I mean, talk that puts something of hers at stake, theoretically (hardline “we must support israel” voters, which I don’t think really exist in the democratic party, israeli funding, military industrial complex funding, etc.), is talk that is, in and of itself, an action. It could still be a lie, sure, but then it’s a lie that she’s gonna get called out on later and then that’s politically damaging, at least theoretically, especially because it ostracizes her from both the hardline group that wants to support israel and it ostracizes her from the people that actually wanted to do that. Most politicians won’t lie so handily unless they’re real pieces of shit, or unless they think people will just forget. Most politicians will instead try to waffle and weasel and say that oh well I tried to do that guys but it was just too hard! I tried but I couldn’t do it! They try to save face. Taking a hard stance, making a strong commitment, that ensure that you’re sacrificing your ability to save face later on to your voter base, which indicates that you might actually do something.

She could’ve easily just ignored that protest, because it doesn’t have anything at all to do with her. The only reason this is still getting democratic backing is because of institutional reasons. The rhetoric about, desert rose, shining star of democracy in the middle east, rings hollow when israel has done jack shit as a strategic ally for us for the past 70+ years other than get us wrapped up in multiple conflicts, use us as a weapons manufacturing base to keep the military industrial complex spinning constantly, and train our cops more and more poorly. I don’t think your average democratic voter wants to keep hearing about this shit, I think your average voter wants to ignore this, or has bigger fish to fry in their immediate future, and I don’t think outside of the republican party, which is swamped by doomsday cult evangelical zionists, there are any real hardline make or break “support israel or bust” guys in the democratic voter base. Maybe your super extremist brainbroken libs, but you’re pretty much guaranteed to have their vote anyways, I think. It’s that phantomic undecided voter that they always come back to. Real Hotelling’s law shit, but they’re like, stuck in a fucked up version of the centrism from the 80’s, eternally, only changing the window dressing.

This is purely an institutional concern, and the more this comes up, the less time she has to actually show anything substantive to people. She doesn’t understand how tenuous and ethereal her meme momentum is. People are satisfied with her now because she’s not joe biden, and because she actually has a chance to beat trump, maybe, but after that satisfaction evaporates and the coconut tree and brat memes fall off with their half life of like, probably two weeks or less, she’s gonna need something better than just “vote blue no matter who or else fascism will destroy democracy”, or else it’s just going to fucking beam us with the exact cynicism that’s been the case for like the last two elections. She could even just fucking lie, and say as president she’ll appoint more people to the supreme court, and reverse the reversal of roe v. wade, and even if she doesn’t do that, the issue would probably still be a huge winner for her and help get her elected. But the more time she spends on israel’s fuckups the more she’s going to tread water, and if you’re not moving forwards, you’re sliding backwards.

I just mean that I don’t think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I’d say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they’re not genuinely engaging anymore, I’ve seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.

I mean arguably we could’ve done all of that with nasa if nasa had received a similar level of funding to SpaceX, but that’s kind of getting into alt-history.

Depends on the writer. You get a superman DC writer, homelander probably gets treated like every other fascist superman beats up. If it’s a “the boys” writer, homelander probably uses kryptonite to rip superman in half in a graphic full-page spread or some shit. You’re also gonna be dealing with, are we dropping superman into the relatively hopeless universe of the boys, are we dropping homelander into the DC universe, where he’ll probably be right st home with like 30 different characters almost exactly like him, will we come up with some portal stuff, what’s going on there

So I dunno, depends on the writer. Ke personally I’d prefer if superman won, cause it’s more hopeful and less garth ennis-y.

I believe they are what is known as a “low effort troll”

I mean we do have a pretty good indication of a quite large impending factor which may cause a lot of them to collapse in the coming years, and which could collectively be attributed to them pretty well, especially within the last 50 years.

MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life

I mean this is sort of reframed with the context that he was assassinated for making that turn away from pacifism. I’m not saying that it was the wrong decision even given the hindsight we have now, but it does recontextualize it.

Also, why can’t you just take your friend, friend’s guns, in your car, to the range, store them there? is there any real problem with that, or any real reason why you specifically need to have the guns rather than the range, which might be a better long term storage solution? I’m not opposed to your solution, I think it’s workable, I think it has potential to, maybe not get passed federally since the gun lobby is insanely powerful, but maybe work on a state-by-state basis, right, and build up from there. But if you do have an actual counterargument for what the guy’s saying, then you should give it instead of just kind of deflecting, because right now he does seem to have basically refuted all of the hypotheticals you were able to give about why requiring some kind of record every time a gun is transferred is a bad idea, and why universal background checks and the state as an active third party rather than a retroactive third party might be a good idea.

The only counterargument I can really see against it is maybe that it would result in state overreach or people being prevented from having access to guns if we start to see disproportionate enforcement of crimes and certain crimes being reclassified as felonies or something, but that’s also a problem with the current system that wouldn’t really get solved by your proposal at all, so yeah, I dunno.

Ayaaa, we had a conversation a while ago about this same topic. I do think you are still correct in your proposal to make NICS public, but I do also think that the other guy is perhaps partially right. I think such a law would probably be well-accompanied by requirements to own a gun safe (which might be seen as increasing the cost of ownership and thus discriminating and yadda yadda yadda shit I don’t care about), and to keep guns in said gun safe when perhaps they’re not being kept immediately on your person barring extraneous circumstances. I can’t quite recall, but I do believe we also talked about that last time, that there was a kind of need for common sense pertaining to the handling of guns, more than there is, considering how many guns are overwhelmingly passed into illegal uses through relatively simple theft.

I’m also not sure I agree that a violation of the background check, being a fine, is going to have much of an effect. If the fine is cheap enough, that might well enough be just free license to pass guns into an illegal domain and then pay the fine and go about your day. It may increase the costs of illegal firearms well enough which might have knock-on effects in decreasing illegal access to and usage of guns, and what have you, but I think it would probably require a more severe punishment than a fine a la a traffic ticket.

But then, maybe if that’s the metaphor we’re using, then along the lines of traffic tickets, maybe we should just be, uhh, designing the roads differently, whatever that equivalent might look like for guns, but I think that might be stretching the metaphor a little too much.

I mean I think I’d say it was more the result of poor preparation than anything. I think most places are saying he had like, 3 shots or somewhere around there, and apparently his rifle had no optic on it at all, which is kind of an insane idea at that distance. Which I think also maybe lends credence to the idea that this was just some impulse decision rather than a prepared kind of thing. I don’t think it’s that hard of a shot to make in general, even given the single opportunity that you’re going to be working with, I’ve hit soda cans with .22s at similar ranges. You barely have to take into account windage or holdover and I haven’t seen any evidence of heavy wind on the day of, really.

So, I dunno, I think it’s probably just an idiot kid killing himself in like, some elaborate suicide by cop or something. or just a dumb groyper, jury’s still out.

I think it’s probably that your anecdote and experience is kind of out of left field considering this guy was only dealing with a couple coyotes, and honestly you probably don’t even need a gun in that circumstance, and I don’t think you’d much need anything larger than pistol-caliber.

Hmm, I don’t understand the downvotes but okay lmao I’m sorry that the AR platform is actually fine in close quarters?

As far as I understand it, the main problem people have with it, which they also have with pretty much every gun larger than a foot or so, so most guns, is that you can’t really cross a threshold horizontally. About the only thing that could qualify against that maybe is like, a pistol or one of those shotguns with a bird’s head grip, or like, some smaller pdw or something. I also dunno how much of a problem that is, of, oh it’s gonna snag on something, or whatever, right, I guess it’s just the idea it’s going to present a higher snag risk or something when turning around, or, when getting up to a ready position? I dunno I’m not a gun nut.

I think it probably also isn’t helped by the increasing consumerist trend to load up their guns with more and more extraneous shit and go for longer and longer rifles on their AR platforms to try and increase accuracy on the range, which means they tend to conceptualize of them as being unsuitable for close quarters despite that kind of being the idea of an intermediate cartridge and all that. It also doesn’t really help to cite our military engagements with it considering over the last like 3 decades of the rifle’s service we’ve mostly only fought like, random middle eastern terrorist organizations that don’t have a great reputation for good training or good equipment or anything like that. You could maybe look at uses of the rifle by other organizations like the IRA or whatever, but I don’t think they had any close quarters engagements.

US oil production hits all-time high

Executive action ordering the closure of border cutting asylum claims in half (according to FOX News)

Aren’t these generally seen as bad things, though?

I’ll also say a lot of this list is basically just routine infrastructure maintenance funding, which was arguably necessary, but I would much rather see a combating of the more institutional problems that led to this infrastructure being in such a state of disrepair in the first place. Expanding a highway, for example, not really something I would say is a great accomplishment. The economic citations are things that I find kind of suspicious more generally, because I’m familiar with the amount of laundering economists can accomplish when they really put their pussy into it. Post-pandemic recovery, for example, I can think of a couple ways to spin that, most of them involve us having taken a very large hit from the pandemic compared to other countries because we had a shit ass pandemic response relative to other countries. Violent crime dropping from 2020 is gonna be a fuckin no brainer, for example, like obviously that’s gonna be the case, I don’t think you can really attribute that to a biden presidency.

Eliminate the padding in this list and back up what appear to be the stronger points and it would be more serious. As it stands, this is more just kind of a gish gallop. You’re just popping a bigass list with no citations and then that’s gonna look more credible while your opposition can’t do much in the face of it without looking like they’re nitpicking or denying reality, even though you don’t have any citations. It might be cynical, but I’ve been on the internet before, so I bet if I push back at all, you’re just gonna tell me to look into it further myself, and that it’s not your job to educate me even though you’re the one who has the burden of proof for making these claims, like how tankies tell me to read theory whenever I ask them questions about books they’ve supposedly read biblically and know so well.

In any case, a lot of these aren’t really fighting against the idea that the democrats just end up as a controlled opposition band-aid which barely does anything before fascism creeps back in and fucks something else up in our shitty pendulum system. It’s not really fighting against that claim, which I would say is the core nihilistic, apathetic claim that has to be disputed before people can be convinced that their vote will do something.

Mostly I find them annoying. I mildly understand the need for human meaning as it kind of, tends to come up later at night, or for the elderly, or when life really sucks or you tend to even just be really really bored right.

I also understand some of the benefits, right, like. As much as people will despise to admit it, you don’t get, say, the number zero without the Muslim science guys, and you don’t get science without the enlightenment which stemmed out of some weirdass Catholic Christian theory guys. and then everyone’s all like, oh no well you can’t attribute that to the Catholics and if anything they hampered progress, and I’d say, well, maybe, maybe, but also maybe science sucks as we commonly understand it and maybe also you can’t really divorce any part of things from their cultural context, or else things get fucky.

On the other hand I find them annoying and I find that all to be totally null and void because the vast majority of people are just using it as an opiate to placate literally all of their anxieties about the world with a bunch of meaningless thought terminating cliche style statements, and even actively reinforce their own participation in some of the worst aspects of their own culture and society even at points in which they really don’t want to or know that it’s horrible and is causing them pain.

So I dunno, mostly it sucks.