PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

As far as most neoliberals are concerned, people getting wrung for every dollar of their pay check is a good thing.

Every dollar of wealth they have is immediately extracted from them, starting its inevitable march upwards and into the pocket of a billionaire.

I really can't possibly imagine what Israel would stand to gain from doing this.

More dead Palestinians.

You can't really pretend that's not one of their goals when they're always killing as many as possible.

Sure, random gun owners probably believe it, the same way many of them also believe "climate change isn't real".

But do the politicians? I'm not sure if they've even bothered to consider if it's true or not.

It's profitable to a lobby group that in turn "donates" $16 million a year and it creates a single-issue voting bloc that will tolerate literally anything -- including things they claim their guns are to prevent -- as long as you don't take away their hero fantasies.

If any of those (conspicuously unnamed) household items were used to kill even half as many people as guns, there would absolutely be legislation to reduce the public safety risk.

If that legislation failed as routinely as America's gun laws do, it would be improved or replaced until it worked.

And then magically, they don't count, despite buying the same guns, from the same stores, with the same checks then carrying it around under the same laws and storing it with the same optional safety.

It's a perfect setup. Responsible gun owners can never commit crimes. Maybe it's time we all started calling the murderers committing crimes with legal guns "former responsible gun owner so and so".

Isn't it lucky where that slippery slope starts?

It doesn't start before guns, with things like high explosives, despite them being arguably "arms" and inarguably more useful in a tyrant-overthrowing war.

And it doesn't start after guns with knives and all the other things you're sure they're going to take, even though they could have taken them at any point in the past 20 years.

Nope, the slippery slope starts exactly at the point it cuts into the profits of the gun lobby and the convenience of reactionaries, the moment they "grab guns" by introducing things like "licenses issued at the completion of a background check, safety and operation test and demonstrated ability to store safely".

The pro-gun community sure hit the jackpot there.

Edit: Oh also, it was the modified rifle that was considered a "machine gun", or the specific device made from a shoelace designed to convert it to full auto. This is so fuckwits can't circumvent laws against fully automatic weapons, carrying and selling devices to illegally modify the weapon and then claiming "but its not on the gun so it doesn't count!".

That entire linked blog post could be completely undermined by adding the word "part" to the initial letter.

The thing is, if 3D printed guns were a significant problem (and not primarily just an excuse to do nothing about failing gun laws), your situation would still be a massive improvement.

Domestic terrorism is planned. At some point, every mass shooter has thought about how they could kill the most people, with the least effort and lowest chance of failure.

And of course when they can walk into a gun store and buy cheap, semi-automatic weapons on a whim -- even with a long history of red flags -- that's exactly what they do.

Sure, maybe they could kill more people with a bomb. But they'd have to learn how to build one, then actually build it without being caught or blowing their hands off. On top of all of that, there's no for-profit death cult for explosives so many of the most effective tools will bring men in suits to your door.

The reality is if they had to buy, build and tune a Voron, then print a gun, then clean up the spaghetti and print another gun, then test the gun wouldn't explode in their hands many of them simply would just try and stab people instead (or better yet, just do their suicide without taking innocent people with them).

Means reductions has been proven to reduce suicide rates. Mass shootings are a form of suicide.

This proposal is just an awkward attempt to address an issue early, because they can do so without the gun lobby sicking their lawyers and reactionaries on them, who are the ones pushing "Why bother with gun control when you can just 3D print full auto weapons?“ in the first place.

What a shame that would be

He also would have been described as a "responsible gun owner" 24 hours ago since the gun was likely legally purchased and he hadn't lost control of his emotions and killed anyone with it yet.

I doubt they believe in "good guys with guns" any more than the "day of jihad". They're just catch phrases that make them money.

Usually the ones I see are clearly fishing for vulnerable people; a practise they put a huge amount of time, money and effort into.

They're active in conspiracy groups because it's a good place to find unmedicated schizophrenics.

They're active in gaming groups because it's a good place to find lonely, disaffected young men.

They're active in anti-vax groups because they're a good place to find uneducated, paranoid people.

They're active in fundamentalist circles because it's a good place to find bigots.

I've found that going anywhere near any of those topics will cause the algorithm to start baiting its hook.

This isn't skepticism, this is actual experience machining parts.

At no point have I suggested that CNC machining gun parts is impossible nor that no desktop printers are capable of it.

I have very specifically challenged people who appear to have no experience machining parts but nevertheless insist it's no more difficult than printing your homework.

It's a lie that's used to undermine gun control and you're repeating it verbatim.

Your insults are even worse than your hot takes. Are you sure you want to branch out into armchair psychology as well?

I doubt the information needed to accurately predict their costs is publicly available.

But they announced $29.2 billion in revenue in 2022. That's about as much as countries like Australia, Canada and Italy spent on their entire military.

And that's just money. Google is absolutely aware of how much indirect value there is in the internationally recognised brand and near total capture of a communication medium.

So again, who exactly am I supposed to feel sorry for? Who is supposed to be suffering? It's not their staff. It's not their shareholders. It's not their suppliers.

They pay a lot of creators fuck all, despite the platform being nothing without them. Will the extra revenue be going to them? Because nobody has mentioned them in any of their guilt trips so far.

As far as I can tell, I'm supposed to feel morally obligated to listen to KFC advertisements at ear splitting volume every 2 minutes for the privilege of watching a video that will make the creator nothing so that some of the wealthiest people in the world can grow wealthier.

To put it bluntly, that's corporate propaganda.

What is this, early 2000s internet?

Wasn't a thing on my 2000s internet. Maybe it's just because you were 3?

Fuck off dude, you're irrelevant, stop acting like the world is ending because you could never figure out how to turn on a printer.

I'm sure that would have really hurt my feelings if I knew absolutely nothing about myself.

The world wasn't better when you were young, your shitty attitude is evidence of that.

Not a thing I actually claimed and not actually evidence of the thing I never claimed. Do you need me to put it in a Spongebob Squarepants meme for you?

That's not even the most ridiculous claim about his health that his supporters obediently swallowed. Ronny "Candyman" Jackson said that if he watched his diet, he could live to be 200.

You don't have to click on a far-right video. You can also get them when you click on a progressive video, or a medical video, or a gaming video.

When Amazon first introduced their "People who liked X also liked Y" feature, it was hilariously easy to manipulate. You could just spam links back and forth and within a few minutes, "People who liked The King James Bible also like A Hand in the Bush: The Lost Art of Vaginal Fisting".

It didn't take too long for them to put a stop to it but decades later, are we actually sure content suggestion algorithms are any better at withstanding manipulation?

The far-right aren't exactly good people so I doubt they're saying "Sure, I openly celebrate mass shooters that target minorities but I draw the line at using sleazy techniques manipulate content suggestions".

Whatever helps you self soothe kid.

But the funniest part of all of this, is that I wasn't even talking about Andrew Tate supporters. They were an example of the embarrassingly stupid shit that people believe, despite your claims that the internet has made everybody better informed than pre-internet relics.

And I could pull out 100 more examples. They supported a president that suggested injecting bleach or "finding a way to get sunlight inside the body" as potential COVID cures both before and after. They've literally killed people based on the cold-reading of a shit-tier, 4chan Nostradamus. There are people who genuinely believe the earth is flat. There is a sitting politician that talks about "Jewish space lasers" and "peach tree dishes" and people donate money to help her keep her job.

But you can't, because you don't actually know shit about the world before the internet, the people who lived in it or if the claims about them you pulled from your ass will hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Do you not remember the Christian groups of the... 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s? They always have, you just weren't informed via the internet about it.

Oh yeah, you're clearly talking about Andrew Tate followers and have been this whole time. Good lie you fucking clown. The internet has clearly made you smarter.

Okay, so you don't actually know who you're talking about, but you're certain you're correct.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in case it was a miscommunication and we were talking about entirely different groups of people.

But nope, you're just saying any old bullshit with absolute conviction because you want to look like the smartest person in the room.

Reading back, it's actually pretty obvious that you didn't experience Reagan nor the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. You're just extrapolating your 5 years of adulthood backwards 50 years and assuming you've nailed it.