TheSanSabaSongbird @ TheSanSabaSongbird @lemdro.id

Posts

0

Comments

960

Joined

1 yr. ago

In Ore-gon no less! By the way, Oregonians love it when you say it that way.

Right. "Latino" means different things in different countries. Isabel Allende once wrote something to the effect that upon immigrating to the US from Chile, she was surprised to learn that she was no longer "white," and instead was "latina."

No, Marx was right; there's no way to do it without a dictatorship. There is no universe in which everyone miraculously agrees on how things should be run, and that means that coercion is necessary which in turn means that there has to be centralized and concentrated power, ie; an authoritarian dictatorship.

The experiment has been run before and we know how it ends.

Bad risk assessment. Most Americans are deeply confused about the things that are likely to kill them vs the things they actively worry about. Maybe that's not you, but statistically it almost certainly is.

Unless you are a young man in a concentrated poverty neighborhood, your chances of encountering deadly interpersonal violence are vanishingly small. You're far more likely to be killed by heart disease due to an unhealthy lifestyle, yet the vast majority (not all) of gun-owners pay little or no attention to that aspect of their personal well-being.

The need some people feel to carry a gun isn't rooted in accurate risk assessment and instead is about a desire to feel empowered or because like my old man --a Vietnam combat vet-- they have a blown-out fight or flight response so that everything looks like a threat even when it's not. (This is why so many Vietnam vets --again, like my old man-- ended up living off in the woods by themselves; that way they could be in control of their environment at all times which is also why they always carried firearms.)

But ultimately the real problem is that many people aren't honest with themselves about why they are so wedded to carrying.

The thing is that the experiment you imagine --implementing common-sense gun-reform-- has been run hundreds of times in other countries and the result was not, as you hypothesize, that suddenly they were overrun by bad guys with guns who don't care about gun laws, but rather was that they saw precipitous declines in gun violence and gun-related deaths.

Basically, your hypothesis, which you and others take for granted as evidently true, is objectively incorrect, and has been shown to be so many times. What does a rational actor do when their hypothesis is shown to be incorrect? Do they continue to defend it? Help me make sense of your thinking, because what it looks like to me is a complete refusal to confront and accept reality.

Wilderness Area is an entirely different designation from a national park. They aren't administered by the park service but instead by the Forest Service and they don't typically come with amenities/facilities apart from trailhead parking lots, usually a trail system and sometimes designated campsites and the like. Just FYI. Not that it really matters in this context.

We all do that. Whether we're aware of it or not. Some of us are more aware of it than others.

According to my British friends Yorkshire Gold is legit. I don't know if it's as strong though. Not much of a tea drinker myself, just reporting what I've been told.

Small land-holder. Not a titled lord, but also not a peasant per se.

The entire comment is unmitigated bullshit. Think about it; it uses the years 1654-85 as a representative sample of European immigrants to North America, but that's absurd because we know for a fact that mass immigration from Europe didn't really start until the 19th century so it can't be even remotely true that most white Americans are descendants of the immigrants they use in their sample. It's shoddy and intellectually dishonest scholarship that's obviously and almost comically pushing an agenda. As such it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

1654-85? Really? And you honestly think that timeframe gives a representative sample of European immigrants to North America? Really? That's the stupidest thing I've read all day. Mass immigration didn't even start until the 19th century for fucks sake, nearly 200 years later. Sometimes Lemmy really sucks ass.

Except that's not what he says at all. He says that our overseas opponents will fall in line when he's president again because they are afraid of him. That's an implicit threat for the use of force. You can't have it both ways. You don't get to claim that he's "the least warlike" while also using an implicit threat of force. It's a contradiction in terms.

Also, I like how you people always conveniently forget the fact that he nearly started a shooting war with Iran by blowing up Suliemani in the middle of fucking Baghdad. Yeah, that's very much not "warlike." Cut me a fucking husk.

Why wouldn't they be pushing it? Seriously. Ask yourself, why wouldn't both conservatives and the Russians be pushing the genocide Joe narrative? You people have made it way too easy for them. There is a less than zero chance that they aren't running with it as hard as they can.

It was. It's also being pushed very hard by the Russians and other foreign actors who have a huge interest in seeing Trump reelected. Why wouldn't they? It's way too easy and it's working exactly as intended.

This is exactly how they want you to think. It's disempowering. It's a kind of fatalistic politics of inevitability that keeps the masses docile and resigned.

It's living in a state of childish denial is what it is. It's like a child who flips over the boardgame because they don't like the rules of the game. Change the rules first, then you can vote third party. Until then you're just defacto voting for the GOP. It's beyond stupid. Obviously you don't understand basic game theory.

Unfortunately that's not the game we're playing in this country. By voting for a 3d party candidate you're defacto voting for the party that gets more representation for less votes which in this case is the Republicans.

Grow up. If you don't like the rules, work to change them, but you won't accomplish anything by simply ignoring them. You have to change the system first, and only then can we have real multi party elections.

I suggest that you read up on it a little more. That article 3 is self-executing is not a controversial or extreme opinion and is well within the mainstream of legal scholarship. The SCOTUS may rule that it isn't, but that's going to be a tough nut to crack for its three conservative originalists since at its inception article 3 was clearly used to bar all former Confederate officers from holding federal office without the necessity of a trial and conviction.

They're wrong, but I don't think they're arguing in bad faith. What they're wrong about is that article 3 of the 14th is self-executing and doesn't require a trial or conviction. This is because it was intended to bar former Confederate officers from holding federal office and trying and convicting all of them would have been a logistical impossibility.

It was originally intended to bar former Confederate officers from holding federal office, but as you suggest, it is not confined to them and also bars anyone who has engaged in insurrection.