|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
Just a stable genius at work.
|
On September 13 2025 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 00:55 Legan wrote:On September 13 2025 00:37 LightSpectra wrote:
I genuinely hope Republicans do try to censor videogames. Watch their under-50 support vaporize overnight. I'm pretty sure that rightwing gamers would just point at the DEI consulting firms that they have been blaming for a while and claim that old games preached proper values, etc. and try to have the government push for games they like, such as Stellar Blade. I've never played Stellar Blade before; why would right-wing gamers like it so much? Is it like an incel thing, where the characters are naked women?
Its a Sexy Anime Booby Lady game which is indeed why right-wing gamer freaks were so into it.
|
I think ultimately we're going to find that this is yet another shooting in a chain of shootings carried out by someone who was involved with very disturbed groups online. This is a heavy topic so I'm hesitant to post it but after the shooting in Minneapolis a couple weeks ago, I learned about the existence of groups like 764, CVLT, and No Lives Matter. They're basically communities of extremely disturbed individuals on Discord/Roblox/Telegram/etc. that recruit people and radicalize them. A lot more goes on in these groups than just an obsession of violence, but that's what is pertinent here.
What's really frustrating is that the FBI is aware of the existence of these groups and how many people who have committed horrific acts recently who are involved in these groups. The girl who committed the school shooting back in December was in groups like this who obsessed over past school shooters. The individual who committed the shooting in Minneapolis was very involved in this - yet our government morphed it to "Oh they were a left-wing transgender so we should prevent them from getting guns" solely to rile up their base. Unfortunately for all of us, this is going to be a battle we fight for years. It's not that kids are suddenly worse than they ever were, it's that technology now exists for extremely disturbed individuals to hunt and find very malleable kids and radicalize them and that's really scary.
Sorry if this isn't the place for it and it's very possible the assassin wasn't involved in this at all but this has been on my mind ever since I learned about it because it's just that horrific and shootings like this are not going to slow down if we do nothing to combat it. I'm hopeful that the release of the memes on the shell casings today will help people learn about stuff like this but I have a great fear once again that, for example, the Helldivers meme is just going to be reduced to "OMG HE MUST HAVE WORKED FOR ANTIFA!"
|
United States43255 Posts
Best I can do is ramp up the partisan rhetoric against the enemy.
|
Northern Ireland26074 Posts
On September 13 2025 02:33 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 13 2025 00:55 Legan wrote:On September 13 2025 00:37 LightSpectra wrote:
I genuinely hope Republicans do try to censor videogames. Watch their under-50 support vaporize overnight. I'm pretty sure that rightwing gamers would just point at the DEI consulting firms that they have been blaming for a while and claim that old games preached proper values, etc. and try to have the government push for games they like, such as Stellar Blade. I've never played Stellar Blade before; why would right-wing gamers like it so much? Is it like an incel thing, where the characters are naked women? Its a Sexy Anime Booby Lady game which is indeed why right-wing gamer freaks were so into it.
They were into it because they thought they were owning the censorious libs.
Kinda missing the memo that most don’t actually give a fuck, and cultural critique of sexy anime ladies doesn’t mean you can never have such a portrayal.
I mean they don’t get a lot of things, so no real huge surprises there
|
Northern Ireland26074 Posts
On September 13 2025 01:18 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 01:11 Razyda wrote:On September 13 2025 00:54 Sermokala wrote:I would highly suggest listening to the ohio governors speech, its really quite some impressive work. “Charlie said, ‘When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence.’ He said, ‘The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. The only way out of the labyrinth of suffering is to forgive, welcome without judgment, love without condition, forgive without limit,’” Cox said during a news conference. I don't know how this corresponds with his actions or what he espoused in his life but Its some pretty powerful and quite something I believe. This does boost a ton of my image of the guy if true. Literally 2 pages earlier is link to video where he is saying that (at least first half). I am kinda curious, how many of you guys actually heard him spilling hateful nazi stuff, and how many just goes by heresay? For terminally online people who have been paying close attention to US politics since 2015 CK was one of the people that I've heard on debates with personalities I know, and yes, in many of these he spewed disgusting shit. Each and every statement that you can easily find where he advocated for Christian nationalism, public executions, derided DEI hires saying he wouldn't feel safe with a black pilot or asking for Pelosi attacker to be bailed out was a thing that bubbled up to my feeds and I definitely heard him say all of them. Why do you ask? Were you a big fan or?
Look he was just saying stuff, freedom of speech man. And like, having a very influential platform and all that, I mean obviously he didn’t have a net negative influence on the culture. It’s just the free marketplace of ideas man
The real problem is those pesky leftists I tells ya
|
On September 13 2025 03:26 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 02:33 Zambrah wrote:On September 13 2025 01:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 13 2025 00:55 Legan wrote:On September 13 2025 00:37 LightSpectra wrote:
I genuinely hope Republicans do try to censor videogames. Watch their under-50 support vaporize overnight. I'm pretty sure that rightwing gamers would just point at the DEI consulting firms that they have been blaming for a while and claim that old games preached proper values, etc. and try to have the government push for games they like, such as Stellar Blade. I've never played Stellar Blade before; why would right-wing gamers like it so much? Is it like an incel thing, where the characters are naked women? Its a Sexy Anime Booby Lady game which is indeed why right-wing gamer freaks were so into it. They were into it because they thought they were owning the censorious libs. Kinda missing the memo that most don’t actually give a fuck, and cultural critique of sexy anime ladies doesn’t mean you can never have such a portrayal. I mean they don’t get a lot of things, so no real huge surprises there
I dont have anything against anime boob lady games, its not my jam, but I know a lot of people who like it, but also right wing freaks do like hypersexualized gooner bait, for sure because it feels "transgressive" to them, but also theyre just horny freaks who cant stand any moment where they feel they may not be pandered to.
From what Ive heard Stellar Blade is a perfectly Serviceable action game, which is better than can be said for plenty of other games.
|
|
|
Politicizing sexuality is a silly thing. Queers and paraphiliacs can be on either side of the political spectrum.
It‘s really not a topic that was as much in the focus of the public until US politicians began to salvage it for themselves.
Also, article 4, apparently ? Wowzers.
|
On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them.
Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other.
It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car.
But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that.
|
On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that.
"Some people dying is OK if the alternative is no gun rights" is not an unreasonable view. The unreasonable view is "Republicans can't be the 'some people dying,' we meant YOUR kids dying is acceptable".
|
On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. Every other country doesn't kill as many people as regularly as the US does.
If Switzerland had a mass shooting every 23 hours I think they would reconsider the right for everyone to have a gun.
|
On September 13 2025 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. "Some people dying is OK if the alternative is no gun rights" is not an unreasonable view. The unreasonable view is "Republicans can't be the 'some people dying,' we meant YOUR kids dying is acceptable".
"YOUR kids"
Again, try to apply 5 seconds of critical thinking. Roughly half the kids that attend public schools have Republican parents. Do you think mass shooters know which kids to avoid shooting?
|
On September 13 2025 04:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. "Some people dying is OK if the alternative is no gun rights" is not an unreasonable view. The unreasonable view is "Republicans can't be the 'some people dying,' we meant YOUR kids dying is acceptable". "YOUR kids" Again, try to apply 5 seconds of critical thinking. Roughly half the kids that attend public schools have Republican parents. Do you think mass shooters know which kids to avoid shooting?
Sure, but why flip a raging shit when someone shoots at Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or some other far-right figures then? You voted for a world with unrestricted gun rights and random deaths, don't pop a pudding because you got it.
|
On September 13 2025 03:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. Every other country doesn't kill as many people as regularly as the US does. If Switzerland had a mass shooting every 23 hours I think they would reconsider the right for everyone to have a gun.
Yeah also if Lichtenstein had a mass shooting every 23 hours they would probably consider enacting a revolutionary maverick policy of taking away guns from the population.
On September 13 2025 04:02 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:01 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2025 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. "Some people dying is OK if the alternative is no gun rights" is not an unreasonable view. The unreasonable view is "Republicans can't be the 'some people dying,' we meant YOUR kids dying is acceptable". "YOUR kids" Again, try to apply 5 seconds of critical thinking. Roughly half the kids that attend public schools have Republican parents. Do you think mass shooters know which kids to avoid shooting? Sure, but why flip a raging shit when someone shoots at Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or some other far-right figures then? You voted for a world with unrestricted gun rights and random deaths, don't pop a pudding because you got it.
The world is not a computer program you vote for. Humans have agency. If someone deliberately ran over your family with a truck, to murder them specifically, you didn't ask for it by being against banning cars. You should have understood from the bridge analogy already. The policy view of how we organize our society does not give any single person any carte blanche to do something evil that we also already decided is illegal and punishable by death in some cases. As a corollary it's not that person's fault and they didn't deserve it, the family didn't ask to get run over by being on the sidewalk.
|
On September 13 2025 04:02 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:01 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2025 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. "Some people dying is OK if the alternative is no gun rights" is not an unreasonable view. The unreasonable view is "Republicans can't be the 'some people dying,' we meant YOUR kids dying is acceptable". "YOUR kids" Again, try to apply 5 seconds of critical thinking. Roughly half the kids that attend public schools have Republican parents. Do you think mass shooters know which kids to avoid shooting? Sure, but why flip a raging shit when someone shoots at Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or some other far-right figures then? You voted for a world with unrestricted gun rights and random deaths, don't pop a pudding because you got it.
I think the people filled with rage here are the ones that were happy when Kirk got shot.
@Gorsameth, I already said in my post I don't agree with the gun nut mental calculus. Not really interested in a gun control debate that we're probably on the same side on.
|
On September 13 2025 04:09 oBlade wrote:
The world is not a computer program you vote for. Humans have agency. If someone deliberately ran over your family with a truck, to murder them specifically, you didn't ask for it by being against banning cars. You should have understood from the bridge analogy already. The policy view of how we organize our society does not give any single person any carte blanche to do something evil that we also already decided is illegal and punishable by death in some cases. As a corollary it's not that person's fault and they didn't deserve it, the family didn't ask to get run over by being on the sidewalk.
Great analogy, because (non-Republican) legislators, car designers, traffic engineers, etc. have put in a lot of work and research into making cars and streets less dangerous and more regulated so there's less needless deaths. Meanwhile, right-wing legislators proudly wear rifle pins after school shootings to show their solidarity with the shooters, to signify they have zero intention of ever making the world safer or preventing more massacres and assassinations.
Love how much your tone has changed since yesterday btw. From "the deranged left" to "humans have agency" since discovering the shooter was a Trump donor.
On September 13 2025 04:09 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:02 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 04:01 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2025 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. "Some people dying is OK if the alternative is no gun rights" is not an unreasonable view. The unreasonable view is "Republicans can't be the 'some people dying,' we meant YOUR kids dying is acceptable". "YOUR kids" Again, try to apply 5 seconds of critical thinking. Roughly half the kids that attend public schools have Republican parents. Do you think mass shooters know which kids to avoid shooting? Sure, but why flip a raging shit when someone shoots at Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or some other far-right figures then? You voted for a world with unrestricted gun rights and random deaths, don't pop a pudding because you got it. I think the people filled with rage here are the ones that were happy when Kirk got shot.
What rage? What happiness? We don't want to live in a world where people can be randomly shot. We consistently vote against it. As I said before, Kirk didn't get what he deserved. But he did get what he thought other people deserved.
|
On September 13 2025 04:16 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:09 oBlade wrote:
The world is not a computer program you vote for. Humans have agency. If someone deliberately ran over your family with a truck, to murder them specifically, you didn't ask for it by being against banning cars. You should have understood from the bridge analogy already. The policy view of how we organize our society does not give any single person any carte blanche to do something evil that we also already decided is illegal and punishable by death in some cases. As a corollary it's not that person's fault and they didn't deserve it, the family didn't ask to get run over by being on the sidewalk. Great analogy, because (non-rightwing) legislators, car designers, traffic engineers, etc. have put in a lot of work and research into making cars and streets less dangerous and more regulated so there's less needless deaths. Meanwhile, right-wing legislators proudly wear rifle pins after school shootings to show their solidarity with the shooters.
I don't think I've seen a policy "proposal" from a Democrat in the last 10 years after any school shooting that would have even stopped the immediately preceding tragedy. They simply have no conception of reality for some reason. Take the CK case, the guy was an adult over the age of majority, and over the first age of fake majority for drinking (21), although not over the second age of fake majority for renting cars (25), had all the background in guns, and used basically the most ubiquitous and unbannable kind of weapon that isn't a musket: a bolt-action rifle. Any "gun control" proposal there is immediately met with: can't vacuum 500 million guns that are at least as advanced as a bolt-action rifle if you wanted. Try people control.
On September 13 2025 04:16 LightSpectra wrote:
Love how much your tone has changed since yesterday btw. From "the deranged left" to "humans have agency"
I would never imply that derangement absolves one of responsibility.
On September 13 2025 04:16 LightSpectra wrote:
since discovering the shooter was a Trump donor.
Source buddy.
|
On September 13 2025 04:02 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2025 04:01 BlackJack wrote:On September 13 2025 03:57 LightSpectra wrote:On September 13 2025 03:50 BlackJack wrote:On September 12 2025 21:34 Uldridge wrote:On September 12 2025 21:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 12 2025 21:12 Razyda wrote:On September 12 2025 19:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I recently heard the following take on Charlie Kirk's assassination: "I don't support what happened to Charlie, but Charlie would have supported what happened to Charlie". I think that's a fair point. I think thats blatantly dishonest take. Supporting 2nd amendment doesnt mean you supporting shooting people. Kirk said that annual gun deaths are worth the cost to keep the 2nd amendment: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/charlie-kirk-gun-deaths-quote/ And that's certainly a view that Kirk was allowed to have, but then his death - just like the other gun deaths that happen this year - are simply part of the price that Kirk found acceptable to pay, to ensure the 2nd amendment. That's completely disingenuous. He's probably not talking about cold blooded assassinations, but talking about accidents and self defense and these kinds of things instead. Stoking the flames is the best idea. We need to find a loophole to simmer down the right wing rhetoric, not stoke the flames with them. Yes and no. He is actually talking about ALL gun related deaths. It's also the same mental calculus that every country that allows its citizens to have guns has concluded. It would be pretty idiotic to conclude that you're okay with people having guns but not if people will be killed by guns because you can't have one without the other. It's the same mental calculus we do for everything. Medications we develop will have side effects that kill some people. Tall bridges we build will inevitably have some bridge jumpers that kill themselves. Junk food we allow companies to sell will lead to obesity and diabetes and death. Everything has risk and with large enough numbers, many deaths. I don't particularly agree with pro-2A gun nuts mental calculus that the cost in human lives is worth it so mentally unstable people can have weapons of war, but it's obviously disingenuous to say they "support" gun suicide/homicide any more than I "support" bridge jumpers killing themselves because I want to cross the bay by car. But I'm also well beyond expecting people to critically think about the shit they copy/paste off bluesky or reddit so there's that. "Some people dying is OK if the alternative is no gun rights" is not an unreasonable view. The unreasonable view is "Republicans can't be the 'some people dying,' we meant YOUR kids dying is acceptable". "YOUR kids" Again, try to apply 5 seconds of critical thinking. Roughly half the kids that attend public schools have Republican parents. Do you think mass shooters know which kids to avoid shooting? Sure, but why flip a raging shit when someone shoots at Charlie Kirk or Donald Trump or some other far-right figures then? You voted for a world with unrestricted gun rights and random deaths, don't pop a pudding because you got it.
It has little to do with gun rights, imagine their POV:
- I like Charlie Kirk because of his beliefs that the "other" don't deserve empathy
- Someone shot Charlie Kirk
- A lot of people are making fun of it because of his beliefs
- That can't be right, my beliefs are good, they're not laugh-at-my-misfortune worthy
We saw this before not long ago
- Musk writes great replacement theory on Twitter
- I write great replacement theory on forums
- Musk does emphatic back-to-back Nazi salutes
- People call Musk a Nazi
- I don't want to be labelled a Nazi for having the same wordview as him sans the salutes, engage autistic/kpop interference protocols
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
