Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Mazder]

The vote. That was proved during the Midterms.

There's enough civilians owning firearms that can rival the military in your standard bolt action and semi-automatic hunting rifles. The ones that own an AR-15 and use it as a dick extension prove that they are incapable of handling the responsibility of owning something that I can use to put 30 people in the ground.

And, let's be serious here, the patriot militias are useless when the current administration is doing the exact things they proclaim to hate, and they refuse to actually do anything about it.

While it may be true I live in a part of the world where the agency has been removed for me and I feel my voting power is becoming less and less effective. If something were to happen that would require me ever needing to stand up with a firearm I can not do that, that choice was taken before I was born. I have known nothing other than the alternative and honestly I don't have that much faith in it.

I agree there are way too many boisterous gun owners and they need to be convinced through social exchanges. But you find the same boisterousness in sports and gym culture, car ownership and I am sure even in bloody farming.

The whole Militia thing is kinda BS, I'd admit. There is no way, unless it's during a literal "Red Dawn" styled situation, none of the Militia's would do jack shit.

[TTTX]

The vote. That was proved during the Midterms.

There's enough civilians owning firearms that can rival the military in your standard bolt action and semi-automatic hunting rifles. The ones that own an AR-15 and use it as a dick extension prove that they are incapable of handling the responsibility of owning something that I can use to put 30 people in the ground.

And, let's be serious here, the patriot militias are useless when the current administration is doing the exact things they proclaim to hate, and they refuse to actually do anything about it.

Well voting doesn't have any power here so that means my country is screwed.

[Raga]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fltOUidbXs0
Interesting

I watched part of this but it's actually a really old-fashioned way of framing the debate. Authoritarianism via the state is just one way that a crappy zeitgeist gets enforced. Corporate power is another. What the intelligentsia wants is yet another. Mob violence is yet another.

The only bonafide state-based totalitarian regime on Earth that I know of is North Korea.

[Mobius_118]

The fact that trump is considering declaring a national emergency to get his wall built is a classic form of Authoritarianism should be alarming to everyone in the states.

[Vol]

Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are bonafide progressives. I think the nobody from Texas Julian Castro is as well.

Cory Booker is like halfway between neoliberal and progressive.

Really? I've seen Harris being attacked as capitalist-roader. Oh wait, I mean a rightist opportunist. Oh wait, I mean as a Russian agent.

I figure they're run Booker, because he's a neoliberal where it matters and he can be trot out for diversity points. Plus he tries really hard to be a dramatic statesman, and we do love our circuses.

Their economics stunk, but it's true they had a much more coherent moral and philosophical framework, which since I'm a theist I don't mind saying is closer to the objective truth.

They were nobility, with all the shit that entails, but they were American nobility. There was the possibility that they might rule in our interest by proxy between robbing us and marching us off to die oversea.

The vote. That was proved during the Midterms.

There's enough civilians owning firearms that can rival the military in your standard bolt action and semi-automatic hunting rifles. The ones that own an AR-15 and use it as a dick extension prove that they are incapable of handling the responsibility of owning something that I can use to put 30 people in the ground.

And, let's be serious here, the patriot militias are useless when the current administration is doing the exact things they proclaim to hate, and they refuse to actually do anything about it.

The fact that trump is considering declaring a national emergency to get his wall built is a classic form of Authoritarianism should be alarming to everyone in the states.

So how do you reconcile these? The vote did nothing, just like it did nothing when the GOP swept back in 2012. But in the face of what a vocal group of people see as a Nazi attempting to do something or another, fascism, why should the civilians you agree with be any less armed than they could possibly be?

[Vol]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjC_mrucY4&feature=youtu.be

The context could only make this less funny.

[TheodoricFriede]

In as far as guns are concerned, I admit I have considered joining the NRA if for no other reason then, while I dont really have much of an interest in modern assault rifles, I would rather have people fighting for my right to own guns, then people trying to take away one of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

Frankly, I believe that if you give anti-gun people an inch, they will take everything. Semi-Automatic? Too dangerous. Rifles? Too deadly at a long range. Pistols? Too easily hidden. Shotguns? Meat can be bought. BB-Guns? You'll shoot your eye out.

They tell me slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but how many social changes have occurred due to the slow chipping away at established ideas?

[DarkStorm]

Not like banning guns will do anything cause people wont give up their weapons so its irrelevant.

[Mazder]

Hey, guess what, banning guns doesn't solve the violent crimes problem.
You know what does? Tackling the actual crimes and not wasting police time with frivolous busy-work.
In my country actual police time has been spent monitoring twitter for hate speech. When has it been any officers job to monitor social media? What good does it actually bring?
Oh good, Mrs Stanton wasn't called a cunt today but don't worry, little Billy still found himself wrapped up in a gang culture over a spliff and got stabbed to death while the officer was monitoring twitter.
Nah, can't have them spend time looking for actual terrorists, we have to make sure there is no Islamaphobia on twitter!!!!

The slippery slope fallacy is an all too real one where I am concerned.
Gone is the UK with the "stiff upper lip" we're now the country of the wobbly bottom lip, too scared about being seen as the bad guy that we've removed almost all agency we had.

[Alienmorph]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjC_mrucY4&feature=youtu.be

The context could only make this less funny.

Too bad, I'm gonna give it to you anyway!

Every year in February, during Carnival (aka the month before Lent) there's allegoric wagons parades in various places of the country, with Viaraggio's being the biggest and most famous one. Someone wanting to make satire very obviously saw the Emprah Trump meme online and made a wagon of it.

And of course the announcers have no fucking clue what thei're talking about... they can't decide if "Warhammer 4k" is fantasy or sci-fi, nor did they recognize the fact the guy in front of the wagon is wearing Rouboute Guillamon's armor.

Our local talking heads chucklefucks only made their researches when they talk about soccer or celebrity gossip. When Stan Lee died one of our majors newspaper outlets thought he was the creator of Batman... 'nuff said.

[Sinekein]

Hey, guess what, banning guns doesn't solve the violent crimes problem.

It might not solve it, but it clearly seems to make it much smaller. The US are 10th in the world with about 12 deaths by firearms for 100k people, including 4.5 by homicide. All countries above it are in South or Central America, except for Swaziland (which isn't named Swaziland anymore, and their stats were 15 years ago).

The most violent country in Europe when it comes to gun violence is Serbia, with 3.5 deaths for 100k people. And the country with the most homicides with firearms in Europe is Ukfraine (where there's a civil war raging, mind) at 1.5 deaths by homicide with firearms for 100k people. France is at 0.21, Italy at 0.35, Canada at 0.61 - that's 7 to 20 times lower than the US.

So no it's not "solved" because gun violence still exists, but the difference between countries that highly restrict firearms possession and the US is huge. Kind lof like having to cure a cold, or cure lung cancer.

And it's not forbidden to own a gun or a rifle in France. There's just an extensive check on who can and can't do that, what kind of ammo you can own, how you store it, where you carry it, and where you store it. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are entirely banned though, because...it makes sense not to let anyone own such dangerous tools? It's also forbidden to own radioactive material, for pretty much the same reason.

[TheodoricFriede]

Cognac is also dangerous, why dont you ban that?

Or windowless vans?

Krav Maga?

Matches?


Basically, remind me why the US should take shit from the country that banned Yarmulkes and Burkas in public?

[Raga]

I'm fine with bans on automatic weapons, universal background checks, bans on large magazine sizes (though this would do less than people think it would - it's really not that hard to just carry around multiple clips that let you reload quickly), waiting periods for buying guns, limitations on the amount of ammo you can buy at once (again not that hard to circumvent though by just going to multiple stores), and laws banning carriage in certain places (schools, courts, hospitals, planes, etc).

I tend to oppose most other restrictions. That slippery slope thing is only a fallacy if there are not people running around who actually think the bottom of the slope is the best place to be and are pushing for us to end up there. It's sort of like the reason there are militantly pro-choice in all circumstances people even though this a wildly unpopular position is because they know there are people who do in fact want to outlaw abortion outright and that those people try to get laws passed pushing things down the slope all the time.

There are people who want to emphasize the "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment above the rest of it, which would effectively ban gun ownership outside of specifically government sanctioned law or military institutions. These people are all but neutered in this country right now, unlike the militant pro-choice crowd, but they do exist and their cause is growing, largely because people are sick of spree killings. To be brutally honest, most Americans don't give a rat's ass about what amounts to ghetto murders.

I'm willing to give just enough ground to get an actual reduction in spree killings because I don't want that militant anti-gun position to get stronger. You can chisel at the "ghetto murder" problem in other ways that don't involve eroding gun rights.

[DarkStorm]

"I'm fine with bans on automatic weapons, universal background checks, bans on large magazine sizes (though this would do less than people think it would - it's really not that hard to just carry around multiple clips that let you reload quickly), waiting periods for buying guns, limitations on the amount of ammo you can buy at once (again not that hard to circumvent though by just going to multiple stores), and laws banning carriage in certain places (schools, courts, hospitals, planes, etc)."

Which are already laws.So.

[Raga]

"I'm fine with bans on automatic weapons, universal background checks, bans on large magazine sizes (though this would do less than people think it would - it's really not that hard to just carry around multiple clips that let you reload quickly), waiting periods for buying guns, limitations on the amount of ammo you can buy at once (again not that hard to circumvent though by just going to multiple stores), and laws banning carriage in certain places (schools, courts, hospitals, planes, etc)."

Which are already laws.So.

Not everywhere with consistency they aren't. Here I can go buy like 1500 rounds, walk around with a pistol in my pocket (with concealed carry permit) on college grounds, or go buy 3 AR-15s and walk out of the store with them that day if I want.

In this state if I wanted to, I could successfully acquire all the tools needed for mass murder in like an hour so long as I wasn't a felon. If I wanted no paper trail at all, I could do it in about half a day.

[DarkStorm]

"I'm fine with bans on automatic weapons, universal background checks, bans on large magazine sizes (though this would do less than people think it would - it's really not that hard to just carry around multiple clips that let you reload quickly), waiting periods for buying guns, limitations on the amount of ammo you can buy at once (again not that hard to circumvent though by just going to multiple stores), and laws banning carriage in certain places (schools, courts, hospitals, planes, etc)."

Which are already laws.So.

Not everywhere with consistency they aren't. Here I can go buy like 1500 rounds, walk around with a pistol in my pocket (with concealed carry permit) on college grounds, or go buy 3 AR-15s and walk out of the store with them that day if I want.

In this state if I wanted to, I could successfully acquire all the tools needed for mass murder in like an hour.

Literally anyone could, whether it be difficult to do so or not. If you are willing to commit murder you are willing to do what it takes and nothing is going to stop you. Some impulsive and some long term planning. (imo laws saying you cant carry a weapon into a said place isnt going to stop someone who is willing to commit murder cause they dont give a shit.)

Also I guess those AR-15s aren't out the box automatic either, as for the rounds that surprises me a little cause I know how much you can get in TN and NY which isnt a lot.

[Raga]

Literally anyone could, whether it be difficult to do so or not. If you are willing to commit murder you are willing to do what it takes and nothing is going to stop you. Some impulsive and some long term planning. Also I guess those AR-15s are out the box automatic either, as for the rounds that surprises me a little cause I know how much you can get in TN and NY which isnt a lot.

Then why is the gun murder rate lower in places with stricter gun laws?

Look, I am insanely pro second amendment. I have a hunch that I probably have more guns in my house than anybody in this group except maybe Mobius who is literally in the military. I also have a hunch I've fired guns more than anybody in this group except him. I've actually killed things with guns. And even if that's not true, my stake in this as a hunter, as a gun-owner, as somebody who grew up around guns and considers them a part of my culture should be pretty clear.

But that data says what the data says. Making murder harder does in fact make murder harder.

I'm actually willing to accept that the murder rate and violent crime rate will be higher because of the second amendment. That's a sacrifice that's worth it to me sort of like how having the free speech means we have Nazis and Holocaust deniers running around. But like with all things there has to be some balance between security and freedom. The libertarian position always has to be qualified with sensible regulation. Otherwise, it might as well be an anarchist position.

Those sorts of laws such as I suggested really don't impinge anybody's ability to own guns. They just make it marginally harder for people to commit mass murder on a whim, to stockpile weapons & ammo with no documentation, or for people who most everybody agrees shouldn't have guns (felons and the mentally ill) to get them.

(Also with the AR-15s, my point wasn't I could get automatic ones but that I could get any gun with no waiting period).

[DarkStorm]

I didn't say it didnt either, just because I pointed some things out which were (imo). Honestly what would actually help is to ban the parts that make weapons automatic so people cant modify their AR-15's and etc to be automatic.

[Mazder]

It might not solve it, but it clearly seems to make it much smaller. The US are 10th in the world with about 12 deaths by firearms for 100k people, including 4.5 by homicide. All countries above it are in South or Central America, except for Swaziland (which isn't named Swaziland anymore, and their stats were 15 years ago).

The most violent country in Europe when it comes to gun violence is Serbia, with 3.5 deaths for 100k people. And the country with the most homicides with firearms in Europe is Ukfraine (where there's a civil war raging, mind) at 1.5 deaths by homicide with firearms for 100k people. France is at 0.21, Italy at 0.35, Canada at 0.61 - that's 7 to 20 times lower than the US.

So no it's not "solved" because gun violence still exists, but the difference between countries that highly restrict firearms possession and the US is huge. Kind lof like having to cure a cold, or cure lung cancer.

And it's not forbidden to own a gun or a rifle in France. There's just an extensive check on who can and can't do that, what kind of ammo you can own, how you store it, where you carry it, and where you store it. Automatic and semi-automatic weapons are entirely banned though, because...it makes sense not to let anyone own such dangerous tools? It's also forbidden to own radioactive material, for pretty much the same reason.

While true I'd also say that compared to the USA we also don't really have much in place to combat dictatorships and the like from sneaking in, despite going through 2 world wars and a cold war. You'd think we'd be more open with putting actual tangible checks on the potential government.

It's not forbidden to own a gun in the UK either. You just have to undergo a lot of checks, be a part of a club and have a good reason that can be veto'd at any time by your local constable.
That's not exactly me free to own a firearm to, say, protect myself as no police officer in the UK would agree that I'd require it, despite the fact that the police is spread drastically thin.
No wonder the method of choice moved to knife crime.

Also Semi-automatic being banned is basically limiting things to revolvers, bolt actions, pump actions and ancient/older firearms like flintlocks and wheel-locks and match-locks.

And if we're going to talk about dangerous tools let's talk about things we are free to operate that have much the same potential for harm if misused. Power tools, cars, bleach. If you know what you're doing these can all be lethal weapons. Lethality is not the issue it's improper education.
And banning and fleeing from the subject is not proper education. Fear is not proper education. Respect is.


I mean has no-one watched the Antiques Roadshow where there is random historical stuff that is knocking about in some old bitty's closet?
Say I wanted to make a collection of old British WW1-2 rifles to simply preserve them in working condition. What says on the books that I can not do so?
Apart from not being a part of a museum or preservation society why can I as a citizen not have such a private collection? What is dangerous about preserving the weapons to remember how they operated and functioned?
Yeah, you have the literal danger of them being weapons, but I don't see how that is any different from someone who collects Ancient Japanese Katana's, or someone who is into archery.

Then why is the gun murder rate lower in places with stricter gun laws?

Look, I am insanely pro second amendment. I have a hunch that I probably have more guns in my house than anybody in this group except maybe Mobius who is literally in the military. I also have a hunch I've fired guns more than anybody in this group except him. I've actually killed things with guns. And even if that's not true, my stake in this as a hunter, as a gun-owner, as somebody who grew up around guns and considers them a part of my culture should be pretty clear.

But that data says what the data says. Making murder harder does in fact make murder harder.

I'm actually willing to accept that the murder rate and violent crime rate will be higher because of the second amendment. That's a sacrifice that's worth it to me sort of like how having the free speech means we have Nazis and Holocaust deniers running around. But like with all things there has to be some balance between security and freedom. The libertarian position always has to be qualified with sensible regulation. Otherwise, it might as well be an anarchist position.

Those sorts of laws such as I suggested really don't impinge anybody's ability to own guns. They just make it marginally harder for people to commit mass murder on a whim, to stockpile weapons & ammo with no documentation, or for people who most everybody agrees shouldn't have guns (felons and the mentally ill) to get them.

(Also with the AR-15s, my point wasn't I could get automatic ones but that I could get any gun with no waiting period).

Usually the gun murder rate is lower due to those with the guns not wanting to actually draw attention to themselves. Those with the guns have them for security or threat prevention form other gangs. Those willing to do mass shootings are usually those willing to improvise weapons anyway or just find any way to kill.
Yes the gun provides a convenient and deadly access to murder, but so does a car and we've seen that happening more in the UK in the past few years than guns. If it's not that it's usually explosives.


As for the whole stockpiling thing, that's going to happen if you allow guns, no matter what. You can affect the time it takes but then it's just a slippery slope before you get to full registries and that's also detrimental.
In WW2 I think it was either Sweden or Norway the Gestapo just went down to the registry office and found out all the names of people with firearms and sent the info back to command who then sent soldiers after them in such numbers that their firearms were essentially just useless and collected.
So a registry can be used as a tool for an authoritarian group to collect firearms and know how much of a resistance there is before needing to deploy any troops.

I do agree the legislation needs a rewrite in terms of making things actually clear. The main problem is the side that wishes to impose heavier restrictions don't usually understand the terminology and actions enough to make the informed decision.
I mean take the bump-stock ban for example. All you need to recreate that is your hands. Bump-stocks were a gimmick and every firearms user knew it, yet now they're banned because one guy misused one.

I didn't say it didnt either, just because I pointed some things out which were (imo). Honestly what would actually help is to ban the parts that make weapons automatic so people cant modify their AR-15's and etc to be automatic.

So banning milling machines.
That's all you need to make an AR-15 automatic, to mill away a block on the action.

I'm in the UK and I know this, imagine what someone actually informed could do.
Imagine what could be banned or removed due to it being possible to do one thing with it.

[Raga]

There's no way to meaningful legislate it without capturing other similar guns up in the mantle, but I hate AR-15s. They serve literally no purpose but to prove the guy who has them is an edgelord. For pretty much any purpose you can name for one, there is some other gun that will do the job. Any time somebody tells me they have an AR-15 I immediately think they are a douchebag (and haven't really seen anything that's ever proved that assumption wrong).

[Mazder]

There's no way to meaningful legislate it without capturing other similar guns up in the mantle, but I hate AR-15s. They serve literally no purpose but to prove the guy who has them is an edgelord. For pretty much any purpose you can name for one, there is some other gun that will do the job. Any time somebody tells me they have an AR-15 I immediately think they are a douchebag (and haven't really seen anything that's ever proved that assumption wrong).

The main problem is most modern firearms follow the Armalite design/appearance. So anyone not clued-in will just go "that's an AR-15" and ban it simply because it looks similar. It's like comparing an m1 Garand and a Brown Bess just because their stocks are both wood.

[Sinekein]

Cognac is also dangerous, why dont you ban that?

Or windowless vans?

Krav Maga?

Good thing you picked those examples because there are legislations against that too.

Distillating alcohol above a certain degree is straight up illegal. Even if it's weaker, you need a permit, you can't do that in your cave.

Passing a test (Contrôle Technique) is required for all motorized vehicles if they are to be used on French roads. Not having windows is a good enough reason not to pass it. Convertibles are legal, of course, because they've been designed like that with sufficient security in mind. And it goes without saying but there are many restrictions on how to drive.

People who are affiliated to the Krav Maga federation, or any martial arts federation, are absolutely and utterly forbidden to use those outside of a gym unless they are in a self-defense situation. If they don't it can be a straight way to jail. Even if you are repeatedly insulted, you have no right to use a high kick or an arm lock.

So, basically - like guns, these various dangerous items or activities are not banned, but they are controlled enough to limit the danger to the population.

[Raga]

@Mazder

Sure, statistically it's also probably the case that people with silver handguns with black grips have them for more douchebaggy reasons than people who have like boring old plain ones or people with revolvers that can shoot .44 magnums have them for more douchebaggy reasons than people who have like a .22 Ruger (which incidentally if you want to murder the piss out of whole lot of people in close quarters is arguably more effective anyway).

That's certainly been my anecdotal experience anyway. You can practically smell these people and their motivations, which is why the left gets so much usage out of criticisms that amount to "guns as fetish object" and "guns as dick replacement" and so on.

The issue isn't that these dudes don't exist. They totally do.

There's just no way you can legislate stuff like gun color or gun brand name or whatever in a way that makes sense though I bet if you did a study you'd totally see patterns with violent crime based on stuff like that.

Just like it's hardly the case that pit bulls are the only breed of dog you can use for fighting, and yet, invariably when you bust up a dog fighting ring, it's pit bulls.

[Sinekein]

Just like it's hardly the case that pit bulls are the only breed of dog you can use for fighting, and yet, invariably when you bust up a dog fighting ring, it's pit bulls.

I don't know if you have the same in the US, but here a few dog races have to wear a muzzle whenever they are outside of a private property. Pitbulls, Rottweilers, American Staffs, Mastiffs, Tosas.

It's arbitrary, true, and I have known my fair share of absolutely adorable Rottweilers, but the laws are supposed to be written with the minority of morons in mind, not the majority of normal people.

[Mazder]

@Mazder

Sure, statistically it's also probably the case that people with silver handguns with black grips have them for more douchebaggy reasons than people who have like boring old plain ones or people with revolvers that can shoot .44 magnums have them for more douchebaggy reasons than people who have like a .22 Ruger (which incidentally if you want to murder the piss out of whole lot of people in close quarters is arguably more effective anyway).

That's certainly been my anecdotal experience anyway. You can practically smell these people and their motivations, which is why the left gets so much usage out of criticisms that amount to "guns as fetish object" and "guns as dick replacement" and so on.

The issue isn't that these dudes don't exist. They totally do.

There's just no way you can legislate stuff like gun color or gun brand name or whatever in a way that makes sense though I bet if you did a study you'd totally see patterns with violent crime based on stuff like that.

Just like it's hardly the case that pit bulls are the only breed of dog you can use for fighting, and yet, invariably when you bust up a dog fighting ring, it's pit bulls.

Well true but then you're getting into the realms of design over legislation.

I mean where the pitbull analogy is concerned they were bred to fight, that's their main genetic purpose. Is the gun design what separates the douchebag gun owner form the regular one or is it the fact they're just a douchebag?
Plus let's not forget the 'Fudds' who do the exact same shit, just with "old looking" guns.
Assholes are gonna asshole.
Hopefully as the whole education around guns grow it can weed out the douchebagginess from more and more.

I mean design in a gun is just as much part of the appeal to some as the mechanics behind it.
Some like wood stocks, others like black plastic ones.
Once we start with a "it can't look like this" stance it becomes just another needless restriction that does nothing.

[Sinekein]

On a completely different topic, the big news here revolves around something called "La Ligue du LOL" (LOL's League). It was a private Facebook group between 2009 and 2012 whose users loved to band together to harass a variety of people (buuut mostly women) online but on Twitter in particular, back when the network was a bit smaller.

It's making the headlines because those "Ligue du LOL" members were (and still are) journalists, some of them for prominent newspapers (2 are in Libération, one of the main national newspapers, and 1 was a director of redaction at Les Inrockuptibles, a prominent culture weekly magazine, among other things). The founder of that group back in the day had even recently become the reference when it came to talking about Gilets Jaunes debates on Facebook, which are kind of a big deal. Among the victims of their harassment, at least one woman mentioned that despite pleading for them to stop, they never did, and she left journalism altogether. Another explained how, back when she struggled financially as a freelancer, one of them called her while impersonating an exec from a large channel to propose her a job, and then publicly shared the conversation to make fun of her.

And it's making even bigger headlines because most of the aforementioned newspapers they're working for are affiliated with the left-wing (Libération is even the one that revealed the whole case). It was released three days ago, several of these former "LOL" members already are under scrutiny from their employers, and more importantly two other media outlets have announced that they found similar groups between their own members, used to exchange racist, sexist or homophobic content. So the case might grow a lot, like a French Journalists Weinstein case in a way.

Which I hope it will. If it helps putting some rotten individuals far, far away from media and news sources, it's well worth the current ruckus. In a time where people are incredibly distrustful of media in general, they can't afford to hire gigantic hypocritical assholes like that.

[Raga]

I don't know if you have the same in the US, but here a few dog races have to wear a muzzle whenever they are outside of a private property. Pitbulls, Rottweilers, American Staffs, Mastiffs, Tosas.

It's arbitrary, true, and I have known my fair share of absolutely adorable Rottweilers, but the laws are supposed to be written with the minority of morons in mind, not the majority of normal people.

It's usually a city ordinance thing with each city having its own rules. Most just have leash laws that any dog must be on a leash. There are a few that actually completely ban certain breeds of dogs.

There's also the problem of chasing trends with laws such as this. I remember reading an account of some guy who was a criminal profiler who predicted some criminal was likely to have a Rottweiler or a Doberman because he was profiling the person in the 1970s or 80s (and he was incidentally correct). But he said if he was profiling the guy today, he would have predicted that the guy would have a pit bull because the macho dog breed of choice had changed. (Or think of the 1980s Disney movie Oliver & Company The "bad guy" dogs in that weren't pit bulls, but Dobermans).

Or the freaking out over specifically crack cocaine, which was honestly a big deal for a couple of decades. Now, not so much. Or fentanyl now. That probably won't be the horror drug of choice in 20 years.

That's not to say it's impossible to legislate stuff like this, but any time you start trying to make categorical judgements based on what amounts to temporary or superficial criterion you run into this possibility of making some law that doesn't actually solve the problem and possibly causes some unexpected secondary problem.

@ stuff about harassment ring

It sort of reminds me of this thing my sister encountered a few years back. She was on some parenting forum or other and made some really good friends and eventually got an invitation to something called "The Firepit," which was apparently some sort of wannabe Skull & Bones type secret, elitist affiliated forum. Both forums were mostly women and apparently some select ones went off to create this Firepit place solely for the purpose of coordinating harassment (both online and in real life) of other women on the main forums that they hated for whatever reason (usually because they were conservative housewife types). The people in the firepit tended to be highly educated and political and apparently my sister was deemed "worthy" of admittance, but as soon as she joined and realized what it was, she dropped out in horror. She wanted to post some sort of thing on the main forums explaining what that group was to everybody, but was sufficiently worried about being targeted that she never did.

As it turns out, self-righteous mobs don't really have a particular political affiliation.

[Sinekein]

I think those breeds were picked because a lot of dog attacks were compiled, and those five were considered "frequent offenders" when compared to the total population of that breed.

I mean, sure, a threshold had to be picked, and it's arbitrary, but a large number of maulings occurred in the street while dogs were leashed - because let's face it, unless you're The Rock or Terry Crews, if an enraged pitbull decides it wants to maul someone, you're not gonna stop it.

In any event, Rottweilers have never been seen here as "dogs for criminals", it's pretty common to see gardens with one inside. So the criterions were basically "attack statistics".

Also, the "secondary problems" are mostly "some dog owners being inconvenienced". Which, sure, it exists, but if it's to prevent deaths or grave injuries, well, is it that big an issue for them to have to pay the price of a muzzle? If you're a Rottweiler enthusiast, that's literally the only difference the law makes, you can still enjoy it the same way while at home. And if you pick a Rottweiler because you like having a doggo with you during your jogging, I daresay you're a bit dumb and there are better choices.

[TheodoricFriede]

Good thing you picked those examples because there are legislations against that too.

...Thank fucking god the US isn't like Europe.

I will take Trump any day of the week.

[TTTX]

...Thank fucking god the US isn't like Europe.

I will take Trump any day of the week.

I don't know, doesn't the USA also have stupid like one that bans Kinder Eggs because they can fall under some sort of chocking hazard law?

[TheodoricFriede]

I don't know, doesn't the USA also have stupid like one that bans Kinder Eggs because they can fall under some sort of chocking hazard law?

The difference here is that is a result of people scared of getting sued.

[TTTX]

The difference here is that is a result of people scared of getting sued.

oh yeah I forgot, that's USA favorite pass time aside from guns, American football and bunch of other stuff I forget or don't know about American stereo types.

[Sinekein]

Good thing you picked those examples because there are legislations against that too.

...Thank fucking god the US isn't like Europe.

I will take Trump any day of the week.

I get that. I mean, who could suffer those rules that make society safer? I'd take regular school shootings any day over being forced by the government to ensure my vehicle is safe to use.

[TheodoricFriede]

Id prefer my government upholds the national contract it made with the people when the nation was founded.

Because its not just the right to bear arms that the United States takes more seriously than Europe. Its also freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.

I am not opposed to background checks. I am not opposed to licenses. I am not opposed to a gun registry.

I am opposed to taking away the rights of citizens as granted to them by the Constitution of the United States. It's people like who you force people like me into the arms of people like Trump.

[Mobius_118]

I know there are those who went to trump because the Democrats seemingly wanted to control every aspect of life.

They're frequently regarded as completely fucking retarded. I have zero sympathy for them when they realize that trump's promises were all lies, and they suffer for it. With them, I think we should remove all the safety signs and let them earn Darwin Awards for removing themselves from the genepool.

[Augustei]

Called it
Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia
Senate has found ‘no direct evidence’ Trump colluded with Russia: report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK4-rEH8-I4&feature=youtu.be

Rachel Maddow on suicide watch, what'll she do now? https://youtu.be/f0krkHRBaVI?t=16
Trump however, will be serving his full term

[Mobius_118]

That's the GOP controlled Senate talking.

I'll wait for Mueller to finish his investigation.

[Raga]

What's with YouTube "news?" Literally every time I've ever watched any of it, it's just taking mainstream news and highlighting parts of it and Rush Limbaughing over the highlights. I've yet to see any Youtuber who offers anything like a new or different analysis or actually has sources. It's just parroting what some mainstream talking head said but with faux outrage. I sincerely don't get it.

[Vol]

What's with YouTube "news?" Literally every time I've ever watched any of it, it's just taking mainstream news and highlighting parts of it and Rush Limbaughing over the highlights. I've yet to see any Youtuber who offers anything like a new or different analysis or actually has sources. It's just parroting what some mainstream talking head said but with faux outrage. I sincerely don't get it.

It's the same with game reviews and it's frustrating. 20 minute videos with maybe a few salient points, clickbait thumbnail and title, a few hundred thousand views. Taming of the wild west of information continues, I suppose.

[Alienmorph]

It's just Youtube becoming more and more like television, to be more ad-friendly and shit. Only with more people offended at everything.

[Sinekein]

There are enough varied news sources not to need YT to be one IMO.

And since YT rewards style over substance, it's not surprising to be disappointed by the lack of depth of its content.

[Sinekein]

Yes because words are wind.
Look it sucks royally when the bad guy gets away, but usually it's on the side of victims not coming forward soon enough,

And how to blame them, since when they do, suspicion is automatically thrown on their claims? And in situations where they were victims of someone with more power and/or influence than them, it is extremely likely they'll end up being called liars. And ignored. And on top of being victims of abuse, they'll be publicly derided as liars, like a double sentence.

or a lack of police ability to deal with such cases as they become fresh, meaning the trail goes cold, evidence is lost and all that it boils down to is he said vs she said. In any court of law that is just not enough to convict someone of a crime. Even with additional eye witness testimony it's still hearsay until something more concrete is found.

One of the good things that came out from the Weinstein case is that a difference is being made between people who've behaved improperly once or twice, and actual serial abusers. If someone makes a claim, and many, many others also come forward with similar accusations, the likelihood of a conspiracy becomes extremely low, and the likelihood of the accused being garbage skyrockets.

There were many who were accused by the MeToo movement. Not all got their careers ruined. Those who did were those who were not accused once, or twice, or three times, but enough that it became obvious the only thing that was protecting them was that their victims never thought they would be believed.

Morgan Freeman or Ben Affleck got mentioned, apologized for one-time annoying behaviors, and basically went on with their lives. Kevin Spacey, however, is in an entirely different accusation. And so does R Kelly now - meaning that not only white guys are being targeted, if anything.

I mean have you not been on social media? People get lynched for thinking the wrong opinion all the damned time, innocent or not.
The fact it was an anime VA doesn't honestly matter as much as it was a male subject on social media as currently people are very aware of male misconduct and it is almost popular to be very against it, or at the very least very vocal when against it. This tends to have more stories pile up and then the job of sifting through them gets worse and worse.
I don't agree with it but it's what happens. It simply doesn't help matters.

Also this should now be moved to politics thread if it's gonna continue, just so it's in the right place.

You might have people retweeting, sharing, or blaming automatically because it suits their opinion. But the point here is that you have a number of people also accusing him of misconduct. It's not a case of one of two testimonies being overshared from what I gathered (granted I didn't go to Twitter because I just don't go on Twitter - I don't go on social media bar the weekly Facebook visit). It's a case of one or two testimonies encouraging many to also share their own stories about their encounters with Mr Mignogna.

And he's just an anime VA. I'm not crazy enough to think that there are people motivated or organized enough to create from scratch dozen of fake testimonies against an anime VA. Against Donald Trump or a head of state or a senator? Sure, why not. But not again a...let's say second tier entertainment figure who's not even famous for who he is, only for his voice.

Like, at first, when I read the news, I thought it was the name of Zuko's VA, not Edward's. And I was puzzled by the "white guy" part because Basco I knew was not white.

[Vol]

Structure isn't necessarily bad, it's the replacement of actual information and informed opinions with entertainment that's tragic. Though I suppose that's the goal of Alphabet, since they're deplatforming undesirable elements, who in this case also happen to be existential threats to the corpse media. And funnily enough, if you don't want to rely on that teat, other teats have been denied to you too for being outside the Silicon Valley tolerated limits!

[Mazder]

And how to blame them, since when they do, suspicion is automatically thrown on their claims? And in situations where they were victims of someone with more power and/or influence than them, it is extremely likely they'll end up being called liars. And ignored. And on top of being victims of abuse, they'll be publicly derided as liars, like a double sentence.

That's how the law is supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty implies the stance of any, and every, claim is false until proven otherwise. It's the only way to be impartial to both parties as that's the only way you can enact a fair justice system.
Yes, it's cold to the victims, I get that, but it's also the only way to ensure we do not go down the slippery slope of assuming every claim is correct before an investigation by a court.
And before asked, no, I don't put much stock in internal corporate investigations as they can hold a bias all of themselves. If the police get involved then it's another issue as it has to go through the system of law.

And on the topic of "what if someone more popular calls the victim a liar to get themselves free"; That's the very reason why we should not be using mob rule to determine innocence. This happens both ways on social media and we should not be putting any stock in what social media has to say on the matter. Even official sources like Funimation's Twitter should be ignored when it comes to legitimate investigations until actual law practices can be put in place for the investigation, if it is deemed as serious as it is.

One of the good things that came out from the Weinstein case is that a difference is being made between people who've behaved improperly once or twice, and actual serial abusers. If someone makes a claim, and many, many others also come forward with similar accusations, the likelihood of a conspiracy becomes extremely low, and the likelihood of the accused being garbage skyrockets.

There were many who were accused by the MeToo movement. Not all got their careers ruined. Those who did were those who were not accused once, or twice, or three times, but enough that it became obvious the only thing that was protecting them was that their victims never thought they would be believed.

Morgan Freeman or Ben Affleck got mentioned, apologized for one-time annoying behaviors, and basically went on with their lives. Kevin Spacey, however, is in an entirely different accusation. And so does R Kelly now - meaning that not only white guys are being targeted, if anything.

I never claimed for it being linked to only white guys. Please stop using that as a thing. I'm not limiting my claims to "oh why is it only white peoples" stop putting words in my mouth.

Secondly as for the Weinstein stuff, it's usually when corroborating evidence comes forth that helps solidify the actual claims from the attention seekers. Which is entirely my point. Not relying on hear-say alone.
You need corroborating evidence, records and times and dates that can be verified, in the very least. Details which get forgotten the more time passes from a claim. It is imperative that to help more we do not leave these things to pass into, well, the past! It all becomes retroactive then. It all falls down to memory and that's also not going to hold up.

You might have people retweeting, sharing, or blaming automatically because it suits their opinion. But the point here is that you have a number of people also accusing him of misconduct. It's not a case of one of two testimonies being overshared from what I gathered (granted I didn't go to Twitter because I just don't go on Twitter - I don't go on social media bar the weekly Facebook visit). It's a case of one or two testimonies encouraging many to also share their own stories about their encounters with Mr Mignogna.

And he's just an anime VA. I'm not crazy enough to think that there are people motivated or organized enough to create from scratch dozen of fake testimonies against an anime VA. Against Donald Trump or a head of state or a senator? Sure, why not. But not again a...let's say second tier entertainment figure who's not even famous for who he is, only for his voice.

Like, at first, when I read the news, I thought it was the name of Zuko's VA, not Edward's. And I was puzzled by the "white guy" part because Basco I knew was not white.

That's exactly the point. All those people retweeting their opinions, their support or accusations and derision, all of them make the investigation that much harder.
And yeah it might have been one or two claims at the start, but then once the request comes out for more people to share their accounts it changes from one or two accusations to three, four, six, ten, twenty, and then it explodes from there. Each additional account is treated as another accusation on social media, another log on the pyre. Maybe you should go view twitter a little more sometimes to understand how quickly something like this can blow up.

And, yeah, he's an anime VA who's been doing this work for years, goes to regular conventions, is well known in his job circle and is very well known to fans and is often followed very closely by fans. No wonder the entertainment factor behind drama involving someone like that would matter more to people than actual boring old dull politics and politicians.
People care more about what entertains them, usually, so of course it was gonna matter to them more.
You don't need a degree in social sciences to understand that.

[Raga]

McConnell Plans to Bring Green New Deal to a Senate Vote

Pretty amusing way to deal with it. Gives Dems the official chance to come out in favor of getting rid of air travel & "farting cows" and subsidizing people "unwilling to work" or to decline to do so and upset their base.

Also, started reading:



It's pretty interesting so far. It does a pretty good job of underpinning the philosophical similarities in liberal democracy and communism and the author lived under a communist regime in Poland so he's speaking from experience to some degree.

[Raga]

God, I think I've swallowed the Cultural Marxism pill. It's a thing. It's just that "cultural Marxism" is a sort of stupid, inaccurate name for it because it doesn't really have anything to do with Marxism the philosophy directly.

I can't even define what I mean by it precisely. That's what's so frustrating about it. There's clearly a *thing:* a trend, a movement, an ideological epoch, but it's next to impossible to neatly define. I can define Marxism or Catholicism or whatever, but this is like looking back at a whole era and calling it "the Enlightenment" or "the Protestant Reformation." The only way you can encompass all the ideas or people or groups is by applying an insanely broad definition. And yet, there's clearly something there. There *is* clearly such a thing as the Protestant Reformation or the Enlightenment.

But because of the stupidity of the names that get thrown at it (cultural Marxism) or because it's so nebulous, it's easy to dismiss people who point it out as conspiracy theorists.

I can say a few things about its character but there is no universal unifier in actual practice or theory. It is revolutionary *within* institutions; it's more like it supports coups. It is aggressively non moral relativist but wildly insistent facts are relative based on perspective. It is elitist. It endorses aggressive social engineering. It uses the language of past utopianistic philosophies but it is deeply, deeply skeptical and cynical. It is highly emotivist & solipsistic. It is authoritarian.

[Vol]

God, I think I've swallowed the Cultural Marxism pill. It's a thing. It's just that "cultural Marxism" is a sort of stupid, inaccurate name for it because it doesn't really have anything to do with Marxism the philosophy directly.

*snippity do dah, snippty day*

I'm so proud of you.

But yeah, it's a slippery eel. Get a hand on it, the rest goes squirming away. So much like cooking eel, you have to skin it all after spiking the head to the board.

I can say a few things about its character but there is no universal unifier in actual practice or theory. It is revolutionary *within* institutions; it's more like it supports coups. It is aggressively non moral relativist but wildly insistent facts are relative based on perspective. It is elitist. It endorses aggressive social engineering. It uses the language of past utopianistic philosophies but it is deeply, deeply skeptical and cynical. It is highly emotivist & solipsistic. It is authoritarian.

Well said.

Somewhat related, but McCabe is openly flaunting how him and some Deep State folks were discussing how to perform a soft coup on Trump after firing Comey. This will be on his 60 Minutes interview, meanwhile the media is going to be gaslighting us on how the Russian collusion story they ran with for 2 fucking years wasn't something they tried to convince us was completely true. The Senate committee finished their part, no proof of collusion, but I don't imagine it was covered all that well compared to the fantasy.

[TTTX]

The Senate committee finished their part, no proof of collusion, but I don't imagine it was covered all that well compared to the fantasy.

[Mobius_118]

All of the intelligence agencies we have say otherwise, but hey, let's trust the GOP to tell the truth.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

You are pure salt mobius. It's consistently hilarious.