen to a lot of American social commentary and although I’ve not visited there for a long time it sounds like it’s legitimately taking over the universities and politics. Maybe it’s just the hysteria of the people I’m watching, and it’s just as mild and in the background as it is over here, I don’t know for sure. It just seems to me that it’s much worse in the US.
What is the point of allowing “the peasants” to arm themselves? As if they would stand a chance versus a modern corrupt government, with the weapons they have now. Drones are smaller, nukes are bigger, it’s all unmanned, and that doesn’t even cover the biological weapons at their disposal and the kind of training that they give the army that makes the common citizen able to cope with the horror of actually taking a life. What… you gonna shoot the water supply now? It’s not just muskets anymore like it was at the time that the 2nd Amendment was amended so.
All people do now is use them on each other when they’re mentally unstable, which for some reason most people seem to be nowadays, or they accidentally use them on each other because accidents happen with devastating firepower just as much as they do with less dangerous weapons. Either you’re going to be safe and responsible with firearms and therefore not be able to access them in time if you ever need them, or you’re going to keep them handy and able for misuse and abuse. Either way, much of the rest of the world has banned them and they don’t have their kids massacred every once in a while. Maybe it’s a kind of Darwinism, I dunno.
Already covered this. I bet you didn’t even read what I just wrote either.
People kill people through intent or negligence better with better killing devices. Where do you draw the line? Before guns - see other countries.
Banning knives? Slippery slope fallacy. Also, many countries have done this and have been better for it, same as with guns.
Constitutions can be wrong and amended with amendments. Most countries have one, but don’t cream themselves over its holiness, they just update it when reasonable to do so.
A well armed populace has no practicality anymore. They will do nothing vs a modern corrupt government + only be abused and misused vs one another.
Leftists do not want more gun violence, they want less like other countries have done with great success. Talking about it endlessly is not fun.
Knowing how to use a gun is very different to actually taking a life, which even soldiers often can’t handle once they’ve done it, if they can ever do it.
Perfectly sane + not mind control any more than arguing in favour of guns. Predictable? yes. Vacuous, no. Look at other countries.
If a malevolent dictator came to power, like an Adolf Hitler, or a Joseph Stalin, started detaining people for their ideological and (ir)religious beliefs, their ethnicity/race, or whatever, placing them in work camps and secretly executing them, wouldn’t you feel safer if everyone had assault rifles?
Would it not be more difficult for them to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, if there were thousands of militias, willing and able to fight back, shoot up police stations and military at will?
Would that not help deter the police and military from acquiescing to the rogue regime?
I absolutely think it would.
I think once they’ve thwarted the masses ability to arm themselves in all first world countries, incrementally that’s what our governments will attempt to do.
Of course government could destroy many-most of us if they wanted to, they could just drone nuke/viral bomb us, but then they would destroy what they mean to conquer, wish to subdue, which’s counterproductive, they wouldn’t do that, not to mention they’d probably destroy themselves in the process.
Instead what they want to do is intimidate us, keep us from organizing ourselves, coming together against them, so we can be herded like cattle, rounded up at will, forced to obey increasingly Draconian laws.
More difficult to do with millions of citizens armed to the teeth.
If governments need to arm themselves to protect them from their citizens and foreign invaders, we need to arm ourselves to protect us from our governments and foreign invaders.
I’ll be willing to relinquish our arms when they relingquish theirs.
If anything citizens should be more like the police, more like the government, able to make citizens arrests, able to come together and arrest police when they think police are corrupt, and abusive.
Democracy isn’t just about voting once in a while, it’s about being the government.
Ideally every citizen should be, and view themselves as part of the government, as a politician, policeman and soldier when need be, that’s what democracy really is.
You can’t really have rule by the people without the physical, material power to back that rule up.
I find the deepening political, economic, military, scientific and technological chasm between us and our government extremely alarming.
The people need empower themselves, not dis-empower.
Republicrats, I like it. 
Absolutely, both hold nothing but disdain for the poor, both support war, both support the military industrial complex, both support open borders, both are pro choice abortionists, both are pro homosexuality, both are pro feminism, both are scientific transhumanism progressivists, both kiss the ass of Israel (AIPAC), both are willing pawns of Wallstreet capitalism, and it goes on even further.
You have to consider how such situations come about.
They come about because a people are sometimes stupid enough to support these malevolent dictators enough for them to come to power. They don’t just appear out of nowhere like a James Bond villain. Malevolent people vote them in and they emerge from the group of malevolent people in the first place. With an armed people, these malevolent people are going to be the ones with the guns. And of course with every popular movement in one direction, another pulls back in the other direction, who will also have guns in a well-armed populace.
Then what do you think will happen? They turn on one another.
Without well-armed citizens, we get what we saw in Nazi Germany. With well-armed citizens we get what we see today in the Middle East. Have you seen the piles of rubble that used to be towns and cities over there? Either way, human life is decimated, and with well-armed citizens you get the added bonus of destroying all the things as well as all the people. Coming back from that, if you ever do, after undoing everything everyone worked for is no easy task - you might as well travel back in time, but with added emotional scaring from knowing what you lost and how you lost it. This fantasy that guns are going to protect you or anyone is just deluded. Its in the interests of government to avoid such a lose-lose situation, but if enough people vote it in, who knows what stupidity those in power will resort to.
Arming everyone, like in ancient times, was abandoned in favour of voting in a monopoly on violence for a reason. That’s how we built all we enjoy today, instead of wallowing in perpetual skirmishes and wars like we see in all the history books. Disempowering “the people” in terms of gun ownership is more empowering in others than you’re appreciating. There’s a lot of stupidity out there, and for the sake of making yourself more dangerous at the cost of making them more dangerous too, you become just another one of them.
If everyone was as dangerous as the police, the police would be useless. Without a monopoly on violence, you get unregulated vigilantes like everyone seems to idolise if their popular portrayal in the entertainment industry is anything to go by, and you get organised groups of protection racketeers, who you can choose to pay instead of being forced to pay through tax. Only thing is, if you don’t pay, you get murdered, and the sharp good vs. evil distinction you get in the entertainment industry is nothing like real life where everybody believes they are the good guy. We’ve seen the wild west, we’ve seen the mafia, we know where it goes and how it ends. Were they really more free? Only in a sense were they more free, but the net freedom was lower. Being free to be violent such that you are extremely likely to get murdered is not freedom - some freedoms need to be curtailed in order to optimise overall freedom. It’s a case of figuring out what needs to be controlled so that the most possible other things don’t need to be. Guns are one of the things that need to be controlled in order to attain maximum overall freedom.
.
No, the old way things used to be would be called feudalism, which nobody is advocating for as far as I am aware. My point is your claim to socialism being ‘the new idea’ has come and gone. It’s simply been tried too many times to be fresh or innovative. When multiple countries have risen and fallen testing your theory before you were born, you don’t get to claim it’s new.
Well yeah. It would be weird if Capitalism wasn’t invented until after Socialism started revolting against it.
Wow. This “My idea is slightly less old than your idea” thing is really important to you. Are you aware that it says absolutely nothing about the validity of your idea, and if anything is a point against it?
Horseshit. There have been a number of successful revolutions against Capitalism; a successful revolution just means the previous order is overthrown. Just because what replaced Capitalism lead to everybody being thrown in prison or starving to death doesn’t mean the revolution part wasn’t successful. How many times do you get to call ‘do over’ before the empirical evidence you paid lip service to leads to the conclusion that socialism is a bad idea?
I think it just seems much worse in the U.S. because there’s people more actively pointing it out and fighting against it in the U.S. Is there some policy or trend on American Universities you see as particularly bad that isn’t going on in Europe yet?
That’s a separate question. You’ve spent an entire post and a half patting yourself on the back for how forward thinking and innovative you are, so now I want to hear how confiscating arms from the lowborn counts as innovative and forward thinking. I mean surely you don’t think politicians and movie stars will lack for armed security after whatever measures you suggest are implemented, do you?
Of course that’s not the only concern. It’s a bit hypocritical for radical leftists to tell people they don’t need guns when radical leftists have taken to firebombing businesses and advocating for violent riots against the citizens whenever an election doesn’t go their way.
And anyway, that sort of reasoning doesn’t change a human right.
Or, in VASTLY more numerous situations, they use them to scare off a criminal, or they use them in some harmless sporting event.
Sure, they traded a certain kind of freedom for a certain kind of security in a way we did not. And?
Then to use the intelligence and law enforcement agencies as pawns , as the left charges against the right , is equally a paradigmnn solution of modeling from a pseudo center.
The more this is done, the more veryfied the idea of the ’ Deep State’ becomes as a veritable agency, albeit -hidden.
A pseudo center modeling is based on a compensation of appearance for substance. There may be a lot of smoke created in an effort to hide the lack of any substantial Real authentication for the charge,. They probably know it as the right, and it reminds of the Prisoner’s Paradox mind game
It’s funny how democrats are concerned about the economic disparity between the rich/poor, but aren’t concerned about the armament disparity between the powerful/weak, where as republicans are concerned about the armament disparity, but aren’t concerned about the economic disparity, or at least think nothing can be done about the economic disparity, or that it will mysteriously take care of itself.
I’m concerned about them both.
You can’t have a meaningful democracy without balancing wealth, power, education and so on between the people, and the elite.
In fact there can’t be an elite, or a monopolization of anything at all, elitism and monopolization is the antithesis of democracy, if you permit it in any domain, you permit it in all domains, the elite will quickly make short-work of your democracy, and that’s exactly what’s happened today.
You either have near total equality, or total inequality, allowing enormous disparities in just one area, will inevitably lead to enormous disparities in all.
Now this is the hidden substance, which, they surmise, that the constituency can never get to comprehend. I think You hit the nail on the head.
The balance is probably impossible in these days of trillion dollar deficits, its either guns or butter. ( not guns and roses.)