Jump to content

Today...


Leoo

Recommended Posts

I don't understand the why the right thinks keeping their .22 would help against the government when the government would simply use drones

 

I too remember how successful the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was. You can't put down a rebellion with drones.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eveyone suddenly thinks they know everything about this shooter guy. And oddly because of my diversity of friends somehow this shooter is both ISIS and non practicing Muslim. Homophobic AND nondiscriminatory in violence. Has terrorist ties and doesn't. Bought the guns weeks ago and had the guns all along. And is a huge fan of the NYPD along with being a registered Democrat. At this point I believe only one fact about the whole incident and that is the fact that numerous people are now dead because of one guy. And that sucks. Nothing else is tangibly provable one way or the other any more.

Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw a youtube video on facebook about who should pay for dates and the hilarious thing is speaker said to his female audience that they should make an effort to split the bill and all hell broke loose in the comment war that followed.

 

 

Youtube comments are almost as golden as the facebook ones. So I ask TIF, does it bother you when girls you date don't offer to pay? Whats your standard?

 

In my experience always pay for the date. No exceptions.

I would absolutely love it if a girl offered to split the bill. I don't believe it'll ever happen though so I just roll with it.
lighviolet1lk4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it this way: If you ask a girl out on a date it's pretty much the same as asking someone over to your house for dinner. You don't expect them to bring their own food, but generally it's considered good manners to ask/offer to bring something. So if you ask someone out on a date, they have every right to assume you're also offering to pay for the date, but that does not prevent you from offering to pay for yourself. This goes both ways, whether it's a guy asking a girl, or a girl asking a guy. 

To me it's always a big red flag when i take someone out on a date and they don't at least offer to pay for themselves, or offer to leave the tip since i paid for the date, or whatever. 

 

Kind of reminds me of a date i had a few months ago, with a girl who claimed she was "a big supporter of the feminist movement", but was greatly offended when i asked her why she didn't even offer to pay for herself and responded with "paying for dates is the man's job". 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

/r/the_donald is fine, I don't agree with them and I think their epic maymays are mostly stupid but it's a containment subreddit and it's done a fairly good job keeping them in one easy to avoid area. My biggest complaint about that sub honestly is that they've formed such a cult of personality that Trump is infallible in their eyes. They'll spin anything into a positive, similar to the bitcoin people.

This is similar to most partisan politics though

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have all politics and news subreddits blocked because they're all toxic, some much more so than others.

 

When I want news I'll fire up my news reader with several sources of various bias. I'm not getting extra-filtered bullshit based on a popularity system. It simply cannot be a reliable source of any sort of news or discussion. Relying on Reddit for news is worse than watching a 24-hour news station; perhaps only better than getting news from Facebook.

 

Also /r/the_donald is not fine. I have it filtered on RES and refuse to visit Reddit unless I can filter it. It's the worst subreddit that hits /r/all regularly. It's a bunch of hypocrites, and often a bunch of hypocritical bigots.

  • Like 1

ozXHe7P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The downvote/upvote system makes reducing bias impossible regardless of moderation. Admittedly, this is more easily the case for news than discussion.

Yeah, downvoting is actually against the rules on canadapolitics for that reason. Of course, some stuff does get downvoted, but it's not too big of a problem.

 

Moderation is a tricky one as well. There are always accusations of bias (and actual bias, of course moderators are only human) but as long as the rules are extremely clear and consistent, and there's a method of appeal, it seems to work. Personally I haven't found the moderation too biased, and I definitely have some unpopular opinions.

It's also a fairly small subreddit which makes things easier. The sheer volume of users on the more popular ones would make everything much more difficult...

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On the right - I've seen a lot of my right-wing friends suggesting that less gun control would have prevented this. I think their point is that this would have allowed the patrons of the club or potentially guards to have stopped the gunman before so many were killed or wounded. However, I've read that the gunman had been reported for extremist views in his workplace, had traveled to Saudi Arabia (a country which executes homosexuals) on multiple occasions, had been interviewed by the FBI for alleged terrorist ties, and was apparently on some sort of watch list (although I've also seen contrary reports). He also purchased the guns he used within the past few days. Surely if there is anyone who shouldn't be able to legally purchase a gun, it's this guy, right? Can we compromise on gun control at least to the point that people like this are blocked from such purchases?

Having extremist views is not criminal. International travel is not criminal. Having been interviewed by the FBI (which apparently saw no cause for action) is not criminal. Being secretly placed on a watch list with no opportunity for rebuttal or appeal by an agency that either doesn't have sufficient evidence to make an arrest or is otherwise disinclined to do so is not indicative of crime. I am unwilling to "compromise" (poor word choice for a one-sided sacrifice) to the point that citizens can be deprived of rights without due process.

 

See section 3 of my response to Ring_World for more on "compromise."

 

On the right -

 

1.) people on the right are suspicious of the government and believe (wrongly) that an armed population can resist a future tyranical US gov that responds militarily to resistance to bad laws

2.) On top of that they believe that police intervention takes too long to respond to prevent situations and point to examples of copycat crimes such as after aurora being stopped by an off duty armed cop

3.) They also (wrongly) believe that any attempt to limit gun rights will be the first step down the slippery slope to the mythical tyranical government

I'm not sure whether I qualify as "on the right," but you seem to make some assumptions or implications that I want to clarify.

 

1.) How do you define tyranny? Some people would claim that the US is already there, and I have as much trouble believing that we couldn't have tyranny as that we do.

2.) I called 911 to report two people smashing a stool against my neighbor's house. By the time the police showed up, they had finished taking what they wanted.

My sister (with two toddlers in tow) saw a man's head bashed in with a rock while she was on her way home from Independence Day fireworks. I don't know whether he survived, but there were no police around to stop it or to apprehend his attacker.

I had to sit and watch a dying deer for 45 minutes after a car crash, because laws prohibited my putting it out of its misery; as soon as the deputy arrived, we dragged it off the road and he shot it.

A neighbor made threats and brandished a weapon at my (other) sister; I came out of the house with a 12-gauge. When police came, they were more interested in harassing us for ending the situation than in taking a report of what we were responding to. They had a good response time there, at about 15 minutes; had the neighbor not backed down, or had I not shown up as I did, that's plenty of time for them to have found a corpse. She started openly carrying my .45, and that neighbor left her alone until he eventually moved out.

I'm not saying that police aren't ever helpful, but they certainly aren't always the best solution to every problem.

3.) I think this is a mischaracterization, or possibly just a misunderstanding. See my reply to rocc0 regarding "compromise."

In the US:

We gave up certain gun rights in 1934, when the National Firearms Act passed.

In 1938, we passed the Federal Firearms Act, which imposed licensing requirements on dealers, manufacturers and importers of firearms.

We gave up another chunk of gun rights (mostly to do with interstate trade) when we passed the Gun Control Act in 1968.

In 1986, we passed the FOPA (Firearm Owners Protection Act), which did loosen some restrictions, but in exchange for other restrictions.

In 1990, the Gun-Free School Zones Act passed, which restricts possession of firearms within 1000 feet (3-5 city blocks?) of school property. This includes some public land that was designated for hunting, and makes it incredibly impractical for someone like my cousin (who lives across the road from a school) to openly carry a pistol without a license, which would otherwise be legal in his state.

In 1993, we passed the Brady Handgun Prevention Act, that included a federal 5-day waiting period. (which was replaced in 1998 with a 3-business-day waiting period unless NICS returns an approval/denial)

In 1994, we passed the Assault Weapons Ban that stood for a decade and, by most accounts, had negligible effect (if any) on crime.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that gun control in the US has been incrementally stripping rights (that is, making things illegal which had previously been legal) for a long time. Even the 1986 FOPA, which was a supposed "win" for gun owners closed the machine gun registry, making it impossible for an individual to register a new machine gun while not making it legal to possess an unregistered machine gun.

 

When I was growing up, farmers were constantly complaining about government restrictions/interference.

Lots of people I know who have tried jumping through hoops to build a house/garage had complaints about government interference.

 

Where do you draw the line between restrictions that suck and tyranny? Should everyone always use the same standard?

 

 

I don't understand the why the right thinks keeping their .22 would help against the government when the government would simply use drones

I don't understand why you think anyone believes that. The only time I've ever heard it suggested is by people who want to point out that it sounds ridiculous.

 

 

Maybe in the states....I'm somewhat active in the firearm community here (Canada) and I barely ever hear that argument.

It's not unheard of here, but it's not exactly common unless you find yourself in the company of militiamen.

Argument happens all the time where I grew up. Perhaps our experiences are ya know, different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nyos, you come from a rural area I imagine? In the city police response is never over 5 minutes. If a stray gun is discharged it's almost immediately followed by siren wails. In the country taking the law into your own hands is a better option than waiting for a police force that's understaffed (per square mile) even if it's appropriate for the population density. I don't have a strong opinion about gun laws,but I do know I disagree with not only the current regulatory systems but every suggested alternative I've heard so far.

Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

/r/the_donald was so gross today. They've always been gross people who have openly been horrible towards GSMs, and only now do they show any (thinly veiled) support when it allows them to condemn Islam. It's just a bunch of bigoted [wagon] who hate Muslims more than they hate gays.

 

You're completely full of crap, the sub has never been anti gay. Bigotry is gunning down 50 people because seeing a gay couple kiss made you uncomfortable. 99% of Afghani Muslims support Sharia Law, under which being gay is illegal and usually punishable by death.

 

Believe it or not, bigotry has a much wider definition than mass murder

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that shithole of a subreddit literally has multiple posts on its front page right now referring to gay people as f*ggots, I don't know if Sporks is blind or thinks that bigotry is exclusively mass murder ... ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, spent the day on CN Tower and at Ripley's aquarium and shopping at Eaton.

Spent more than $400 CAD there... It is cheaper than in Estonia.

t3aGt.png

 

So I've noticed this thread's regulars all follow similar trends.

 

RPG is constantly dealing with psycho exes.

Muggi reminds us of the joys of polygamy.

Saq is totally oblivious to how much chicks dig him.

I strike out every other week.

Kalphite wages a war against the friend zone.

Randox pretty much stays rational.

Etc, etc

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that shithole of a subreddit literally has multiple posts on its front page right now referring to gay people as f*ggots, I don't know if Sporks is blind or thinks that bigotry is exclusively mass murder ... ?

Plus they refer to everyone as cucks. Should tell you all you need to know about those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah that shithole of a subreddit literally has multiple posts on its front page right now referring to gay people as f*ggots, I don't know if Sporks is blind or thinks that bigotry is exclusively mass murder ... ?

 

In a positive context. You're free to disagree with the use of it in any context, but there are clearly gay people who disagree with you like Milo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it's generally being used (from the little I've seen) in an endearing way, similar to how some black people use the N word.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah that shithole of a subreddit literally has multiple posts on its front page right now referring to gay people as f*ggots, I don't know if Sporks is blind or thinks that bigotry is exclusively mass murder ... ?

 

In a positive context. You're free to disagree with the use of it in any context, but there are clearly gay people who disagree with you like Milo.

 

I'm just saying, none of the gay subs throw that word around

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very obvious and important difference being that the vast majority of the people upvoting and posting that word in that context are unlikely to be gay.

So are only gay people allowed to use that word?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please learn what negative connotation is, what makes certain words profane, historical prejudice and oppression of minorities, and social etiquette, and then ask that question again.

 

You're free to call some a [bleep], or [racist term], or whatever, but please don't try and pretend the words don't have a negative connotation, and don't be surprised if--or when--there's consequences, social or otherwise, for using such words outside of certain settings.

ozXHe7P.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please learn what negative connotation is, what makes certain words profane, historical prejudice and oppression of minorities, and social etiquette, and then ask that question again.

 

You're free to call some a [bleep], or [racist term], or whatever, but please don't try and pretend the words don't have a negative connotation, and don't be surprised if--or when--there's consequences, social or otherwise, for using such words outside of certain settings.

I agree with you, but I also think context is important. It's clearly possible to use words in more than one way. For example, redneck is typically an insult, but I refer to some of my friends in that manner (and vice versa) and it's not seen as an insult.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.