I just mean that I don’t think they were a good faith interlocutor. Probably if I were to put a specific explanation on it, I’d say that they are probably tired of having the same argument over and over again and being corrected repetitively, to the point where they’re not genuinely engaging anymore, I’ve seen that a lot. Especially with how quickly they backed out but also still left a comment. I dunno if that level of bad faith would be considered trolling in the strictest sense, but I would probably still classify it as such.

I mean arguably we could’ve done all of that with nasa if nasa had received a similar level of funding to SpaceX, but that’s kind of getting into alt-history.

Depends on the writer. You get a superman DC writer, homelander probably gets treated like every other fascist superman beats up. If it’s a “the boys” writer, homelander probably uses kryptonite to rip superman in half in a graphic full-page spread or some shit. You’re also gonna be dealing with, are we dropping superman into the relatively hopeless universe of the boys, are we dropping homelander into the DC universe, where he’ll probably be right st home with like 30 different characters almost exactly like him, will we come up with some portal stuff, what’s going on there

So I dunno, depends on the writer. Ke personally I’d prefer if superman won, cause it’s more hopeful and less garth ennis-y.

I believe they are what is known as a “low effort troll”

I mean we do have a pretty good indication of a quite large impending factor which may cause a lot of them to collapse in the coming years, and which could collectively be attributed to them pretty well, especially within the last 50 years.

MLK did advocate for pacifism for all but the last few months of his life

I mean this is sort of reframed with the context that he was assassinated for making that turn away from pacifism. I’m not saying that it was the wrong decision even given the hindsight we have now, but it does recontextualize it.

So, people can make the whole like, oh, this is a different context, kyle is joking, whatever whatever, right, and that’s both true and a fine argument to make. But I also think when we make this like, freedom as a principle argument, right, free speech as a principle, argument, it isn’t necessarily hypocritical.

We’re just not prioritizing freedom, prioritizing free speech, as the highest possible value that trumps all other values. I think kind of by necessity, it can’t be. The idea of free speech is logically incoherent if you take it to the extreme, because you could just define speech as being anything. Harmful acts, smearing poop on the bathroom walls, whatever. So you have to put a limit on it, and then those external values are going to be what places the limit on it.

Those external values of “I agree with kyle gass” vs “I agree with dave chapelle”. Agreeing with either argument, beyond that, thinking either argument, had in the public sphere, is worthwhile, that’s what has to define the limits of speech and freedom and what has to drive the outlook on it. I might oppose the poop swastika in the rec center bathroom, but I might think the ACAB poop smear in the nazi bar bathroom is maybe okay, even if it’s a little misguided or kind of just stupid or whatever.

There has to be a core value there. It’s not necessarily hypocritical to believe that political violence can be called for, or justified against your foes necessarily, and then think that the same thing shouldn’t be done to you on the nature of your ideology strictly being better. If my foes are basically just evil, straight up, yeah, probably at the very least stop them from like, having undue economic influence, which depending on who you ask, is gonna be some form of economic violence by nature of stripping away their agency or property or whatever. That doesn’t necessarily strike me as hypocritical, or not believing in equal rights or anything, it just strikes me as pragmatic.

Also, why can’t you just take your friend, friend’s guns, in your car, to the range, store them there? is there any real problem with that, or any real reason why you specifically need to have the guns rather than the range, which might be a better long term storage solution? I’m not opposed to your solution, I think it’s workable, I think it has potential to, maybe not get passed federally since the gun lobby is insanely powerful, but maybe work on a state-by-state basis, right, and build up from there. But if you do have an actual counterargument for what the guy’s saying, then you should give it instead of just kind of deflecting, because right now he does seem to have basically refuted all of the hypotheticals you were able to give about why requiring some kind of record every time a gun is transferred is a bad idea, and why universal background checks and the state as an active third party rather than a retroactive third party might be a good idea.

The only counterargument I can really see against it is maybe that it would result in state overreach or people being prevented from having access to guns if we start to see disproportionate enforcement of crimes and certain crimes being reclassified as felonies or something, but that’s also a problem with the current system that wouldn’t really get solved by your proposal at all, so yeah, I dunno.

Ayaaa, we had a conversation a while ago about this same topic. I do think you are still correct in your proposal to make NICS public, but I do also think that the other guy is perhaps partially right. I think such a law would probably be well-accompanied by requirements to own a gun safe (which might be seen as increasing the cost of ownership and thus discriminating and yadda yadda yadda shit I don’t care about), and to keep guns in said gun safe when perhaps they’re not being kept immediately on your person barring extraneous circumstances. I can’t quite recall, but I do believe we also talked about that last time, that there was a kind of need for common sense pertaining to the handling of guns, more than there is, considering how many guns are overwhelmingly passed into illegal uses through relatively simple theft.

I’m also not sure I agree that a violation of the background check, being a fine, is going to have much of an effect. If the fine is cheap enough, that might well enough be just free license to pass guns into an illegal domain and then pay the fine and go about your day. It may increase the costs of illegal firearms well enough which might have knock-on effects in decreasing illegal access to and usage of guns, and what have you, but I think it would probably require a more severe punishment than a fine a la a traffic ticket.

But then, maybe if that’s the metaphor we’re using, then along the lines of traffic tickets, maybe we should just be, uhh, designing the roads differently, whatever that equivalent might look like for guns, but I think that might be stretching the metaphor a little too much.

I mean I think I’d say it was more the result of poor preparation than anything. I think most places are saying he had like, 3 shots or somewhere around there, and apparently his rifle had no optic on it at all, which is kind of an insane idea at that distance. Which I think also maybe lends credence to the idea that this was just some impulse decision rather than a prepared kind of thing. I don’t think it’s that hard of a shot to make in general, even given the single opportunity that you’re going to be working with, I’ve hit soda cans with .22s at similar ranges. You barely have to take into account windage or holdover and I haven’t seen any evidence of heavy wind on the day of, really.

So, I dunno, I think it’s probably just an idiot kid killing himself in like, some elaborate suicide by cop or something. or just a dumb groyper, jury’s still out.

I think it’s probably that your anecdote and experience is kind of out of left field considering this guy was only dealing with a couple coyotes, and honestly you probably don’t even need a gun in that circumstance, and I don’t think you’d much need anything larger than pistol-caliber.

Hmm, I don’t understand the downvotes but okay lmao I’m sorry that the AR platform is actually fine in close quarters?

As far as I understand it, the main problem people have with it, which they also have with pretty much every gun larger than a foot or so, so most guns, is that you can’t really cross a threshold horizontally. About the only thing that could qualify against that maybe is like, a pistol or one of those shotguns with a bird’s head grip, or like, some smaller pdw or something. I also dunno how much of a problem that is, of, oh it’s gonna snag on something, or whatever, right, I guess it’s just the idea it’s going to present a higher snag risk or something when turning around, or, when getting up to a ready position? I dunno I’m not a gun nut.

I think it probably also isn’t helped by the increasing consumerist trend to load up their guns with more and more extraneous shit and go for longer and longer rifles on their AR platforms to try and increase accuracy on the range, which means they tend to conceptualize of them as being unsuitable for close quarters despite that kind of being the idea of an intermediate cartridge and all that. It also doesn’t really help to cite our military engagements with it considering over the last like 3 decades of the rifle’s service we’ve mostly only fought like, random middle eastern terrorist organizations that don’t have a great reputation for good training or good equipment or anything like that. You could maybe look at uses of the rifle by other organizations like the IRA or whatever, but I don’t think they had any close quarters engagements.

All of those things can be done outside of my house, so I don’t really see any reason why not to. Beard trim, blam, here’s a razor, sandwich, here’s that shit, here’s a bottle of water, the hose is over there, here’s some soap, blam. Even if I’m cooking up the most diabolical and insane homeless person of all time, I can still fulfill all of those requests while also keeping them outside, doing very little, and maybe telling them to also fuck off after if I’m a psycho.

The rest of this is gonna mostly be venting, so you can safely ignore it if you don’t care.

People in america are totally cooked on homelessness, even though they’re, on average, metaphorically inches away from it at any given time. Homeless shelters in america mostly are horrible places to go where your shit will be stolen and they will do nothing. They’re bad for children, they’re full of drugs, and very frequently they have curfews, rules against having animals or pets, rules requiring that you go to religious ceremonies, etc. Homeless people aren’t just like, insane illogical transients. I mean they kind of are, but there’s also a reason for why they do the things that they do, that includes maybe knocking on the door of a random suburb.

I would actually find it more likely in this situation that this random person would probably want to use my toilet since there are no fucking public toilets in america, especially as private businesses will deny use of their restrooms to people who look homeless. Then people get arrested for public defecation, urination, or nudity because there’s nowhere else to go, obviously there’s also mental health, and then all you see is how some guy on the street on fent gets arrested with his pants around his ankles and his asscheeks covered in shit and you think “wow that guy’s crazy” and have no further thoughts. Context is eradicated.

Give someone in america the slightest advantage over the homeless, a shitty suburban flat, with a lower rent, that they spend two thirds or more of their income on, including roommates, and they will still somehow find a way to spit on the homeless after riding the bus into town every day cause they can’t afford a car. They will still live their lives in fear and they will still come to hate the homeless because somehow the person basically making negative income is not able to afford soap or a high-fiber diet.

It’s the “Oh, well, it’s not my problem, that sucks for them, but I’m still allowed to be offended by it.” sort of mentality. You can give them every reason under the sun why hating the homeless doesn’t make any sense, why hating the homeless is immoral, why they don’t deserve it, how they are products of their environment. Still people will desperately cling to it. It makes me understand how racism occurs, I suppose, because it’s the same phenomena. “Ah, well, I understand all of the stats about racism, but this particular member of this particular racial minority, I still hate them personally for acting in line with the statistical average of their group.”. Insanity. It’s as though it’s all just abstract thought goop that has no bearing on anyone’s life, or that somehow I should be the exception to it.

I think it’s gotta be a functional adaptation, or something. Maybe they can prevent themselves from going insane and becoming nihilists if they just suddenly become individualists and objectivists as soon as it becomes convenient, or something. It is not that hard to conceive of a reality in which the person cutting you off in traffic is rushing to the hospital, or, a reality in which they, maybe naively but understandably want to enjoy their expensive car while they still can, or, maybe a reality in which they’re just panicking because they’re late to work or something.

I am an introvert, I am awkward, I hate hanging around people and talking to people. Even I can talk to the homeless when they need someone to talk to, and reluctantly give them money, and rides to places when they ask, since it would otherwise be like two hours and twelve dollars of travel, bus stops, a transfer station, travel, more bus stops, before they get across town to do a fairly basic errand. The social fabric is falling apart. Please be nice, it is not that hard, it costs very little, it happens infrequently, and very possibly if some of you extroverted assholes picked up some slack instead of making things harder for the most maligned, I could go back to my cave.

US oil production hits all-time high

Executive action ordering the closure of border cutting asylum claims in half (according to FOX News)

Aren’t these generally seen as bad things, though?

I’ll also say a lot of this list is basically just routine infrastructure maintenance funding, which was arguably necessary, but I would much rather see a combating of the more institutional problems that led to this infrastructure being in such a state of disrepair in the first place. Expanding a highway, for example, not really something I would say is a great accomplishment. The economic citations are things that I find kind of suspicious more generally, because I’m familiar with the amount of laundering economists can accomplish when they really put their pussy into it. Post-pandemic recovery, for example, I can think of a couple ways to spin that, most of them involve us having taken a very large hit from the pandemic compared to other countries because we had a shit ass pandemic response relative to other countries. Violent crime dropping from 2020 is gonna be a fuckin no brainer, for example, like obviously that’s gonna be the case, I don’t think you can really attribute that to a biden presidency.

Eliminate the padding in this list and back up what appear to be the stronger points and it would be more serious. As it stands, this is more just kind of a gish gallop. You’re just popping a bigass list with no citations and then that’s gonna look more credible while your opposition can’t do much in the face of it without looking like they’re nitpicking or denying reality, even though you don’t have any citations. It might be cynical, but I’ve been on the internet before, so I bet if I push back at all, you’re just gonna tell me to look into it further myself, and that it’s not your job to educate me even though you’re the one who has the burden of proof for making these claims, like how tankies tell me to read theory whenever I ask them questions about books they’ve supposedly read biblically and know so well.

In any case, a lot of these aren’t really fighting against the idea that the democrats just end up as a controlled opposition band-aid which barely does anything before fascism creeps back in and fucks something else up in our shitty pendulum system. It’s not really fighting against that claim, which I would say is the core nihilistic, apathetic claim that has to be disputed before people can be convinced that their vote will do something.

Mostly I find them annoying. I mildly understand the need for human meaning as it kind of, tends to come up later at night, or for the elderly, or when life really sucks or you tend to even just be really really bored right.

I also understand some of the benefits, right, like. As much as people will despise to admit it, you don’t get, say, the number zero without the Muslim science guys, and you don’t get science without the enlightenment which stemmed out of some weirdass Catholic Christian theory guys. and then everyone’s all like, oh no well you can’t attribute that to the Catholics and if anything they hampered progress, and I’d say, well, maybe, maybe, but also maybe science sucks as we commonly understand it and maybe also you can’t really divorce any part of things from their cultural context, or else things get fucky.

On the other hand I find them annoying and I find that all to be totally null and void because the vast majority of people are just using it as an opiate to placate literally all of their anxieties about the world with a bunch of meaningless thought terminating cliche style statements, and even actively reinforce their own participation in some of the worst aspects of their own culture and society even at points in which they really don’t want to or know that it’s horrible and is causing them pain.

So I dunno, mostly it sucks.

Probably people would just start needing to host their own video content and share it amongst themselves, like in the old internet