Your political opinions

[Donner]

Tony Stark is a comic book character.

But...I respect your position. To each their own

Yes thank you I know he is.

Nuclear deterrence when it comes to owning guns doesn't actually work. It just means you have a bunch of armed and unstable, paranoid people walking around. It's a recipe for disaster, not peace.

 

[Mike5575]

I personally don't care about a person's sob story, just wear a ****ing mask for the 10 minutes you'll be in and out of the place you're going. Its not that difficult.

I wear a mask whenever I go out. I also have to wear it at work. It's sad that this has to be part of the culture war.

 

[InCali]

Yes thank you I know he is.

Nuclear deterrence when it comes to owning guns doesn't actually work. It just means you have a bunch of armed and unstable, paranoid people walking around. It's a recipe for disaster, not peace.

And the more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that some crazy person will use them.

 

[Schlosser85]

I wear a mask whenever I go out. I also have to wear it at work. It's sad that this has to be part of the culture war.

The fact that a basic public safety act during a global pandemic is now a “political statement” is asinine and moronic.

 

[CaptainWagner]

If the US government ever attacked its own citizens, you can be damn sure that other citizens would be right there with the government doing the attacking. It would never be as simple as a citizens v. government war. It would be a civil war with everyone fighting each other. The government may not even lift a finger. Trump is proof that some people are too stupid and too gullible and can be convinced to do the attacking.

In that case, weapons are no good and you should just get the hell out of dodge.

The wildest thing about all this is that the same people insisting their gun collection is the only thing holding off a hostile takeover by a rogue government are the same people cheering on as more and more money is dumped into the national military, as the police are militarized and as federal intelligence authority expands. Like... if you really think the government is plotting against you, YOU SHOULDN'T WANT THEM TO HAVE THOSE THINGS!

To all the gun nuts out there: Trust me, the US military you worship is not afraid of your AR-15.

 

[Sithborg]

As a counter point, even with its militarized state, law enforcement is absolutely scared of your guns. The military, not exactly.

 

[MaceB]

I get what you're saying but several things can be true at the same time. We can vote for reform, we can speak out against fascism and racism and we can also prepare ourselves for the day when talking about the problems doesn't work. We can do all of this and we should. Plan A and Plan B. Also 70 million people isn't a small portion of our citizens, that's a huge amount.

Also people do break the law because they feel disenfranchised, all the time. In fact, this entire past summer and deep into fall was filled with civil disobedience: riots, looting, vandalism, and even murder and death, all done by people who felt disenfranchised. And many with political power actually supported this. So you can say people can't break the law, but people, including government officials, break the law all the time.

Here's the real point. The Constitution that we all hold dear is just a piece of paper without any enforcement, and every law in the United States is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. So if the government has become corrupted or compromised, and enacts laws that take away your freedoms, how do you fight back against it? Or am I hearing there is simply no choice but to fall into the fetal position and acquiesce?

And the way to prepare ourselves would be to hoard weaponry? What a weird solution. We prepare so that the issue never gets to military combat. We prepare so we can reverse the spread of Fascism with our words, before it becomes too drastic. That should be the goal.

Civil disobedience is not breaking the law. It's refusing to abide by unjust laws. Someone who is is civilly disobedient refuses to comply with a law.. it's civil... it's passive. The second it becomes violent... the second there is theft or looting or any criminal conduct outside of just existing peacefully in a space.. it becomes a crime. You have NO RIGHT to shoot your weapon in a space and time where it is not allowed. Never. Not at all. You will be arrested.

No one agreed with riots. We just didn't think that the way to stop them was to chastise people and dismiss their greivances. Everyone said that looting was a crime. Everyone. You're conflating two things.... rioters and civil demonstrators... in order to evidence your point. Rioters are there as criminals. They should be indicted. Civil resistors are just there to practice their constitutional freedom to protest. They don't attack people. They don't destroy property. They should be protected.

I'll say again. You can't break the law. Encouraging a bunch of people to carry guns, because one day they'll need them is short sighted, and not helpful. What we need to do is push for legislation that changes campaign finance laws, political gerrymandering, and unlimited corporate influence. You way only pours fuel on the fire, IMO.

America is a nation of laws. You fight with laws. You fight with democracy. This idea that we even could stop a violent Fascist overthrow with AR-15s is childish.... to be perfectly frank. It's a dream. It's a way for you to make yourself feel better like you are doing something, when you are doing nothing at all. Let's say we proposed a mass gun buy, encouraging every American to keep one 'just in case'... how do you think that would translate 200 years from now? What happens when a highly armed, high uneducated populace now refuses to follow the laws and chooses Fascism over the constitution? What then?

We protect Americans through the ballot and through the rule of law. Have a little more faith in your country. Have a little more faith in the constitution.

 

[Schlosser85]

This write-up sums up my political feelings pretty well:

What It Means To Be a Pragmatic Progressive | Washington Monthly

 

[writer0327]

We prepare so we can reverse the spread of Fascism with our words, before it becomes too drastic. That should be the goal.

I agree and said as much. But we don't and shouldn't need to limit it to just talking about it. Because we are a heavily divided country when it comes to ideologies and what we all value. We used to put a premium on freedom, but that has changed. Today as a nation, we don't want people to be free, we want people to fall into a specific ideological box that suits me. But that aint the way it works.

Civil disobedience is not breaking the law. It's refusing to abide by unjust laws.

If you refuse to abide by any "law", just or unjust, you are breaking the law.

Someone who is is civilly disobedient refuses to comply with a law.. it's civil... it's passive.

Yes you are correct. It's still breaking the law, however.

Everyone said that looting was a crime. Everyone.

Not everyone. A BLM organizer called looting reparations. Repeatedly.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/13/blm-organizer-who-called-looting-reparations-doubles-down/

I'll say again. You can't break the law.

You can say it, but people still break the law with or without your permission. And let me say that I am advocate for peaceful solutions to all of these problems we face. Just because I also advocate for people to supply themselves with the means to protect yourself and your family doesn't mean I want there to be violence.

What we need to do is push for legislation that changes campaign finance laws, political gerrymandering, and unlimited corporate influence.

No problems here. We all hope there will be reforms, discussions, and legal remedies that lend towards a peaceful resolution to this current conflict. But history has shown that I should never have 100% trust in the government. Government overreach is a thing in this country, and who is to say things can't get worse than they already are?

This idea that we even could stop a violent Fascist overthrow with AR-15s is childish.... to be perfectly frank.

Maybe. Maybe not. All I know is if and when fascism, communism, or any ism that's looking to take my freedoms comes knocking at my front door, I will be on my feet defending my freedom while others go quietly into that good night.

What happens when a highly armed, high uneducated populace now refuses to follow the laws and chooses Fascism over the constitution?

Now you're getting at it. That's called a revolution, many have happened throughout the history of the world, some good, some bad. What do you do when Fascists are knocking at your door, and they are armed, whether they are government agents or regular citizens. And they say, "you're either with us or you're against us? Make a choice." What do you do? Remember, the Constitution doesn't protect you in this situation, it's just words on a paper. Rights, as we call them, have to be defended with real violence or the threat of violence. That's why I say the 2nd amendment protects the 1st, because if you can't defend yourself from whomever is coming to take your rights, then can you honestly say you have these rights?

 

[MilkmanDan]

The fact that a basic public safety act during a global pandemic is now a “political statement” is asinine and moronic.

And where were all these "Masks are tyranny!" people when nudists were forced to put on pants? If they believe in people's right to choose what to wear and what not to wear, why didn't they act sooner? Haven't they heard of that classic poem "First They Came for the Dongs"?

 

[Schlosser85]

And where were all these "Masks are tyranny!" people when nudists were forced to put on pants? If they believe in people's right to choose what to wear and what not to wear, why didn't they act sooner? Haven't they heard of that classic poem "First They Came for the Dongs"?

And I did not speak up, for I was not a nudist

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I agree and said as much. But we don't and shouldn't need to limit it to just talking about it. Because we are a heavily divided country when it comes to ideologies and what we all value. We used to put a premium on freedom, but that has changed. Today as a nation, we don't want people to be free, we want people to fall into a specific ideological box that suits me. But that aint the way it works.

If you refuse to abide by any "law", just or unjust, you are breaking the law.
Yes you are correct. It's still breaking the law, however.

Not everyone. A BLM organizer called looting reparations. Repeatedly.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/13/blm-organizer-who-called-looting-reparations-doubles-down/


You can say it, but people still break the law with or without your permission. And let me say that I am advocate for peaceful solutions to all of these problems we face. Just because I also advocate for people to supply themselves with the means to protect yourself and your family doesn't mean I want there to be violence.


No problems here. We all hope there will be reforms, discussions, and legal remedies that lend towards a peaceful resolution to this current conflict. But history has shown that I should never have 100% trust in the government. Government overreach is a thing in this country, and who is to say things can't get worse than they already are?


Maybe. Maybe not. All I know is if and when fascism, communism, or any ism that's looking to take my freedoms comes knocking at my front door, I will be on my feet defending my freedom while others go quietly into that good night.


Now you're getting at it. That's called a revolution, many have happened throughout the history of the world, some good, some bad. What do you do when Fascists are knocking at your door, and they are armed, whether they are government agents or regular citizens. And they say, "you're either with us or you're against us? Make a choice." What do you do? Remember, the Constitution doesn't protect you in this situation, it's just words on a paper. Rights, as we call them, have to be defended with real violence or the threat of violence. That's why I say the 2nd amendment protects the 1st, because if you can't defend yourself from whomever is coming to take your rights, then can you honestly say you have these rights?

 

[Sithborg]

We protect Americans through the ballot and through the rule of law. Have a little more faith in your country. Have a little more faith in the constitution.

I think given the Proud Boy roving gangs in DC the other weekend and the various other rise of white supremacist terrorism, I am beginning to feel a tad differently since the last mass shooting. I am seeing enough that people that are in danger should arm themselves. Not from the military. Technically, not from the police. But from the terrorists.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

I think given the Proud Boy roving gangs in DC the other weekend and the various other rise of white supremacist terrorism, I am beginning to feel a tad differently since the last mass shooting. I am seeing enough that people that are in danger should arm themselves. Not from the military. Technically, not from the police. But from the terrorists.

Eh... I'm not sure "The Left" arming is the way to go, as the arguments made by sensible gun control advocates about the use of guns to stop crime not being the, uh... silver bullet that gun rights types paint it as, applies equally I think. How many "mass shootings" were stopped despite all the guns out there already? Was the Oklahoma City bombing stopped by armed force? The Atlanta Olympic bombing?


All citizens being armed as a "just in case" against what is percieved as the whole other half of the nation's population isn't a recipe for stability to me.


...

...

...

That said once the RWNJs start their terrorism seriously with random bombings and targeted killings and mass shooting events at intervals we WILL find astounding at first... Man, watch all the Prog folk start to reconsider their knee jerk reaction (Not unfounded...) to stuff like the Patriot Act and Federal surveillance.

It's gonna give some whiplash.

 

[Herofan]

Around 2014 I discovered Ben Shapiro/Jordan Peterson/PragerU and for about a year or so really thought those were all intelligent, consistent idealogues worth considering.

Glad that didn't stick.

Shapiro seems pretty consistent and reasonable aside from interpreting every criticism/lack of support for Israel as hatred of it. Jordan Peterson is pretty contrarian and somewhat alarmist but, aside from that tendency to alarmism, I think also reasonable and fair. Prager is a hack.

 

[Herofan]

I lean towards instating gun restrictions. Realistically we can't just get rid of all guns, but what we can do is limit the type of weapons people have access to.

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

I think most conservatives agree some weapons restrictions are constitutionally permissible, Scalia notably did so. OTOH, reducing guns accessibility doesn't necessarily reduce violent crime overall.

IMO the strongest factor for individual access to guns is that wanting to be able to defend yourself is very valid.

Edit:

Nuclear deterrence when it comes to owning guns doesn't actually work. It just means you have a bunch of armed and unstable, paranoid people walking around. It's a recipe for disaster, not peace.

Increased gun ownership has correlated with decreasing crime, albeit there was also increasing incarceration during the same period so not a clear relationship but that is a lot different from a claimed overwhelming negative social impact.

I also think it's interesting that as polarization, including partisan media, and extreme candidates increase (generally considered bad, unless you like the extreme candidate and argue he really isn't extreme), participation including through voter turnout also increases (generally considered good), that seems a pretty consistent pattern of 20 years. I think the latter actually is good and if the two go together, much more of a net positive.

 

[Flint Marko]

Shapiro seems pretty consistent and reasonable aside from interpreting every criticism/lack of support for Israel as hatred of it. Jordan Peterson is pretty contrarian and somewhat alarmist but, aside from that tendency to alarmism, I think also reasonable and fair. Prager is a hack.

I've listened to enough Shapiro at this point to reasonably say that the only consistent thing about him is his intellectual dishonesty. He's overtly racist in a post-Reagan "color-blind" way, and watching him try to argue against BLM or defunding the police is where his BS is the most transparent.

Peterson I admittedly haven't listened to in years and out of the 3 I named is probably the closest to reasonable, but he's off his rocker. Anyone who's that worked up about the specter of "socialism" is generally unhinged.

 

[Prison Mike]

Shapiro seems pretty consistent and reasonable aside from interpreting every criticism/lack of support for Israel as hatred of it. Jordan Peterson is pretty contrarian and somewhat alarmist but, aside from that tendency to alarmism, I think also reasonable and fair. Prager is a hack.

I threw up a bit in my mouth...

 

[writer0327]

I also think it's interesting that as polarization, including partisan media, and extreme candidates increase (generally considered bad, unless you like the extreme candidate and argue he really isn't extreme), participation including through voter turnout also increases (generally considered good), that seems a pretty consistent pattern of 20 years. I think the latter actually is good and if the two go together, much more of a net positive.

More voters is a good thing, but the increased partisanship has also created echo chambers where people only hear one side--their side--of a given situation. I think the country is moving towards more separation than ever before. And I am not sure if that's good or bad quite yet.

From my vantage point we all value 3 things: freedom, equality, and stability. Each of these values comes at a cost to the other. Ultimate freedom means that equality will take a back seat, and so on. So my hope is that America can find the middle ground to all of this, and I am not sure what that means for the USA, because this could invite more separation or more unity.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Shapiro seems pretty consistent and reasonable aside from interpreting every criticism/lack of support for Israel as hatred of it. Jordan Peterson is pretty contrarian and somewhat alarmist but, aside from that tendency to alarmism, I think also reasonable and fair. Prager is a hack.

Shapiro is a shrill well educated moron.


Peterson is a egomaniacal well educated moron.

But like Ben Carson a good education doesn't mean a person can't be a moron.


Shapiro is the completely out of touch conservative with a victim complex despite a career being literally handed to him.


“Let Me Make You Famous”: How Hollywood Invented Ben Shapiro

"Shapiro had achieved megastardom, even as he oscillated in his opinion of Trump. To his former culture-warrior brethren, Shapiro was trying to have it both ways: pretending to be a populist one day, then trying to stake out a position as a Respectable Conservative the next, and then pissing off everyone by, say, tweeting inappropriate comments during George H.W. Bush’s funeral. “He was hardcore ‘Never Trump’ and pretends to be pro-Trump now that it’s clear that going full Never Trump makes you a [Bill] Kristol or [Evan] McMullin,” an aggrieved conservative writer told me. But of course, neither Kristol nor McMullin are reliably delivering fresh content via multiple platforms to an audience of millions, or frequently cross-promoting with fellow podcast stars Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin (whose studios are nearby)."






Peterson would be exactly what the Right claims to hate, an educator and academic whose head is so far up his ass if you sniffed his collar you'd smell what he had for lunch yesterday, if he wasn't so obviously trying to make a buck writing stuff that aligns with their reactionary impulses. He is neither well respected or thought of well by his colleagues and his writings are the impenetrable pseudo philosophical ramblings of a person with a standard and unremarkable case of internet iconoclast syndrome only embellished by a ton of "fancy five dollar words".

As a society we need to stop taking these types and those that follow them seriously.


If you question the motives and words of Anthony Fauci but think "Hey... Shapiro/Peterson... Now those are truly public mind and honest intellectuals" then I say to those same people "Congrats... You have publicly admitted to being either a credulous Mark or a vicious moron. In both cases there shouldn't be any respect or weight given to your opinion."

And that is putting it nicely.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve


"Jordan Peterson appears very profound and has convinced many people to take him seriously. Yet he has almost nothing of value to say. This should be obvious to anyone who has spent even a few moments critically examining his writings and speeches, which are comically befuddled, pompous, and ignorant. They are half nonsense, half banality. In a reasonable world, Peterson would be seen as the kind of tedious crackpot that one hopes not to get seated next to on a train."

 

[Donner]

My flat Earther brother loves Peterson. That tells me everything I need to know about him.

 

[InCali]

My flat Earther brother loves Peterson. That tells me everything I need to know about him.

I think I mentioned this to you before, but I don't understand how someone can REALLY believe the earth is flat. What holds it up? How thick is it? Does it have a big fence around it so the water doesn't drain off?

 

[Donner]

I think I mentioned this to you before, but I don't understand how someone can REALLY believe the earth is flat. What holds it up? How thick is it? Does it have a big fence around it so the water doesn't drain off?

Dark matter I think holds it up. No idea about thickness. There is an ice wall around the circle with armed guards patrolling it so no one goes there to expose the "Jewish globalist agenda."

 

[InCali]

Dark matter I think holds it up. No idea about thickness. There is an ice wall around the circle with armed guards patrolling it so no one goes there to expose the "Jewish globalist agenda."

That must be a thick ass wall because the amount of pressure on it would be unbelievable. Dark matter . Does he have an alethiometer or maybe a knife that can cut a hole into another world? I wonder why they are keeping this information from us. I've got to look into this so I can find out.

 

[Mike5575]

That must be a thick ass wall because the amount of pressure on it would be unbelievable. Dark matter . Does he have an alethiometer or maybe a knife that can cut a hole into another world? I wonder why they are keeping this information from us. I've got to look into this so I can find out.

Well, maybe we live on Asgard...