IF you're going to limit your discussion to a left-right dichotomy then you can say the Nazis are on the left.
If Right means limited, small-government and the left means state control of economy and subjects (think monarchy, fascism, socialism) then the Nazi's are on the left.
If the Nazi's are on the Right. And the Socialists are on the Left. Then where do monarchists go? Where do Libertarians go?
The problem is in the ill-defined Left-Right scale.
No. You can't act anyway you want. So you're saying that Twitter can ban whomever they want for whatever reason?
That's happening right now. Respectful people, putting up respectful posts are being deplatformed. And you're applauding it.
Farrakan says that Jews should be exterminated,. CRICKETS
Point out scientific fallacies in the Koran (no the moon did not split in two, and no the sun does not set in a marsh land far to the west) and you're deplatformed. (A campaign of flagging the content maker is instigated, followed through 100s of times and YouTube caves.
You're getting what you perceive to be a short-term gain here. You're coming up to a modern day Niemoller situation. "First they came for..." Deplatforming speech is not good. Having tech companies being able to restrict speech at whim, not following their TOS is a problem.
No. It's not the ONLY defense. I've been in fights and have never used a gun.
This is not an either/or scenario. However there are times when a handgun or a rifle is the best tool for the situation at hand.
Why are you so scared of an inanimate object?
I have to question if your real concern is school shootings. It's that you want the population to be disarmed. And the question is why? An armed populace can tell the govt to fuk off. Why is that not a good thing?
Pest control, there are much better ways than shooting them and bigger pests that do need shot falls back on hunting.
Yeah. The other way is called poison. But you know what? Lots of people do not want to spread poison on land that they're growing food on. And, this poison affects all animals, not just the pests. And the pests - groundhogs, raccoons, can get into the 100s, if not 1000s in a hurry.
The only two choices are shooting them (very humane) or poison (not as humane and very unhealthy for everyone). Trapping is not a solution. It's useful for a raccoon or two, not 100s of groundhogs
In 1964 we, as a country, came to the conclusion that if you have opened up your door to the general public that you must provide services to the general public. We are fine tuning that definition now with the bakers cases being brought to the Supreme Court.
Those refinements uphold the standard that stores / companies must serve the public as a whole. The baker must sell the cake. It's saying that the baker is not required to do particular art work for e very customer. A band, for instance, cannot stop Nazi's from buying their music but they can refuse to play at a gathering.
Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc... are public companies and they are restricting access by whim. They don't follow their TOS (See Farrakan) but terminate users for using memes they don't like "Learn to Code." This is contrary to the expectations raised in corporate / individual interactions as a result of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
It's ironic to see many, who are opposed to libertarian ideals of free speech and who have a great dislike for corporations now pushing for trans-national mega corporations to be able to censor people at whim. This is a very short-term approach to the world.
50 years ago the Tuskegee Experiments were going strong. Would you have liked "conspiracy mongers" talking about it being deplatformed. (If that was a thing back then?) If deplatforming was a thing back then the MLK and Malcolm X would have been deplatformed.
A central case for freedom of the press took place in the 1930s. Could Communists publish and distribute information? The answer was yes. That unpopular speech was not to be suppressed.
But you say, Twitter and Google are private companies. Would the company who made the press used by those communists (In Seattle I think) have been within their legal and moral rights to prevent their equipment from being used by these evil communists? Would you support that. How about the credit card companies refusing access to these same communists (of course there weren't credit card companies back then - but the point stands.)
It's funny, sin't it, that you're taking such an extreme libertarian idea - that companies can do what ever they want. And, not only that, but you're defending them for their abuses. Nice.
So, a crazy person does something bad with an object. Now, that object needs to be removed.
I guess he couldn't use gasoline and styrofoam and make a home-made napalm, or a truck to kill people. (That's never been done).
There are 120 million gun owners. There are 400 million plus guns in the country. If gun owners were as violent as you irrationally fear they are this place would be a war zone. And, except for a few gang ridden areas the US is peaceful.
But no, because of some people, glorified by the press (in that they become KNOWN, become famous) because this happens once in a while (way too often) you want to ban guns. And, you conveniently forget that there were guns 60 years ago and less shootings.
Why do you ignore the obvious - that the problem is not in guns?
They are free to do so. Isn't interesting how you bring in libertarian economic philosophy when it pleases you but reject it when it doesn't. If Twitter doesn't have to accommodate me then Woolworths doesn't need to accommodate black people.
The concept - post 1964 - is that if you're open to the public you're open to all the public. So you think that Microsoft, or Dell, could prevent you from writing or reading things that they - as corporate entities - consider inappropriate? Yeah right.
That's what you're arguing - that corporations like Microsoft, AT&T , Bic (for pens), Kimberley Clark (paper) can edit and censor your work because it suits them. And your response is - make your own paper. Make your own computer. Maker your own Twitter.
Besides the fact that you wouldn't like that; besides the fact that the only reason you're supporting this is because you perceive it as a short-term gain - the real problem is a complete disrespect being shown to the free and open dissemination of ideas.
And, more disgusting is the double standard. Farrakan calling for the elimination of jews fine. Imans calling for the elimination of atheists, gays and jews - fine. But Laura Loomer video taping sections of English and Australian towns where she is being asked to leave because what she's wearing doesn't conform to Islamic standards. - Well now, that we need to ban.
As the saying goes: "God made men. But Sam Colt made them equal."
A 120 pound woman has no chance against a 240 pound man. (Sh!t - even a 180 pound man)
One man has no chance against 3 men determined to do him harm. (unless he is really skilled and they're not)
A gun equalizes the situation. Now both sides are placing their lives at stake.
Is it better for a woman to let herself be raped than risk dying by shooting her attackers (and have them shoot back if armed)? I can't answer that. But the option should be hers. Not yours.
Guns help the physically weaker person even up the odds against the physically stronger (or more numerous) assailants.
I have a.22, a.223 a.270 and a 12 gauge shotgun. I have never killed anyone. I have never brandished a gun at anyone.
I have a recurve bow and a compound bow. I have never brandished them at anyone.
I have had other rifles, pistols and shotguns over the years. When I was in Alaska I had a.45 as a protection against bears.
Except for gangs and small pockets of violence the US is very safe.
The real question is why you, who presumably understands that governmental tyranny can exist anywhere is comfortable and being helpless. And, not only comfortable in being helpless that you demand everyone else be just as helpless.
And, with the rise of the authoritarian left - those that would happily put me in a reeducation camp - there is no way that I'm going to give up my guns.
Being deplatformed isn't an attack on your free speech, it's just people not listening anymore. You can still start your own website or stand on the street and rant your crazy shit in to the ether but no one has to listen. But no, blame it all on 'the left' and enjoy your 'cultural revolution' and with any luck it will all end in another civil war yeah?
Being deplatformed may not be against the law (today) but it is restricting people's ability to converse in the public square. Other people blocking you or voting you down into obscurity is fine. Being deplatformed by mega-corporations means not being able to communicate to other people. It's analogous to your computer preventing you from writing an article; or your email service preventing you from writing and sending emails.
The question is not if the Republican's win the Presidency and win the House but whether they gain seats in the Senate when the Senate map is going against them.
If I'm watching an archery video chances are high there are many companies who would be willing to advertise.
Second, there are people like me who pay $10/mth to not see ads. Surely the creators who make archery videos should get a portion of that money.
Demonitizing is pushing Alt-Tech. I can't wait until all my shows are on Bitchute and then... adios YouTube.
Absolutely not. They make money by views.They should not be in the business of censorship. If something is wrong they can flag it to the proper government office and let the government and the courts determine if action is required.
One person's conspiracy could be the truth - see the Tuskegee Experiments.
Since you're interested in the topic - you need to ask yourself:
Why now and not 50 years ago when the percentage of gun ownership was far higher?
Why now and not 80 years ago when you could get them anonymously through the mail?
Why does the media not follow the recommendations of police and put out the killer's name?
What is different in society now? What can we identify that can help?
Should we stop medicating boys diagnosed with ADHD?
Should we come up with socially viable means of expressing discontent and violence? Example boxing clubs.
If guns are the problem then wouldn't there have been more violence, more school shooting before? We had gun clubs in high schools before. Hmm. There should have been a lot of school shootings. Nope.
Finally why would you sacrifice your ability to defend yourself because of these events? Do you think governments never get tyrannical? Russia, Germany, China, North Korea, Cambodia - do you really think that can never happen again.
Not me reading. There are, according to FBI and other reports, about 1000 defensive gun uses per week. As stated in the post - this is the most restrictive reading of defensive gun use. Depending on how it's defined it can be 10x that.
No. I think that increasing their standard of living is great, and what needs to happen
It's the Western fools that think we can reduce our standard of living to the point where there would be an environmental equilibrium that I'm ridiculing.
This is a technological problem more than it is a reduce consumption problem.
Solar (PV) and wind generated power is growing at an exponential rate. That needs to continue - that's what needs to be focused on.
I don't see anything that Trump has done that's anywhere near fascistic.
Trump says that MS-13 are "animals" and the media says that "Trump called immigrants animals." Criticizing the media is not fascistic. What's fascistic is creating laws preventing people from speaking their minds. I'm looking at you England and the EU.
What's fascistic is preventing people from expressing themselves. I'm looking at you ANTIFA and everyone who doesn't speak out against their brown-shirted tactics. (In this case going Godwin makes sense).
France has a homicide rate of 1.35 per 100,000
North Dakota has a homicide rate of 1.2 with half the population owning guns and having more guns than people. (A lot more guns than people).
Idaho has a homicide rate of 1.5 with far more guns than North Dakota.
The District of Columbia, where guns are illegal have a homicide rate of 18.0
Homicide rates in the US are low except for pockets of violence. 2% of the counties account for over 50% of the homicides. And even in those counties it's only pockets of violence.
And guns will not be illegal in the US without extreme sectarian violence and the creation of a fascistic police state. By pushing for outright confiscation you are making the situation worse for yourself. There are a lot of labor Democrats who are already skeptical of the Democratic Party for abandoning labor and class in favor of environmentalism and identitarian politics. You push the gun confiscation and they won't sit out of elections; they won't vote for a labor third party - they'll vote Republican.
Slashdot Mirror
IF you're going to limit your discussion to a left-right dichotomy then you can say the Nazis are on the left.
If Right means limited, small-government and the left means state control of economy and subjects (think monarchy, fascism, socialism) then the Nazi's are on the left.
If the Nazi's are on the Right. And the Socialists are on the Left. Then where do monarchists go? Where do Libertarians go?
The problem is in the ill-defined Left-Right scale.
Yeah. This time Marxism will be proved correct. This eschatological aspect of Marxism has lead to the death of millions.
"Because, Dear Comrades, this time it's true."
And, 50 years from now, the next generation of dolts will be just as convinced.
No. You can't act anyway you want. So you're saying that Twitter can ban whomever they want for whatever reason?
..." Deplatforming speech is not good. Having tech companies being able to restrict speech at whim, not following their TOS is a problem.
That's happening right now. Respectful people, putting up respectful posts are being deplatformed. And you're applauding it.
Farrakan says that Jews should be exterminated,. CRICKETS
Point out scientific fallacies in the Koran (no the moon did not split in two, and no the sun does not set in a marsh land far to the west) and you're deplatformed. (A campaign of flagging the content maker is instigated, followed through 100s of times and YouTube caves.
You're getting what you perceive to be a short-term gain here. You're coming up to a modern day Niemoller situation. "First they came for
And you're happy. For now.
No. It's not the ONLY defense. I've been in fights and have never used a gun.
This is not an either/or scenario. However there are times when a handgun or a rifle is the best tool for the situation at hand.
Why are you so scared of an inanimate object?
I have to question if your real concern is school shootings. It's that you want the population to be disarmed. And the question is why? An armed populace can tell the govt to fuk off. Why is that not a good thing?
Pest control, there are much better ways than shooting them and bigger pests that do need shot falls back on hunting.
Yeah. The other way is called poison. But you know what? Lots of people do not want to spread poison on land that they're growing food on. And, this poison affects all animals, not just the pests. And the pests - groundhogs, raccoons, can get into the 100s, if not 1000s in a hurry.
The only two choices are shooting them (very humane) or poison (not as humane and very unhealthy for everyone). Trapping is not a solution. It's useful for a raccoon or two, not 100s of groundhogs
AFAIK, we're not allowed anything larger than a 50 BMG so I hope that'll do the trick.
In 1964 we, as a country, came to the conclusion that if you have opened up your door to the general public that you must provide services to the general public. We are fine tuning that definition now with the bakers cases being brought to the Supreme Court.
Those refinements uphold the standard that stores / companies must serve the public as a whole. The baker must sell the cake. It's saying that the baker is not required to do particular art work for e very customer. A band, for instance, cannot stop Nazi's from buying their music but they can refuse to play at a gathering.
Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc... are public companies and they are restricting access by whim. They don't follow their TOS (See Farrakan) but terminate users for using memes they don't like "Learn to Code." This is contrary to the expectations raised in corporate / individual interactions as a result of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
It's ironic to see many, who are opposed to libertarian ideals of free speech and who have a great dislike for corporations now pushing for trans-national mega corporations to be able to censor people at whim. This is a very short-term approach to the world.
50 years ago the Tuskegee Experiments were going strong. Would you have liked "conspiracy mongers" talking about it being deplatformed. (If that was a thing back then?) If deplatforming was a thing back then the MLK and Malcolm X would have been deplatformed.
A central case for freedom of the press took place in the 1930s. Could Communists publish and distribute information? The answer was yes. That unpopular speech was not to be suppressed.
But you say, Twitter and Google are private companies. Would the company who made the press used by those communists (In Seattle I think) have been within their legal and moral rights to prevent their equipment from being used by these evil communists? Would you support that. How about the credit card companies refusing access to these same communists (of course there weren't credit card companies back then - but the point stands.)
It's funny, sin't it, that you're taking such an extreme libertarian idea - that companies can do what ever they want. And, not only that, but you're defending them for their abuses. Nice.
So, a crazy person does something bad with an object. Now, that object needs to be removed.
I guess he couldn't use gasoline and styrofoam and make a home-made napalm, or a truck to kill people. (That's never been done).
There are 120 million gun owners. There are 400 million plus guns in the country. If gun owners were as violent as you irrationally fear they are this place would be a war zone. And, except for a few gang ridden areas the US is peaceful.
But no, because of some people, glorified by the press (in that they become KNOWN, become famous) because this happens once in a while (way too often) you want to ban guns. And, you conveniently forget that there were guns 60 years ago and less shootings.
Why do you ignore the obvious - that the problem is not in guns?
They are free to do so. Isn't interesting how you bring in libertarian economic philosophy when it pleases you but reject it when it doesn't. If Twitter doesn't have to accommodate me then Woolworths doesn't need to accommodate black people.
The concept - post 1964 - is that if you're open to the public you're open to all the public. So you think that Microsoft, or Dell, could prevent you from writing or reading things that they - as corporate entities - consider inappropriate? Yeah right.
That's what you're arguing - that corporations like Microsoft, AT&T , Bic (for pens), Kimberley Clark (paper) can edit and censor your work because it suits them. And your response is - make your own paper. Make your own computer. Maker your own Twitter.
Besides the fact that you wouldn't like that; besides the fact that the only reason you're supporting this is because you perceive it as a short-term gain - the real problem is a complete disrespect being shown to the free and open dissemination of ideas.
And, more disgusting is the double standard. Farrakan calling for the elimination of jews fine. Imans calling for the elimination of atheists, gays and jews - fine. But Laura Loomer video taping sections of English and Australian towns where she is being asked to leave because what she's wearing doesn't conform to Islamic standards. - Well now, that we need to ban.
Really? That's your response? You think it's that easy?
If you believe in that nonsense. You will be fuked up if, and when, you ever have to defend yourself.
Guns are only a valid defense against other guns.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
As the saying goes: "God made men. But Sam Colt made them equal."
A 120 pound woman has no chance against a 240 pound man. (Sh!t - even a 180 pound man)
One man has no chance against 3 men determined to do him harm. (unless he is really skilled and they're not)
A gun equalizes the situation. Now both sides are placing their lives at stake.
Is it better for a woman to let herself be raped than risk dying by shooting her attackers (and have them shoot back if armed)? I can't answer that. But the option should be hers. Not yours.
Guns help the physically weaker person even up the odds against the physically stronger (or more numerous) assailants.
I have a .22, a .223 a .270 and a 12 gauge shotgun. I have never killed anyone. I have never brandished a gun at anyone.
.45 as a protection against bears.
I have a recurve bow and a compound bow. I have never brandished them at anyone.
I have had other rifles, pistols and shotguns over the years. When I was in Alaska I had a
Except for gangs and small pockets of violence the US is very safe.
The real question is why you, who presumably understands that governmental tyranny can exist anywhere is comfortable and being helpless. And, not only comfortable in being helpless that you demand everyone else be just as helpless.
And, with the rise of the authoritarian left - those that would happily put me in a reeducation camp - there is no way that I'm going to give up my guns.
Being deplatformed isn't an attack on your free speech, it's just people not listening anymore. You can still start your own website or stand on the street and rant your crazy shit in to the ether but no one has to listen. But no, blame it all on 'the left' and enjoy your 'cultural revolution' and with any luck it will all end in another civil war yeah?
Being deplatformed may not be against the law (today) but it is restricting people's ability to converse in the public square. Other people blocking you or voting you down into obscurity is fine. Being deplatformed by mega-corporations means not being able to communicate to other people. It's analogous to your computer preventing you from writing an article; or your email service preventing you from writing and sending emails.
By that token - shouldn't the person entering your country learn the language?
The question is not if the Republican's win the Presidency and win the House but whether they gain seats in the Senate when the Senate map is going against them.
True. I equated view with selling ad space.
... adios YouTube.
If I'm watching an archery video chances are high there are many companies who would be willing to advertise. Second, there are people like me who pay $10/mth to not see ads. Surely the creators who make archery videos should get a portion of that money.
Demonitizing is pushing Alt-Tech. I can't wait until all my shows are on Bitchute and then
So, according to you: socialist == government. OK.
So, what's the difference between libertarians, fascists and socialist?
If libertarians == fascists then the terms right wing and far right does not mean anything anymore.
One can be far right (small, limited government) and not be racist.
Sounds like ANTIFA to me.
Even non-violent shows are demonetized. Many gun and archery channels were demonetized.
Absolutely not. They make money by views .They should not be in the business of censorship. If something is wrong they can flag it to the proper government office and let the government and the courts determine if action is required.
One person's conspiracy could be the truth - see the Tuskegee Experiments.
Yes. There are too many school shootings.
Since you're interested in the topic - you need to ask yourself:
Why now and not 50 years ago when the percentage of gun ownership was far higher?
Why now and not 80 years ago when you could get them anonymously through the mail?
Why does the media not follow the recommendations of police and put out the killer's name?
What is different in society now? What can we identify that can help?
Should we stop medicating boys diagnosed with ADHD?
Should we come up with socially viable means of expressing discontent and violence? Example boxing clubs.
If guns are the problem then wouldn't there have been more violence, more school shooting before? We had gun clubs in high schools before. Hmm. There should have been a lot of school shootings. Nope.
Finally why would you sacrifice your ability to defend yourself because of these events? Do you think governments never get tyrannical? Russia, Germany, China, North Korea, Cambodia - do you really think that can never happen again.
Not me reading. There are, according to FBI and other reports, about 1000 defensive gun uses per week. As stated in the post - this is the most restrictive reading of defensive gun use. Depending on how it's defined it can be 10x that.
No. I think that increasing their standard of living is great, and what needs to happen
It's the Western fools that think we can reduce our standard of living to the point where there would be an environmental equilibrium that I'm ridiculing.
This is a technological problem more than it is a reduce consumption problem.
Solar (PV) and wind generated power is growing at an exponential rate. That needs to continue - that's what needs to be focused on.
I don't see anything that Trump has done that's anywhere near fascistic.
Trump says that MS-13 are "animals" and the media says that "Trump called immigrants animals." Criticizing the media is not fascistic. What's fascistic is creating laws preventing people from speaking their minds. I'm looking at you England and the EU.
What's fascistic is preventing people from expressing themselves. I'm looking at you ANTIFA and everyone who doesn't speak out against their brown-shirted tactics. (In this case going Godwin makes sense).
France has a homicide rate of 1.35 per 100,000
North Dakota has a homicide rate of 1.2 with half the population owning guns and having more guns than people. (A lot more guns than people). Idaho has a homicide rate of 1.5 with far more guns than North Dakota.
The District of Columbia, where guns are illegal have a homicide rate of 18.0
Homicide rates in the US are low except for pockets of violence. 2% of the counties account for over 50% of the homicides. And even in those counties it's only pockets of violence.
And guns will not be illegal in the US without extreme sectarian violence and the creation of a fascistic police state. By pushing for outright confiscation you are making the situation worse for yourself. There are a lot of labor Democrats who are already skeptical of the Democratic Party for abandoning labor and class in favor of environmentalism and identitarian politics. You push the gun confiscation and they won't sit out of elections; they won't vote for a labor third party - they'll vote Republican.