GBU_28 @ GBU_28 @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

5,350

Joined

2 yr. ago

In a perfect system, the pardon is meant to be a "check" on the powers of the other branches. (Legislative and judicial). Each branch is meant to both support AND check the others.

Obviously we are watching it all unwind. Certain things were a "gentleman's agreement" in that a president normally wouldn't over do it and just pardon tons of people. We are finding out lots of things were just assumed to be ok, but are easily abused by bad actors

America has excellent healthcare. Swipe your credit card here please and we'll get started

I'll admit: I took your original comment to indicate enjoyed consumption and propagation of mis truth. Your comment here seems to be more of an acknowledgement of the danger of misinformation.

Now I don't know what to do lol

You mean when many many thousands of Americans died needlessly to the fucking flu, because he refused to take it seriously? Some estimates put avoidable deaths in the 6 figures.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37093505/

You entered a thread about "queer people who are buying guns" and decided to lecture the group on how there's gun violence in America. The article discusses the unique motivations this and other at risk groups have, which I have echoed. You've decided the mentioned group is the group to lecture about gun violence, and conclude that this group should not acquire guns despite their right.

It's completely transparent why you are doing so, especially as you've provided zero discussion beyond lashing out at others.

On this topic (their fear and vulnerability [ their words, not mine] )... In what way have you been an ally to the mentioned group? You call their legitimate fears, and expression of their rights "larping", and attempt to shame them into obeisance by waving stats about crimes they have no intentions of commiting, deaths they have nothing to do with, in their faces.

Despicable.

There are legitimate times to discuss national gun violence (what's funny is we would be in agreement there). You could even have discussed other means of comfort/stability/protection they could consider as alternatives. Anything constructive at all. But you didn't do that, you slung mud/ guilt on an at risk group in a time of crisis, dinging talking points from the groups that seek to oppress/hunt them, like it was bingo.

It's fun how you.never address the points r criticisms directly. Slippery!

In fact,... Coming back to this:

The greatest example of anti capitalist, anti class oppression action in modern times happened due to private gun ownership.

To suggest self defence gun ownership is capitalist bootlicking is completely incoherent.

ownership is cheap, private, and a right.

One I'm happy to argue shouldn't be scolded away from LGBT folks because of other external concerns.

I never "pretended" to care about human life, I differentiated the conversation to it's root: minority group self defence.

Square that away then we can start boiling the ocean on overall violence. But not before at risk people have their rights maintained.

Their words are available on the topic and ada could easily refute them.

Flail

"bounds"

If you're gonna be bigoted, at least have your ducks in the know

Observe, the person demonstrating lgbt+ getting guns is the redline squirms.

Edit this is just like when Reagan stirred up sentiments against lawful black ownership of firearms in California (before he was president). How odd he didn't raise broad societal concerns the year prior, or the year prior or the year prior

Late edit:

The conclusion is either you chose this thread, and this group to complain about "think of society" topics intentionally, or you are unwittingly aligned with the type of speech rightwing groups use to demonize legal expression of rights and self defence among minority groups. I'm a pessimist so I personally assume the former.

This is not the time/place, or referred to group to be lamenting the state of gun violence in America, unless you do so in bad faith.

I never accused them of such

I've made my point, you haven't addressed it.

You think you get to decide that THIS group doesn't get to join the rest. The rest are already armed, and of course that's a good discussion to have (reducing general gun violence.) But no, here's where you want to argue.

🙄

How's that relate to her looks, or the potential "horniness" of a viewer?

Many public servants have obscured addresses cause of shit like this (and more often violence)

I never said the general preservation of human life was what I was discussing. Of course I'd prefer no one die at all.

I'd also prefer immigrants, lgbt+, and others wouldn't be hunted for who they are.

I clearly highlighted that an at risk group is trying to empower themselves due to the impending risk from actual threats made publicly against them.

Who am I (or you) to tell those folks they are in the wrong to reach for whatever tools they can access? (Be it speech, political action, or indeed self defence)

IM not worried (or therefore the actor in your suggested paranoid imaginings), because I'm not a member of a target group. The trick is I can empathize with their position, and I can recognize that although I'm not in a target group now, I sure could be in the future.

For those reasons I would never get in the way of folks defending themselves, especially when this group is interested in training and safe practices.

The people who "take priority" are those in harm's way, and we aren't the ones to tell them how to live right now, there hearing MORE them enough of that as it is

Well they can be excited about the new gender options now

Pretty cool suggesting at risk groups should stay vulnerable when their enemies are armed.

Interesting position you're taking.

General gun violence is unlike targeted political violence against minorities, so things like school shooting and gang violence stats mean nothing.

Comparing to Japan is irrelevant as there isn't an armed and empowered group publicly discussing hunting at risk folks there.

"someone horny enough could identify her"

What's your take to defend the commenter on that one?

Also that's not what gaslighting means.

At most, I've misunderstood then and they haven't clarified or edited.

"the misinformation is popular, despite those involved disregarding it. so I shall believe it."

?

"if your position is that you CHOSE a job that makes you work on MLK Day, that makes you a dumber worker".