PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

They've got to earn their $16 million a year from the gun lobby by doing even less than they did back before Sandy Hook, when it was only $8 million a year.

Isn't it just grand to look back on the last 365 days of gun violence and see what figures people put on it? Tens of thousands of lives. Hundreds of them children.

The pro-gun crowd will bury them just to avoid inconvenience. They don't want to wait for their guns, pass a background check, demonstrate they know how to responsibly handle them or store them securely.

Sure, they'll jerk themselves raw as they publicly congratulate themselves for doing any of those, but the moment someone wants to turn "suggestions" into "laws", they're all too happy to be represented by overweight men stuffed into plate carriers.

For the politicians and manufacturers though, it's strictly business.

Republicans get $16 million a year and a bloc of voters who will tolerate all manner of horrific acts, as long as they happen to other people.

In return, they insist that we mustn't change a thing until every man, woman and child in America has been completely cured of mental illness, to a level far beyond current medical science, so perfectly that nobody ever relapses and all in the few days it takes to load up on semi-automatic firearms.

Not only can you buy their souls, they're not even that expensive.

That's only when they're on duty. Off duty, they gravitate more towards punching their wives.

They won't go mask off again.

Rebranding neo-nazis as "alt right" allowed them to ride a wave of plausible deniability onto platforms they'd never dreamed of.

When they triumphantly revealed themselves at Unite the Right, they lost a huge amount of that ground.

So now they never admit it, no matter how obvious they're being. They will remain unnameable.

You forgot "children being taught evolution", that was a pretty big one. Also birth control pills, which many of them are still fuming over.

You can also keep going back to when they were insisting radio would rot children's brains or even further back to when they opposed electrification.

But at least electricity can kill you. Modern reactionaries take entitled whining to a whole new level, growing physically violent because there's people out there who are unhappy with the genitals they were born with.

I guess we'll never understand the horror of having an extra checkbox in a character creator that they have to look at (but not click, since it's already what they want by default).

Anyway, fuck em. They can either accept that society is going to treat minorities with basic human decency or they can stare at the wall for 8 hours a day waiting for new far-right approved content. It's their live to piss away.

He didn't even wait for details. He's a high-profile, right-wing reactionary so he gets support, rapist or not.

That's actually being kind to them. They demand forgiveness and understanding for their own shitty deeds but the moment someone on their giant list of undesirables has a hair out of place, it's off to the gallows for them.

She's dogshit. We knew she was dogshit. The people voting for her do so specifically because she's dogshit.

Yep, you're exactly what everyone expected.

These are people getting their panties in a twist because they are being reminded that other people can choose different pronouns.

That's nothing new. The vast majority of far-right reactionaries know exactly zero trans people. They're getting upset because a stranger, who exists entirely in their imagination, may have an opinion about their own body that the far-right have not approved as "okay to have".

Of course, there's probably deeper reasons that they won't say out loud. What if they accidentally find a "man" attractive? What if they have to treat a casual acquaintance with basic human decency?

The horror.

And are these "progressives" in the room now? No, they're clearly not. Nobody is attacking him and he's not even being downvoted.

He wrote the wall of text because he has the self awareness to know that the comment he is writing is functionally identical to what a far-right reactionary "hiding their power level" would write.

She supported him when she thought he was a malignant narcissist who could give her what she wanted.

She doesn't support him now she knows he a malignant narcissist who can't.

If a new malignant narcissist comes along promising to make society more bigoted, she'll support them too.

If even if I were that, I'd still have the moral high ground over someone who insists the deaths of hundreds of innocent people is just the price society has to pay for their hobby.

Because do you know what's far more offensive than someone "being rude" on the internet? Children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner.

So your answer to "What if we took your guns away?" is "Because guns in America are used defensively"?

Lie better.

It's not going to change as long as the only people to vote for are "red neoliberals" or "blue neoliberals".

Are you basing those numbers on the study that just asked gun owners about "defensive gun use" without any form of validation whatsoever?

Regardless, your talking point had nothing to do with anything I posted, you clearly just wanted to say it. Are you worried I might have hurt your guns feelings?

70% of mass shooters are legal gun owners. Of the remaining, most are children who took the unsecured firearm of a family member.

The pro-gun community has spent 20 years insisting that they (and they alone) have the answers yet the problem continues to spiral further out of control. The number of guns used in crimes that were bought through "gun show loopholes" is on the rise, but the pro-gun community still opposes background checks for private sales.

So regurgitate all the gun lobby talking points you want because your word is worthless.

You've built a idea of how murder works entirely in your imagination.

Yeah sounds good. How about we take your guns now and when you've finished building all of that, you can have them back?

After all, your post is clearly admitting that American society isn't fit for the near indiscriminate sale of guns to citizens.

Fun little exercise for anyone clicking that link: Sort by highest homicide rate and scroll down until you hit "United States", counting the number of countries along the way that you'd be comfortable moving to and would expect to have a reasonably comparable quality of life to the USA.

Was the number zero? Probably, because most of those countries are not doing well. Wars, widespread poverty, corruption, exploitation, poor educational and medical outcomes.

I'm sure plenty of them are full of amazing people and cultures and would be great for a holiday, but they're not exactly nipping at the USAs heels when it comes to GDP.

Anyway, we've identified all the countries that are worse, what about the ones that are better? Keep scrolling down past the USA, still looking for that country you'd actually want to live in.

Takes a while huh? You'd think with all the promises the pro-gun people make and comparative wealth of America, it would be firmly in the #1 spot.

Ironically, you highlight the problem is violence and the drives to it over the firearms.

Nobody is claiming that gun control will stop all violence. But the existence of violence doesn't obligate us to provide quick, easy access to the means to escalate violence and maximise damage, even to people with a long history of red flags.

That person doesn't, and I was talking to that person.

They know exactly what they're doing.

They've been collecting metrics for months and plugging them into spreadsheets to figure out exactly how profitable this will be, just waiting for the right moment to pull the trigger.

They knew it would be incredibly unpopular. They knew it would likely kill the company one day.

But the spreadsheet doesn't care about any of that so neither do they. They sold off stocks then made the announcement.

When the changes go live, they'll squeeze everything they can out of successful projects, who will be left in a position of "losing 50% to Unity is better than losing 100% from pulling the game".

They'll stuff their pockets with us much of that money as they can and when the spreadsheet tells them to, they'll pull the plug and strip the company for parts.

It was the best thing for them and that was all that mattered.

I'm not sure if anyone at Unity ever accused the gamers, we all just jumped to the conclusion because that's exactly the kind of thing the scene would do.

I'm pretty sure back when I made games, it wasn't Unity employees sending me unhinged tantrums because a number was changed from an 11 to a 12.