KillingTimeItself

it’s technically not just a 50hz flat tone, it’s quite a complex sound for what should be a sinewave. Soothing nonetheless though.

I’m too lazy to go plot it in a spectrogram or something, maybe someone else will do it lol.

just needs a subtle background hum and everything is complete.

I’m sorry if I misinterpreted the quote about places with legal gun owners having less illegal gun owners. How else should I have interpreted it?

ok so gun ownership is kind of complicated from a statistics point of view, since we’re mostly concerned with gun violence here it’s important to remember that the vast majority of legal gun owners don’t generally wish to become criminals, compared to illegal gun owners, who may not wish to become criminals, but are more likely to become criminals (for various reasons) even these people are less likely to engage in random acts of gun violence. The most likely scenario in which you get gun violenced is going to be a robbery/mugging or something along these lines, where you were probably already fucked anyway. Gun or not.

as for statistics:

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/24/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/ pew article, these are generally good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9388351/ this one includes per capita rates, which is what i was previously mentioning

as for illegal gun crimes:

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/10/1153977949/major-takeaways-from-the-atf-gun-violence-report https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/mar/12/john-faso/do-illegal-gun-owners-commit-most-gun-crime-rep-fa/ most notable for this quote “Congress since the 1990s has had an effective ban on federal taxpayer money being spent on research into gun violence as a public health issue and gun control advocacy by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But other government agencies are free to collect data on guns and gun crime.”

anyway, moving away from this, i would also like to make the point that the US simply having more guns doesn’t make it more dangerous by default in terms of gun violence.

Yes, a person entering an empty room with a gun on the table is absolutely statistically in danger of mishandling the gun and harming themselves.

even if this is statistically true, which i will grant in this specific wording, although this is a really specific situation, and a really unusual situation. This is true of everything ever. People have gasoline in their garage, aggressive chemicals, they have similarly spooky chemicals indoors, cleaning agents, bleach, etc… Even just a simple thing like a flight of stairs can be incredibly dangerous. I don’t exactly see people doing much to increase the safety of things like power tools for example, this would be the next biggest, if not the biggest cause of accidental injury in this case.

my biggest problem with this argument is that guns are randomly singled out, even though gun owners are vastly more likely to be well trained, and very responsible with their guns, as opposed to some dude who owns a circular saw. Or literally every kitchen everywhere that has at least one knife in it somewhere. We don’t exactly teach people responsible knife ownership and handling the second they buy knives.

Ultimately this just devolves into a situation where you essentially argue for putting people in a padded rubber room wearing a strait jacket to minimize potential self harm. In the above case you mentioned “it increases the chances for mishandling a gun” that may be true, if you handle it. You don’t have to handle it though, you can leave it there, and in my example, we don’t know if it’s loaded or has ammunition at all. The most likely injury to be gained there is pinching your finger in the slide or something.

There is also an ethical/moral implication in regulating what people can and cannot do, we already tried eugenics, nobody liked it. (an extreme example to be fair) Even if banning guns prevents less accidental harm, i’m not really sure that’s something we should investigate.

That’s generally what makes dangerous things dangerous, and isn’t the gotcha people on the gun side often think it is. In a world with only guns and no humans there’s no gun violence, hooray.

i think it’s stupid rhetoric, as with most things on the right. But ultimately, someone mishandling a gun and injuring themselves, is something that they did to themselves. That is neither morally good, or bad, it’s simply neutral. Someone mishandling a gun and injuring someone else is bad, but you could probably sue and win that case. I would also propose you probably shouldn’t hang around, or tolerate bad gun owners either, but what do i know. Someone intentionally using a gun to hurt someone else is already bad, and that was probably inevitable in some capacity anyway.

I’ll let you have the final word here if you wish, I’m pretty done with this discussion. I’ll just reiterate one last time that this is all you trying to convince me that I should not be feeling more safe in a place that doesn’t allow guns and I think that’s pretty fucked.

fair enough, ultimately i think you simply have an unfounded fear about guns, you could very easily have the same fear about knives, power tools, dangerous chemicals, heavy objects, people who are simply physically larger than you, all of these things vastly more common than owning a gun, let alone gun violence. As i’ve already stated, statistically, nothing supports this claim, deductively i see no reason why it should matter to you unless you’re like shinzo abe or something. To me this rings to be about equivalent to my fear of spiders. Except i realize that it’s irrational and not based in reality.

I suppose in closing i mostly want to ask you one question, and that question is why. Are you a generally/highly paranoid person? Are you concerned about every potential event? Or is this simply a fear of guns explicitly, and if it’s the latter, i want you think about why it’s explicitly just guns that scare you, as opposed to someone throwing acid into your face for example.

Fear by definition is irrational, it is not a mechanism by which you can rationalize a situation it’s a mechanism that drives you to remove yourself from potentially dangerous situations as a method of self preservation, that’s it.

well only for part of the world that knew what was happening, the rest just kinda, existed.

ok

that’s like relating halloween costumes to BDSM gear. Or like i said, sports jerseys.

That was literally the point lmao.

You brought up porn

yes. for an irrelevant reason

that’s why I responded about porn in public.

fursuits are not porn, public indecency is not porn, and fursuits are not public indecency.

How eat with suit on?

take off the head.

Why not just not wear the suit in public?

they don’t? Like most of the time? Whenever you see a furry in public chances are, there’s a fur con, if not, they’re probably not causing problems.

At least the gimp while being similarly inappropriate in public despite your protests can unzip the mouth, that just seems like added difficulty to me.

you have to be trolling

being shot doesn’t have to kill you either. A lot of people survive being shot, lots of people also die from getting punched.

What if they had a knife? Those aren’t exactly hard to get, knives arguably cause more violent injuries than guns do. Unless you’re shooting someone point blank with a 45 or something.

None of what you just said is true. Starting here

i didn’t line up the specifics very well in most of those examples so i’m curious to see how.

That’s nonsense, obviously there’s an increased probability with strict causation between being around guns and getting shot.

let’s say i lock you in a room alone, in that room is a hidden compartment under the floor, and in the floor, is a gun. (may or may not be loaded, or have ammunition) i never informed you of this compartment, and that gun. It would be silly to argue that you’re more likely to be shot. The only person that could shoot you is yourself, and you would need to know about the gun first.

Obviously this is an extremely uncharitable take on this, so we’ll modify it a bit, same room, same scenario, no secret compartment, there is a table in the middle of the room, and there is a gun on it (may or may not be loaded) is simply being in that room, going to make it more likely for you to get shot?

And like you said, that’s strict causation. If we’re making the argument that being a room with a gun is more dangerous than not, being in a kitchen is more dangerous than not, even if you’re not doing anything.

You seem to be pretending that “good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns”. I invite you to provide any source that backs this up.

i’m not, you’re just making that up. Statistically, the primary causer of gun violence is criminals and people who own illegal guns (now idk if these stats are trustworthy to begin with, so i’ll give you that one) and on top of this, most gun violence is targeted, very very few cases of gun violence are just random acts of violence. The average legal gun owning individual, who conceal carries, is not going to be more likely to do any of these things.

If i wanted to say that good guys with guns were going to do something, i would’ve said that. I don’t believe in that because it’s fucking stupid, but people also seem to not be capable of understanding that simply owning a gun doesn’t mean you shoot people for fun either.

nah not even depression, just sad enough that we stopped working for a few years, and the eventually decided we should probably start working again lmao.

i think all of these goals can be accomplished under capitalism, and i think they can accomplished under american democracy. It’s possible we know it’s possible it’s been demonstrated to be possible. We just need to stop voting for people like trump, and start voting for people like kamala, and we need to start working towards preventing people from voting for people like trump, and getting them to vote for people like kamala. it’s the only real solution here. Socialism is certainly an interesting thought experiment, but i think given the tools, and the ability (which we pretty much already have) we can very well do this.

The hard part is going to be killing the republican rhetoric, but i’m convinced it’s possible. Somehow.

See, so that’s like, I dunno if that’s so much a problem. First off, rationality is sort of just a method that you’re using to affect some type of process, in this case, economic efficiency Under which it probably also wouldn’t make sense to, say, just throw old people off of big towers or whatever type of thing.

thats the thing though, economically this is rational. If you’re arguing for some sort of ethical rationality, that would be irrelevant to socialism. Granted rationality of resource usage could also apply to capitalism, it’s just redundant, because the market already operates that way.

People would probably overthrow your system, you’d deal with a high level of instability, and being unable to track people’s ages effectively

i guess birth certificates aren’t real? The government is already perfectly capable of tracking who is alive and who is dead, we already deal with it for voting lol. It wouldn’t be hard to do it in any other context. People might forge documents i guess. But you don’t need to forcibly through people off a tower or gas them or anything either, you could just abolish social security for example.

anyway, this is all entirely relevant since my point was that the definition of rationality is entirely arbitrary and probably not applicable to a large scale society/economy to begin with. Again this is just sort of a fundamental rule under capitalism.

You don’t have a universal definition of good, because you’re always just making short term moves to maximize the profit of your company. Moral miasma, zombification.

yeah, in terms of work, but work isn’t the only thing you do, you have leisure as well. Capitalism is specifically designed to regulate goods and services in an economy at scale, very very efficiently, and it does that very very well. Once you get outside of that is where you get into things like social security and government assistance, as well as publicly owned things. The trick here is to focus on having a reasonable work life balance, as well as good working conditions, this allows for effective leisure under a capitalist economy.

Getting even more off topic, I think in general though my main counterargument is just that like. Any risk we take by defining a “good”, right, a good to work towards, I think that’s a good risk to take.

that may be the case, but my fundamental problem is that i don’t see how socialism is relevant here, you can do this in any society. Through socialist legislation if you really wanted, or just public services more broadly.

This is getting to my whole point about “socialism just turns into capitalism/communism if you go far enough” because eventually you’ve just reorganized capitalism, and put it into a box labelled socialism, or communism. Depends on the flavor.

in capitalism, we define freedom as the ability to own capital, own property, spend money on what you want to spend it on, and work to death in a soul-sucking 9-5 flipping calorically and nutritionally deficient burgers for a bunch of other people who have worked to death in a soul-sucking 9-5 doing equally insane things.

so actually, no. In capitalism we do not define freedom, capitalism is strictly adherent to monetary mechanisms. This idea of freedom and liberty comes from the US federal government, as well as it’s subsequent state governments. These are two unrelated concepts.

We define no “good” in capitalism, we just leave that shit up to the market, and the market already reaches a decision, which is that every little corporation should just replicate authoritarianism in their little shithole section of the economy.

yes, it’s not the job of capitalism to define this, it’s the job of the government, and it’s constituents to decide what is best. Again things like social security, the ACA. ETC…

big shocker when their personal definition of “good” is fucked up, short sighted

i don’t necessarily disagree with you here, again there are things like regulations for this purpose. Anti trust laws exist to break these things up, there are numerous laws surrounding the rights of workers to protect against this sort of ruthless competition. Arguably there should probably be more, learning from standard oil would be a great start.

But take the ICE, for example. I fucking hate the ICE. Mostly because it has enabled mass market automobiles to become a thing, which has impacted our transportation infrastructure in a very adverse set of ways, with an adverse set of incentives.

technically this isn’t accurate, it’s the automobile and it’s creation that led to suburbs, and roads, and the highway system, ICE engines were initially just created as a way to turn a burnable substance (gas/diesel) into power without having to use steam, which is rather inconvenient in some cases. And it did work, however eventually people figured out you could use them in place of horses, and then people eventually figured out that, hey cars are pretty cool, but then big auto realized, wait, we need a market to buy these things. So in turn it ended up incentivizing and creating a car centric culture, which was arguably boosted by the US government enabling it through legislation and what not.

and to be clear, white flight was more market subversion than anything, not that racism wasn’t involved, but the markets stood to make lots of money by engaging in it. so it did. This isn’t necessarily a problem with capitalism, more so a societal problem.

fill the air with leaded and mostly unregulated particulate emissions, and we’re like a century into that as a system now

leaded gas was banned a long time ago, so not quite, but i understand that this is hyperbole lol.

you’re still spreading out cities much more than they need to be which massively increases the necessary power consumption by decreasing the r-values of homes by increasing the surface area of homes and increasing the surface area of a home in which a singular person is going to live and increasing the volume of air inside the home per person which is necessary to be heated, and then we have relay stations so we need to spend more money to pump more electricity and water a longer distance and so on and so forth.

well that’s the thing though, it was marketable, and it worked. It’s less marketable now, and people are pushing for mid density housing, zoning reform, and multi family units, all of these things promote the goals that you mention here. Under capitalism and democracy all we have to do is push for legislation that matches up with these goals, and we’ll get it. And it’s working. It’s not incredibly fast, but nothing is, that’s life. But as a result that means that the economy won’t at the very least completely shut down, which is the benefit.

My concern, personally, is sort of like, I look at the market economy, at capitalism, and the supposed “freedom” it provides people, in the market, to make totally dunderheaded, propagandized decisions, that if you look at them in the abstract, make totally no sense whatsoever.

this is a valid concern but this is also one of the greatest things about capitalism as well. If 75% of the market wants something, it will eventually get that thing. It’s inevitable. In our case, lets say more high density housing, if people (not me) want more high density housing, than they can get it, it just needs to be pushed for. There are certainly legislative problems with it, but cities do exist, and they are real as evidenced by going outside, so to some capacity this must be possible, we know other countries have done similar things, so we can easily point to them as an example of why this legislation would be beneficial, and it’s clearly in our interest in terms of the market, as it incentivizes an entirely new market segment, which creates a lot more money flow.

My primary concern for something like socialism is that we would remove some fundamental level of freedom. Only building high density housing because it’s what the collective hive mind says. If you need an example look at reddit now, although it’s not quite the same, it’s a mess over there. Half the posts on that website are AI, and the other half are just, bad. That’s why we moved to lemmy lmao. Anyway, i personally, do not want to live in high density housing, i don’t want to live in suburbia, i want to live in the middle of the woods far away from everyone. Capitalism and american democracy affords me that option if i so choose. And it also affords you to go live in a city, or to go build mid density housing. That’s one of the beautiful things about it.

And again, market forces are the driver, if mid density housing is just better than suburbia, suburbia will all but die out. Which is probably a good thing, not that it would stop it from being built, but it would be a very small portion of the market at that point. People go where the market allows them, some people go where they want to. Generally the market follows broad trends, and people reciprocate.

Really all I want is for everyone to just have healthcare, everyone to have good regional transit, for our energy infrastructure to make sense, our food infrastructure to make sense,

healthcare is probably going to be an example of government expenditure, if we were to break it out on a state by state basis, we may be able to achieve the best of both worlds. transit is fundamentally harder but i think simply building mid density sprawl would solve it, energy infra is a weird one, but i would argue it already makes sense. Allowing more flexibility in production would help though. Food infra is generally pretty rough, i think we should move towards more farmers market type setups, as well as decentralized farming, allow people to plant gardens for food, maybe even incentivize them to do so, allow them to share that produce with neighbors etc…

1/2 (world limit)

No see again, where porn is acceptable is at someone’s house, not in public. The people on the train do not need to see you watching porn whether you’re cranking it or not, and whether it’s furry porn or not.

nobody is arguing for this? Public obscenity laws exist for a reason.

are you comparing fur suits to literal porn? If so, then i may argue we ban all public display of sports attire because i find it distinctly related to sex.

If you see a furry in a mcdonalds, they’re probably buying food because their hungry lmao. It’s not like it’s some weird BDSM psyop.

Interesting to note about the possible overlap or lack thereof, and possible correlation but not causation, thanks for your insight on that!

that’s what im here for, np

im not sure how much of a toll on health it would have, unless maybe you’re deathly allergic to air. Aside from like environmental impacts and stuff obviously, but there’s gotta be a reason lol.

https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standard-55-thermal-environmental-conditions-for-human-occupancy

seems like standards exist, another proposed idea i’ve seen is oversized HVAC, which would make sense.

american expansionism goes brrr

is it though?

• kettle: fill it with water, turn it on, and wait
• stove: fill a pot with water, put it on the stove and turn it on, wait
• microwave: put a cup of water in the microwave and wait
• coffeemaker: press the go button, it makes hot water

it’s useful in the same way that a rotary hammer drill is useful for drilling through masonry, i’m going to assume you probably don’t drill through much masonry in your life, therefore you don’t need it.

Americans aren’t stupid or daft, we just dont fucking need them. 95% of the time we need hot water, its for cooking, or coffee.

If we had a kettle it would literally just be landfill.

you’re effectively asking someone who doesn’t eat toast frequently why they don’t have a toaster, it’s a silly question.

between legal gun owners, and the statistical chunk of gun violence, yes it does matter.

If you’re in a place where legal gun owners are, and where illegal gun owners are unlikely to be (or at least unlikely to cause problems in) statistically yes, you would expect that to make a difference.

Just to be clear, walking into a room that has a gun in it doesn’t magically make you more likely to get shot. Walking into a room with a person whose armed doesn’t make them more likely to shoot you or for you to get shot, it increases the possibility that you could be shot by virtue of there being a gun now, but that’s irrelevant to actually getting shot yes.

You realize we have knives in kitchens right? Does walking into a kitchen automatically increase the chances of you getting stabbed?

it’s hard to explain this, because you’re essentially operating a rokos basilisk premise here. The very concept of a gun doesn’t increase the chances of you getting shot, the gun being nearer to you than it previously was doesn’t increase that chance. The gun being next to you or on you doesn’t change this. The hands of the person it’s in may change it, but that’s still a third party variable so we can’t really account for that one here. Even if the gun is pointed at you, it doesn’t arguably increase the chances that you can get shot, it might be unloaded for all you know. If someone who is aggressing you, or who you are aggressing on is pointing a gun at you, yes that would probably drastically increase the chances of you getting shot.

If you are aggressing someone who owns a gun, or they are aggressing you, it may increase the chances of them pulling the gun on you. But that doesn’t necessarily increase the chance of you getting shot.

to be clear here, the only real situation in which you are more likely to be shot, is in which someone is pointing a gun at you, and telling you that they are going to shoot you. Every other situation is going to be several orders of magnitude less significant, and effectively irrelevant here.

i guess my point that you aren’t picking up on here is that this is quite literally an irrational fear. You should be more worried about being hit by a car, or punched in the face. Or falling down a set of stairs or something.

you’re driving through america expecting the signs to be the size that they are in germany? That seems weird.

(partial /s)

from what i saw when i looked into the egg washing thing. It’s two different solutions to the same problem. The same problem ultimately being unsafe eggs. From what i can recall the europeans generally treat chickens against them, whereas the US generally treats eggs against them (by washing them)

presumably the US does it because either, we started doing it, and it worked, or it’s just more flexible. I know japan ended adopting it after they got a particularly bad batch of infected eggs causing a pretty bad health spook. Other than that i don’t think it’s happened anywhere else.

Sorry about the hospital thing. By “for-profit”, I meant you had to pay to go there. That’s completely alien to everyone in the first world. We have private hospitals as well, and yep: lots of them are (or claim to be) non-profit also.

yeah fair enough, it just bothers me when people say for profit when it’s literally not lol. It’s getting money in either scenario, it’s just taxes from one, and people who pay for insurance and operations directly in the other so.

yell at people on the internet, say stupid shit, get yelled at, repeat.

I think it also requires a little but of being mentally unwell also, but that’s not for me to disperse. I’m not licensed.