PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

Just legal gun owner things

If I can still see the wealth than I can still see the blood.

Why is it acceptable to you that the wealth is handed down but ludicrous that the blood is handed down with it?

If someone became an overnight billionaire for murdering your children, how many generations of their kids driving around in Bugattis would it take for you to consider that fortune washed of its sins?

Apparently demanding a wealthy person part with wealth is more upsetting to some people than cutting off people's hands to acquire it.

"Oh look there's grandpa with his collection of severed hands. I think we still have that chair!"

It's hard to take this as anything more than looking sad as conspicuously as possible.

It's barely touched them. They're still wealthy, powerful, straight, white men. Most school kids are probably in more danger. AOC probably deletes 50 voicemails like this a day.

For people who stuff themselves into plate carriers and parade around with rifles bleating about "tyranny", they sure do get upset when you don't line up to felate their tyrants.

It doesn't matter what his little cult of idiots think, he should be bound by the same laws as everyone else.

I think it's extremely unlikely he'll earn a billion dollars before he drops dead of an aneurysm in the middle of a far right screed.

It's a thousand million dollars and it's been years since they needed him to funnel unmedicated schizophrenics into political extremism.

With any change on the site formerly known as Twitter, there are 3 lenses to examine it through:

1. Reducing the massive financial loss that Musk will almost certainly take
2. Amplifying the voice of the far-right
3. Stroking the ego of the man child who owns it

This is probably mostly 1. He's looked at the number of users and said "what if they were dollars?".

But like you say, there's probably a bit of 2. Reactionaries are more likely to hand over a dollar for a Truth Social with outside their choir to abuse.

It probably won't dissuade bots and astro-turfing, but it will make it pay-to-play, with the richest welding the most influence. That's definitely 3 since by any other metric besides money, Elon is average.

I can only approve of people paying for services they use. It isn't free to run. But there are several things to consider:

I don't mind paying for services, but I now have 20 different services. Each one is trying to extract the maximum amount of money out of me while giving me a minimum in return.

I also accept that those services are not free to run, but realistically, these companies aren't just trying to cover their operating costs, they're trying to further line the pockets of executives and shareholders.

And its never enough for them. I could give Twitter $100 a month and they'd still sell my data for a few extra pennies. I could give YouTube an unlimited supply of servers and bandwidth and they'd still show just as many ads.

We will never get the cost living under control until this corporate greed is addressed because no matter how much money we pay people, there's an army of psychopaths ready to milk them of every cent.

So fuck em. They can have an extra dollar when they can prove it will actually end up in the pocket of an employee. Otherwise, the richest man in the world can fund his own little reactionary pet project.

They were armed by the same grossly inadequate gun laws and will use the same "he had a gun" excuse the cops do.

In some places, part of obtaining a firearms license involves being a member of good standing at a range.

Not in America of course, where pinkie promising you know what you're doing and won't leave you gun laying around is good enough.

It would be out of fear of white fascist Republicans breaking down my front door.

Who would then execute you on sight. Even if you managed to shoot your way out, sooner or later they'll find you and kill you.

Guns don't work against state violence. By the time you need them, you've already lost.

"If you wanted some of that $160 billion, you should have been born rich enough to not need it"

For-profit bombs is a deeply fucked concept. It should never, ever be profitable to kill people, intentionally or accidentally.

But the only immoral thing to a neoliberal is not maximising profits, so they're just throbbing with anticipation for the next quarterly earnings report because the return on killing children is incredible.

You've accounted for one bomb. Only 5999 (and climbing) left to prove your point.

If that was their goal, they could depopulate the Gaza Strip in an hour.

And if there were no repercussions, they absolutely would.

But much to their obvious resentment, they need to play the international politics game. If they don't, they'll find their economy decimated in much the same way a Russia has. And when the arms deals dry up, they could easily end up on the receiving end, given their unpopularity with their neighbours.

Truly, ask yourself what Israel would do if its true aim was "killing as many as possible". I'm genuine asking you, what do you think they would do if that was the intent, and are they doing those things?

I would keep taking inch after inch, waiting for any excuse to retaliate, and then retaliate as violently and indiscrimately as possible.

So as a purely hypothetical example, maybe I'd constantly encroach on their borders and bulldoze their homes.

Maybe I'd imprison and execute children for throwing rocks.

Maybe when a terrorist cell crossed the border and killed (a fraction as many) civilians, I'd drop an absurd number of bombs on their city, beyond what could possibly be targeting actual combatants, killing scores of civilians and levelling buildings.

Purely hypothetically of course.

They dismiss it because it's bullshit. Every stop on the slope is not inevitable.

In this particular case, why is the pro-gun community able to prevent changes to gun laws -- despite those laws being deeply flawed and with only a minority of Americans supporting them -- but somehow unable to prevent the floodgates after that?

The response the gun lobby wants to hear is "they gubbermint won't do it because they're scared we'll shoot them!" but it's pure bravado. Grossly negligent gun laws haven't prevented the American government from doing things to its citizens that would make China blush and the pro-gun crowd didn't even change their vote, let alone sacrifice their lives to prevent it.

Because everything is a bullshit slippery slope to them. "Oh you want to get rid of the second amendment? What's next? The first amendment? The fourth?"

Nope. Just the second. It's repealing an amendment, not dabbling with heroin. They're not going to say "oh why not, maybe one more".

Making the "responsible" part of "responsible gun owner" mandatory is not going to cause the collapse of civilisation.

The browsers solved this long ago.

Any request to open a new page, from either the pages themselves or from the OS, prefers a new tab. If there are multiple windows in which it could open a new tab, it prefers the latest. If you want to split a tab off into a new window, you can.

With Explorer, any OS request for a folder that isn't already open creates a new window and there doesn't appear to be any way to prevent that.

Also they literally go on killing sprees.

But in a weirdly shit way. I will never want more than 1 window but still end up with 5.