|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
|
|
On May 23 2019 14:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 13:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 08:40 JimmiC wrote:On May 23 2019 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say. Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used... You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege. Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all. "Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change. On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life. lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life... Why try to draw a comparison to real life with these examples? Both of those examples have no bearing on real life, they don't in any way bolster the point you are trying to make. The difference between any old example of revolution to any modern day one is that technology tilts the scales of power so much, I question whether any revolution could occur in the modern day. Even if the populous decided they would never stop fighting the power, people with power likely have enough power to wipe out the entire population and force a "reset." At that point there wouldn't be anything to rule, but if you have someone crazy enough in power they might (and my bigger point, could) effectively create a stalemate in which both sides completely lose. And I can't see it mattering much how many small arms there are. I was hoping it would help people see that the ridiculous position is that small arms aren't instrumental to revolution (whether used or not). It clearly didn't work here. That is because the ridiculous position is that getting a bunch of small arms to yourforward.of coud populace is a good idea, rather then to just further protect your democracy. But the even crazier point is to think that some mass civil war style revolution is going to put in a government that cares more about the environment and make it better, and not that that revolution will ravage the environment. When the far better strategy is to make actual changes yourself, influence others to and only vote for people who make this a priority. Another bad strategy is to not vote at all and just complain. Who argued that stuff? Certainly wasn't me. of course not, you will only hint at things, because then you can always move the goal posts.
I didn't hint at anything, I made a very simple point and rather than effectively refute it, you attack a position you readily admit no one took.
This is officially a pattern.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say. Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used... You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege. Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all. "Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change. On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life. lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life... Why try to draw a comparison to real life with these examples? Both of those examples have no bearing on real life, they don't in any way bolster the point you are trying to make. The difference between any old example of revolution to any modern day one is that technology tilts the scales of power so much, I question whether any revolution could occur in the modern day. Even if the populous decided they would never stop fighting the power, people with power likely have enough power to wipe out the entire population and force a "reset." At that point there wouldn't be anything to rule, but if you have someone crazy enough in power they might (and my bigger point, could) effectively create a stalemate in which both sides completely lose. And I can't see it mattering much how many small arms there are. I was hoping it would help people see that the ridiculous position is that small arms aren't instrumental to revolution (whether used or not). It clearly didn't work here.
You think the possibility of a future revolution is worth the cost of having a country with guns everywhere and rampant, devastating gun crime all the time?
|
On May 23 2019 17:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 07:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 05:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 15:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 12:37 JimmiC wrote:
No peaceful revolution was won with small arms. What a ridiculous thing to say. Which ones are you thinking of where small arms weren't instrumental? Keep in mind the post you responded to included when they aren't used... You would be far wiser in investing in protections to keep your government from turning authoratarian, rising up and revolution sound exciting and noble but they actually mean tons of death destruction on massive scales. The trap of peace privilege. Revolution isn't desirable, it's becoming increasingly necessary to stave off mass extinction, pretending like I'm trying to turn it into something more noble than necessary is completely put on by you and not reflected in my posts at all. "Peace privilege" is thinking US marines are "heroes", not recognizing the impending threat of fascism, the military industrial complex, perpetual conflict, and climate change. On May 20 2019 14:33 ShambhalaWar wrote:On May 20 2019 11:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2019 11:45 JimmiC wrote:
I think it is wacky to think that some how a small firearm is going to get you less exploited by the government. Even stranger then that with out the guns criminals are going to roving around invading the homes. I also find it shocking that you would be for a revolution and not just let what happens, happen.
It will not solve all the problems or even most. But if it gets unwanted guns off the streets and saves a few lives and millions in medical costs why not? Heck gun manufactures might even be on board since they could sell more new ones if people change their minds. Small arms (whether used or not) have been instrumental in near every resistance and revolution, it's reasonable to presume that would remain true in our case. This is even true in the realm of fantasy and fiction, from endgame, to GoT, to The Matrix. You can't even pretend a revolution without basic small arms (of the period) be it future, present, or past. You shouldn't be shocked. I provided some reasons "why not" but the more traditional explanation would be it's not worth the political capital given the circumstances and cost-benefit. I'm pretty sure GOT used dragons and inc**t. But I think you're right, if it was true in the matrix it's likely true real life. lol my point was that you can't even make a convincing fictional story about revolution without small arms, not that the matrix or GoT is real life... Why try to draw a comparison to real life with these examples? Both of those examples have no bearing on real life, they don't in any way bolster the point you are trying to make. The difference between any old example of revolution to any modern day one is that technology tilts the scales of power so much, I question whether any revolution could occur in the modern day. Even if the populous decided they would never stop fighting the power, people with power likely have enough power to wipe out the entire population and force a "reset." At that point there wouldn't be anything to rule, but if you have someone crazy enough in power they might (and my bigger point, could) effectively create a stalemate in which both sides completely lose. And I can't see it mattering much how many small arms there are. I was hoping it would help people see that the ridiculous position is that small arms aren't instrumental to revolution (whether used or not). It clearly didn't work here. You think the possibility of a future revolution is worth the cost of having a country with guns everywhere and rampant, devastating gun crime all the time?
I think what I said, not the positions JimmiC is attempting to construct.
On May 20 2019 11:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
The only argument against a (appropriately implemented) buyback program is that the government is demonstrating increasingly fascist tendencies every day and the people most desperate for cash will be the first to be exploited further if they are disarmed.
Alternatively, without being paired to a new mandatory gun owners insurance/increased culpability for gun owners who have their guns used in crimes, there isn't much motivation for the people it's really trying to get guns away from (the people who shoot up random innocent people in public places).
Considering I think we need a (ideally peaceful) revolution in order to stave off mass extinctions I think disarming people is a fruitless endeavor in the short term.
Spending the next decade removing firearms will do absolutely nothing to deal with the biggest problem we face (other than distract liberals) and then it'll be too late and hundreds of millions will be dead and displaced (and we'll be heading toward extinction).
The counter of "But revolutions are hard and can happen without guns" is both a very superficial and misguided argument. Neither of those points address the problem that those that'd like to see the US focus more on guns also are neglecting. That the US lacks the capacity within it's system to do anything like a gun buyback program. Which for those that remember/read the thread was something I've personally supported for years.
That's to say even if revolution probably wouldn't work, and it could be done without guns, there's little-no value in spending our last decade before we lock in unimaginable global destruction trying to argue with Republicans on gun reform that's not even going to resolve the issues it's targeting or even dent them much should people get their way.
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 21:56 JimmiC wrote:
Perhaps instead of blaming me for what clearly others also think ia your point aswell. You could answer questions about your point directly. It is an odd communication strategy that you employ of both being upset that you are not being properly understood and an unwillingness to explain it. As it stands your cure for the problem has almost no chance of fixing it and assuredly will make it worse. So please dig into what you actually mean.
How does your small arms revolution work? Like how do they defeat the fascists rules the US? Like to they go after the means of production? Take out communications? Go for the power? How long do you think it takes?
Secondly other then posting the world is doomed on a message board. What real life activities are you personally doing to attempt to avert it? Also, how are you influencing those around you and what is your social circle of influence look like?
I'm not addressing your questions because they clearly demonstrate a failure to recognize the position they are addressing. I've also demonstrated this isn't a result of a lack of clarity on my part but your refusal or inability to even recognize articulations that are nearly word for word what you ask for.
I really think we'd be better off returning to pretending the other doesn't exist.
|
To be fair Jimmy GH is right in that I think I misconstrued the intention behind his point.
However, I think the real world effect of that point is as I said before:
the possibility of a future revolution is worth the cost of having a country with guns everywhere and rampant, devastating gun crime all the time?
I think this all or nothing approach to revolution is terrible to be honest. The victims of gun crime now are having their lives staked on a possible future revolution, and although the issue is much more complex than that (there isn't any way you could possibly rid the US of guns in the near future anyway) and I don't want to oversimplify the reasonable pracitcal considerations GH raised - the cost/benefit analysis of refusing to support a push for stricter gun controls in the hope of a future uprising against a fascist government is very, very askew in my opinion.
The benefits of everyone who holds similar opinions to GH suddenly swinging their political activism behind stricter gun controls would far outweigh the likelyhood of possible revolution if they don't (badly worded but I hope you get the point).
|
On May 23 2019 22:05 Jockmcplop wrote:To be fair Jimmy GH is right in that I think I misconstrued the intention behind his point. However, I think the real world effect of that point is as I said before: Show nested quote +the possibility of a future revolution is worth the cost of having a country with guns everywhere and rampant, devastating gun crime all the time? I think this all or nothing approach to revolution is terrible to be honest. The victims of gun crime now are having their lives staked on a possible future revolution, and although the issue is much more complex than that (there isn't any way you could possibly rid the US of guns in the near future anyway) and I don't want to oversimplify the reasonable pracitcal considerations GH raised - the cost/benefit analysis of refusing to support a push for stricter gun controls in the hope of a future uprising against a fascist government is very, very askew in my opinion. The benefits of everyone who holds similar opinions to GH suddenly swinging their political activism behind stricter gun controls would far outweigh the likelyhood of possible revolution if they don't (badly worded but I hope you get the point).
My point there is that we could, but then we all (like as a species) die anyway.
|
On May 23 2019 22:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 22:05 Jockmcplop wrote:To be fair Jimmy GH is right in that I think I misconstrued the intention behind his point. However, I think the real world effect of that point is as I said before: the possibility of a future revolution is worth the cost of having a country with guns everywhere and rampant, devastating gun crime all the time? I think this all or nothing approach to revolution is terrible to be honest. The victims of gun crime now are having their lives staked on a possible future revolution, and although the issue is much more complex than that (there isn't any way you could possibly rid the US of guns in the near future anyway) and I don't want to oversimplify the reasonable pracitcal considerations GH raised - the cost/benefit analysis of refusing to support a push for stricter gun controls in the hope of a future uprising against a fascist government is very, very askew in my opinion. The benefits of everyone who holds similar opinions to GH suddenly swinging their political activism behind stricter gun controls would far outweigh the likelyhood of possible revolution if they don't (badly worded but I hope you get the point). My point there is that we could, but then we all (like as a species) die anyway.
I disagree but when we're at that point of disagreement the conversation is pretty much dead 
|
On May 23 2019 22:14 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 22:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 22:05 Jockmcplop wrote:To be fair Jimmy GH is right in that I think I misconstrued the intention behind his point. However, I think the real world effect of that point is as I said before: the possibility of a future revolution is worth the cost of having a country with guns everywhere and rampant, devastating gun crime all the time? I think this all or nothing approach to revolution is terrible to be honest. The victims of gun crime now are having their lives staked on a possible future revolution, and although the issue is much more complex than that (there isn't any way you could possibly rid the US of guns in the near future anyway) and I don't want to oversimplify the reasonable pracitcal considerations GH raised - the cost/benefit analysis of refusing to support a push for stricter gun controls in the hope of a future uprising against a fascist government is very, very askew in my opinion. The benefits of everyone who holds similar opinions to GH suddenly swinging their political activism behind stricter gun controls would far outweigh the likelyhood of possible revolution if they don't (badly worded but I hope you get the point). My point there is that we could, but then we all (like as a species) die anyway. I disagree but when we're at that point of disagreement the conversation is pretty much dead
Are you putting yourself in the climate denial camp or am I missing something? I'd mention I don't oppose stricter gun regulations.
|
On May 23 2019 22:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 22:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2019 22:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 22:05 Jockmcplop wrote:To be fair Jimmy GH is right in that I think I misconstrued the intention behind his point. However, I think the real world effect of that point is as I said before: the possibility of a future revolution is worth the cost of having a country with guns everywhere and rampant, devastating gun crime all the time? I think this all or nothing approach to revolution is terrible to be honest. The victims of gun crime now are having their lives staked on a possible future revolution, and although the issue is much more complex than that (there isn't any way you could possibly rid the US of guns in the near future anyway) and I don't want to oversimplify the reasonable pracitcal considerations GH raised - the cost/benefit analysis of refusing to support a push for stricter gun controls in the hope of a future uprising against a fascist government is very, very askew in my opinion. The benefits of everyone who holds similar opinions to GH suddenly swinging their political activism behind stricter gun controls would far outweigh the likelyhood of possible revolution if they don't (badly worded but I hope you get the point). My point there is that we could, but then we all (like as a species) die anyway. I disagree but when we're at that point of disagreement the conversation is pretty much dead Are you putting yourself in the climate denial camp or am I missing something?
Not in the slightest.
Although other environmental concerns actually outweigh climate change quite severely in my opinon but that's kinda irrelevant here.
I'm saying that guns aren't gonna get green policies through government, no matter who has the guns and how many people it is. I also doubt very highly that guns are going to be able to dismantle the structure of government as it exists now in the US. There just isn't public support for that and I don't think there ever will be.
You could put a gun right to a politician's head and demand that they make a single policy that has a <.0001% decreasing effect on McDonalds profits and they would laugh in your face and pull the trigger themselves.
|
On May 23 2019 22:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 22:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 22:14 Jockmcplop wrote:On May 23 2019 22:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 23 2019 22:05 Jockmcplop wrote:To be fair Jimmy GH is right in that I think I misconstrued the intention behind his point. However, I think the real world effect of that point is as I said before: the possibility of a future revolution is worth the cost of having a country with guns everywhere and rampant, devastating gun crime all the time? I think this all or nothing approach to revolution is terrible to be honest. The victims of gun crime now are having their lives staked on a possible future revolution, and although the issue is much more complex than that (there isn't any way you could possibly rid the US of guns in the near future anyway) and I don't want to oversimplify the reasonable pracitcal considerations GH raised - the cost/benefit analysis of refusing to support a push for stricter gun controls in the hope of a future uprising against a fascist government is very, very askew in my opinion. The benefits of everyone who holds similar opinions to GH suddenly swinging their political activism behind stricter gun controls would far outweigh the likelyhood of possible revolution if they don't (badly worded but I hope you get the point). My point there is that we could, but then we all (like as a species) die anyway. I disagree but when we're at that point of disagreement the conversation is pretty much dead Are you putting yourself in the climate denial camp or am I missing something? Not in the slightest. Although other environmental concerns actually outweigh climate change quite severely in my opinon but that's kinda irrelevant here. I'm saying that guns aren't gonna get green policies through government, no matter who has the guns and how many people it is. I also doubt very highly that guns are going to be able to dismantle the structure of government as it exists now in the US. There just isn't public support for that and I don't think there ever will be. You could put a gun right to a politician's head and demand that they make a single policy that has a <.0001% decreasing effect on McDonalds profits and they would laugh in your face and pull the trigger themselves.
I think the problem is the presumption I made the argument that "guns are gunna get green policies through government", I didn't.
I made the argument that a gun buyback program would disarm society's most vulnerable communities while doing little to nothing to address the issues it's intended to. Therefor it's an ineffective and inefficient allocation of resources beyond reminding people there's overwhelming majority support for reforms we can't get because our democracy is owned and operated by our oligarchy.
|
I don't know how to word this without sounding like I'm strawmanning you but I'm genuinely not trying to....
Are you saying that we give up on trying to achieve social policy unless it directly effects our chances of making it through the current environmental crisis?
|
On May 23 2019 22:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know how to word this without sounding like I'm strawmanning you but I'm genuinely not trying to....
Are you saying that we give up on trying to achieve social policy unless it directly effects our chances of making it through the current environmental crisis?
I'm saying anything other than raising class consciousness toward a revolution results in catastrophe, and as the newest reports suggest, extinction (if you want to try to distill it).
|
|
|
On May 23 2019 22:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2019 22:34 Jockmcplop wrote:
I don't know how to word this without sounding like I'm strawmanning you but I'm genuinely not trying to....
Are you saying that we give up on trying to achieve social policy unless it directly effects our chances of making it through the current environmental crisis? I'm saying anything other than raising class consciousness toward a revolution results in catastrophe, and as the newest reports suggest, extinction (if you want to try to distill it).
I still don't get your point. My observation is that you've said multiple things, none of which appear clear based on your statements.
Even this last quote is confusing.
You've definitely made some insinuation that we shouldn't address certain socialite problems, prior to addressing the biggest problems we have, such as climate change.
I think we have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
|
I don't believe you guys haven't been around long enough to understand GH's shtick. He doesn't really care for the causes or effects of anything he talks about or advocates for. He believes that the act of advocating for it and talking about it is the beginning and the end of his responsibility. Its just yet another of his "abolish the police" bullshit line of arguments. He doesn't understand the chaos that canceling police service one day would cause, but that doesn't really matter to him because he doesn't care about that he only cares about having better police and sees restarting the whole thing as the most direct path.
I could armchair general about how the small arms revolution works and how its legitimate if thats what you want.
|
|
|
On May 24 2019 02:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't believe you guys haven't been around long enough to understand GH's shtick. He doesn't really care for the causes or effects of anything he talks about or advocates for. He believes that the act of advocating for it and talking about it is the beginning and the end of his responsibility. Its just yet another of his "abolish the police" bullshit line of arguments. He doesn't understand the chaos that canceling police service one day would cause, but that doesn't really matter to him because he doesn't care about that he only cares about having better police and sees restarting the whole thing as the most direct path.
I could armchair general about how the small arms revolution works and how its legitimate if thats what you want.
This is how it usually happens. Someone distorts or completely fabricates a position and then argues against that and laughs at how stupid it is even though it's a position they've made up, not one I've presented.
It's remarkable really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
