Apparently you have no idea what cognitive dissonance is.
If someone who supports much of what Trump has said and done so far, then openly disagrees with something Trump now does, that is not “cognitive dissonance”.
You really actually are as retarded as you seem, aren’t you?
Correct. Cognitive dissonence can arise when one notices that Trump is going against things he said but noticing this means that one would have to question the idea of Trump on has and so one functionally does notice, while feeling a discomfort one tries to distract oneself away from. Pretty much every president has caused this kind of cognitive dissonance in his followers and not mildly. Obama and Trump both running to Wall Street with puckered lips and knee pads in place led to brief cognitive dissonance and then denial in a majority of americans. Clinton and the Bushes ran there just as fast, but this led to less cognitive dissonance.
What you’re experiencing is confirmation bias. You’re focusing on those exceptions and making a rule out of them to satisfy what you already believe. Calling it intuition lends it a limited amount of credibility, but implying a near zero correlation corresponds with your intuition that there is a correlation has no credibility.
You were doing so well, implying you gave a damn about an objective analysis of your stats, but you immediately betray this as a token gesture by implying that you have after all already supplied facts that suggest it to be reasonable to relinquish any beliefs contrary to said facts. You still haven’t examined the graph and statistics more carefully (like you said you would) and you’re already claiming some kind of victory. I even read your initial version of the post before you edited it, which previously contained some remarkably ironic statements…
A very, very poor show.
If the rule appears to be close to zero correlation between guns and homicides, and the handful of exceptions have far fewer guns and much more homicides, than that’s still better for the right’s position than if the handful of exceptions had much more guns and much more homicides.
While I didn’t crunch the numbers when I concluded it appeared to be a little better for the right’s position than the left’s, neither did you when you concluded it appeared to be neutral.
You, consider, banning something when the data shows it’s overwhelmingly more dangerous than safe, like crack and meth arguably are, not when it’s shown to be neither more dangerous than safe, nor more safe than dangerous.
Are you going to say the places that have lots of gun control need it to keep people safe, and the places that don’t have lots of gun control don’t need it to keep people safe?
And therefore we should have lots of gun control across the board, because at best, it’ll make some places safer, and at worst, it won’t make any places more dangerous?
But at this point that’s just your opinion, I could just as easily say the places that have lots of guns need lots of guns to keep them safe, and the places that don’t have lots of guns don’t need lots of guns to keep them safe.
And therefore we should have lots of guns across the board, because at best, it’ll make some places safer, and at worst, it won’t make any places more dangerous.
I could say something like: in places where people are more prone to violence, committing dozens of murders per 100 000 people per year, guns deter them from committing even more violence, and in places where people are less prone to violence, guns neither deter them, nor entice them, but the data presented here thus far doesn’t show any of that, it shows that it doesn’t matter, much, altho we can examine it more thoroughly to see if subtler connections can be drawn.
If teachers are going to be armed, then librarians should be given silencers.
Those old biddies would use them too. 
I don’t know man, I’ve always thought of old librarian women as sawed off shotguns type of gals. Something about making huge bangs in the silent no talking areas of the library is just a guess.
Leftists assume personal irresponsibility as the default position, therefore it makes perfect sense to a leftist that people should not be allowed to own guns. Leftists do not see adults, they see only weird hybrids of man-children, millennials with man buns and ironic T-shirt’s living with their parents, spending their time between Facebook, Snapchat and Starbucks.
That is how leftists see humanity. So obviously leftists can’t possibly frame any of these issues correctly. Leftism as an ideology actively militates against even the possible existence of adulthood, i.e. mature self-responsible and free citizenry.
Republicans don’t exactly believe in self-responsibility either, that’s why they’re always telling us what kind of drugs we can take, what kind of sex we can have, what kind of music we can listen to, what kind of religion we can practice (Islam is scary, etcetera), and when we can have an abortion, etcetera.
Republicans are hardly more libertarian than democrats, they’re both authoritarianism-lite in their own way.
There’s liberal, matriarchal fascism, and there’s conservative, patriarchal fascism, and it’d be interesting to run through some of the differences and commonalities between the two.
Sound thoughts.
Thankfully the disarming of the US population is not going to happen, the 2nd amendment did fulfill its purpose, conservatives are wel armed and there will be war rather than EU styled tyranny. So perhaps, none of the two, just a restoration of sanity, some years down the line.
Absolutely.
I wonder how much the death of God has to do with this. Obviously he didn’t die on he right, but the Left really struggles with it, they do everything to keep themselves mental and moral children, to erect whatever pompous murdering figurehead presents itself to them above all of us, just to not have to actually exist.
Maybe we should just claim to be God, and take it all over.
Tell me exactly why fewer guns causally leads to more homicides in a handful of exceptional cases, and that this means that more guns causally leads to less homicides in general?
Be careful here. I have set up a minefield merely by presenting your so easily-reached conclusion within the context of your evidence. There’s at least a few fallacies that you’ll have to resort to to justify this one.
Actually I did. That’s why I’m baiting you into your own trap that you’ve set yourself. If you want to walk into it, then I can’t stop you.
Leftists do want to get rid of the second amendment.
How is liberalism inherently more theistic than conservativism?
More liberals are atheists than conservatives.
How’re libertarian, or conservative principles more antithetical to theism than authoritarian, or liberal ones (emphasis on: or, as I already pointed out, authoritarianism isn’t anymore compatible with liberalism than conservatism)?
You might say worshipping God is akin to worshipping the state, and authoritarians worship the state, that is to say they surrender their sovereignty to it.
But that’s only the case if the state isn’t a democracy, and you’re not the dictator or an oligarch.
If it’s a partly or fully authoritarian democracy, than you’re as much exercising your authority over others as they’re exercising their authority over you, and if you’re a member of the majority, and the authoritarian democracy is solely exercising its authority over minorities, like the rich, than you’re not relinquishing your ethical, intellectual, psychological or material autonomy at all, in fact, it’d be a kind of slavery to libertarianism to not exercise your authority over others, when it benefits you (and your values).
Any ideology, philosophy or ism you surrender your will to, is a kind of, theism.
No ism can be fully aligned with our will, as our will, and life is dynamic.
And we’re all different.
I’d say if libertarianism mostly appeals to you, because it aligns with your sense of fairness, and/or you think you stand to benefit from it, than fine, but for others, it doesn’t align with their sense of fairness, and/or they don’t think they stand to benefit from it, and for them, it’d be akin to worshipping a God, or a disembodied set of commandments, to subscribe to it, to give themselves over to something totally alien to their being.
Yup, the slippery slope is what bothers me most. They take, er, I mean, we give up some liberties and get acclimated to it, then we give up some more and get acclimated and so on.
And then it sets precedent. “Well we’ve banned assault rifles, and this situation X isn’t much different, so let’s ban X.” It’s impossible to know all the consequences.
But the underlying cause of violence will still remain even though a means of expression has been removed. The kids will find new ways to vent that are perhaps less destructive, but perhaps more frequent, and the death toll would continue to climb, just in less cinematic displays. I don’t see how removing the means of ventilation will relieve pressure.
Leftists do not talk about the real causes of violence, either in general or specifically to individual incidents like a school shooting, because leftists are idiots. Focusing on guns is a way of distracting you from the fact they have literally nothing to say.
Ah shit, I don’t like the gun control thing but the comfortable left-blaming so perfectly fits in the real power structures giggle glee it needs to be called on. And Rightists hate big government until there is a false flag or hallucinated enemy war - ususally with someone who used to be an ally of at least the CIA - and then they happily watch trillions shifted from personal bank accounts to places like Halliburton. Rightists happily confuse the freedom of corporations - whose charters used to be seen as 1) priviledges and 2) revocable - as somehow the same as the freedom of individuals, and who extends this into 3) freedom for banks and wall street not seeing how this actually crimps human freedoms. Rightists thought leftists were faggy US haters when they pointed out how US foreign policty undermined the lives, democracy and freedoms of people in other countries AND STILL CANNOT ADMIT the connection to how this is happening domestically to US citizens, now that the same elite no longer needs US citizens to be comfy any more. Sure the left has fucked up all over the place. So has the right. And every times you get all smug and simple and aim hate at one, you are playing the stupid checkers games that the people in power want you to play. Further, you’re not taking responsibility for your own weaknesses and what you have done.
There is a direct correlation between increasing leftism in American society and increase in violent incidents like school shootings. Families get hollowed out by cultural Marxism, communities get devastated by neoliberalism, schools can no longer educate people due to forced indoctrination programs and political correctness and the hyper-litigious nature of this leftist society we live in, not to mention administrative bloat and union bloat in the education system which is sucking away most of the funds that should be spent on actually educating people and paying teachers who actually do their jobs, rather than coddling the shit teachers who do not give a fuck but happen to have tenure so know they cannot be fired.
And if anyone acts out or has a problem with any of that, obviously they’re a deplorable, so just shame them or give them a bottle of psychopills. Rising cult of victimhood, Orwellian political correctness, poverty and decimation of the middle class under leftist and neoliberal programs, and pharmakillers in the “medical” industry pushing a million different kinds of pills to distort people’s brains in the hope of making them “comfortably numb”. Yeah, I only wonder why there aren’t even more shootings and violence.
Leftists used to understand these things, they actually used to stand up for real earthy human values and for rational free discourse on issues like this… not anymore. The Left has steadily decayed on the one hand into a rabid mass of Orwellian virtue signaling mob agitators, extreme cultural Marxist tyranny, and on the other hand into subservient passive little sell out corporate neoliberal drones.
What a disgrace to the tradition of the real left. Not that it was ever that great to begin with, but it did serve an important role as an exteriority and check against tyranny, and as an expanding space of free rational inquiry. Left used to at least ostensibly stand for freedom… now it stands for nothing but slavery and mindrape, and is quite proud of this.
I’m not a “rightist” and never claimed to be. So not sure if any of this was supposed to apply to me, or what?