PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

505

Joined

2 yr. ago

The speed you went from "let's kill fascists" to "let's run away from a fight on the internet" was genuinely funny.

Actual people are in actual danger and all you can offer is bullshit bravado, puffing your chest out and pretending you'd kill people.

It's worse than doing nothing.

"He meant to die of a stroke. He sacrificed himself to show the world just what the Jewish new world order is capable of, just like Jesus did. They have weapons they can use to kill any elderly, morbidly obese men they want. If we don't stop them by being super transphobic, you could be next"

So when will we be seeing you on the news?

K

Yes, I read it because it was much shorter. I'm having none of the feelings you're projecting on me so once again, your whole "I see right through you" schtick isn't landing.

"The free market can fix it" is just another neoliberal lie, pushed precisely because it doesn't work. Rather than holding corporations accountable, it blames the population instead.

The reality is that boycotting businesses isn't always an option and when it is, it's usually a luxury. Very few products are domestically and/or ethically produced and when they are, they're extremely expensive, especially for people being fucked out of every cent by their bosses, landlords and utilities.

It's why the most hated companies in the world continue to bring in record profits.

Regulations are the real answer, which is why neoliberals oppose them.

He won't and may already be functionally dead. The chance to save any of these people evaporated a long time ago. It was deemed "not profitable".

They don't care if the AI produced is useful, they just want to milk as much money from their content as they can.

The API changes were almost certainly just the groundwork for this and I called it at the time. The ridiculous pricing model for API access is because it's aimed at the hottest tech companies, not third party app developers.

The enshittification continues because it's what neoliberalism demands. They'll sell your content and the data they have about you and still show you ads, because that's the most profitable. Ethics and product quality don't even enter into it.

Looks like your understanding of what I know is about as deep as your understanding of what I said.

Didn't read. It'll just be you doing your weird "mass shootings stopped per capita" thing again.

Sure, we can do yet another lap.

ChatGPT, trained on every piece of written content it could scrape and notorious for giving the most generic answers to every question doesn't seem to have any issue with my phrasing, nor does it demand I turn it into some bizarre "effectiveness per capita" thing.

Of course, you did. I explained that "effectiveness" didn't matter, because we'd be trading "3% of mass shooting were slightly less bad" for "there are half as many mass shootings", so "who gives a fuck [which group is more effective] ".

And fuck me sideways, it looks like if you phrase it more politely, that usage is common enough to turn up as the second definition.

So I'm done going in circles. You're either autistic and struggling with language and continuing is functionally just bullying someone for being neurodivergent or you're a liar, grasping at straws.

And to which I immediately pointed out why it doesn't actually support your claim that they had a "lower success rate" but only that it happened more often one way

Sounds like you're going to have to prove that for each of these shootings, it wasn't the case that every single person there had a gun on them, otherwise it would be completely unfair on unarmed civilians.

At the very best, you've immediately latched on to semantics to twist "which groups more often stop a mass shooter" into "is someone more likely to stop a mass shooting if they have a gun".

" I asked, after you questioned why anyone would give a fuck about the claim you made, why you brought it up in the first place.

Thanks for clarifying that you absolutely did misinterpret exactly the part you were insisting you didn't misinterpret. I was asking who gives a fuck about which group "more effective".

So, wait. . .it's my fault you made a BS claim you can't back up, despite the fact that you made the comment before I ever even posted in the thread?

You mean the one I immediately backed up, that you could have fact checked yourself in seconds? Because "citizens with guns have stopped fewer mass shootings than unarmed civilians" is objectively true.

And I was posting "apologism" despite explicitly saying I want it to be true.

So? It's the internet. People lie about who they are and what they think all the time, especially among the far-right. I'm not obligated to politely believe you.

And to put it bluntly, I don't.

Your "do you have the stats" sounded like sealioning and when I gave you the benefit of the doubt and answered, your entire comment focused on trying to claw back a win for gun owners.

Now suddenly it's a "BS fact", despite still being objectively true. Are you sure you haven't let your true feelings get involved?

At no point did you use the phrase "you shouldn't give a fuck." Another amazing thing by me misinterpreting something you didn't even say. Man, I'm even outdoing myself today.

I also didn't use the phrase "I don't give a fuck", but that didn't stop you.

That's just not true

They come from a magical gun fairy that leaves handguns under the pillows of good little gang members.

I personally have a gun, but if I walked out into my neighborhood and tried to get a gun from somewhere else, I'd have no idea how to

This is a level of pro-gun idiocy I've genuinely never seen before. You don't know where to get an illegal firearm so everything is fine?

it takes guns away from law-abiding citizens

Like the Ulvade shooter was 30 minutes before he killed someone. Sure, he had a history of sending death and rape threats and earned the nickname "school shooter" for abusing a dead cat, but here you are claiming "there is nothing wrong with our gun laws", so I guess that's the kind of person you're cool selling semi-automatic weapons to.

It's not an isolated case either. Around 80% of mass shooters were "law abiding gun owners", until they weren't.

We already have a police brutality problem.

Which has been allowed to grow unchecked because they know "I thought he had a gun" are the magic words that let then execute people on the street.

The fact that people want to give the police even more violent power over citizens is wild to me.

So guns are the solution to police brutality and you've openly admitted to having a gun. So how many police have you shot? Please share with us the exact scenario where you would draw your gun on a police officer and fire.

I don't know, shooting an unarmed teenager in the head and claiming you were scared makes it sound like homicide is the point for some people.

Because you posted apologism using exactly that phrasing. You've also misinterpreted "You shouldn't give a fuck" as meaning "I don't give a fuck".

Not only is it more complicated, it doesn't even matter.

Around 80% of mass shooters bought the guns legally. Of the 20% remaining, the majority are teenagers who used their parent's legally owned firearm.

Criminals in America have better access to firearms than they do in anywhere else in the world, with many of the guns in South America being originally purchased from a store in the United States.

This has resulted in a homicide rate that is far higher than it should be. Sort this list by homicide rate and take note of just how far before and after "United States" you have to scroll before finding a country you would consider "wealthy and stable".

As compensation for that, we're told things like "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". But the "good guys" have been given all the guns they want and they stop exactly fuck all. It's not even close to the number of shootings they enable.

So who gives a fuck how "effective" they are on paper? In the real world, police and unarmed civilians stop more mass shooters and it doesn't require arming the mass shooters in the first place.

Gun control isn't about curing violence and it never has been. Even 50 years of your social reforms won't cure violence. Gun control is about limiting the damage that violent people are able to do.

To put it bluntly, your views are nothing more than feigned compassion.

I have no idea how you convince yourself that you're the good guy for advocating "I wish there were less violent people but until then, I want to ensure they always have cheap, accessible tools that are able to execute one person every few seconds, even after being charged with domestic abuse or under extreme mental distress".

It's not a "superficial action". It's a measurable, proven harm reduction strategy that could start saving lives the very day it went into effect. It's deeply reprehensible to claim that's a trivial thing, just because you don't think the lives it saves will ever be ones you value.

And of course the cherry on top of all of these dogshit views is that if you're a gun owner, you're financially supporting Republican efforts to block exactly the reforms you're alluding to.

Often merely showing a holstered firearm will cause the bad guy to leave quickly because no one wants to get shot.

They can't be too concerned since the crime rate in America is functionally identical to countries with gun control (except there is much more murder).

The rest of your comment just undermines the gun laws you're trying to defend, functionally claiming "We need to keep selling guns to the public to keep them safe from the people we've sold guns to, but only if they can't run away or hide, even if they have a gun or a team of people with guns".

It was a while back, so i can't remember the caveats (if any). It may have been for that year or something. A quick dig looks like it holds up though.

This media investigation, aided by Texas State University shows the stats.

According to the data, citizens stopped shooters 50 times in the 316 attacks. But in only 10 out of those 50 incidents did citizens actually stop the shooter by using a gun. The other 40 times, it was with their hands or another weapon.

It also briefly touches on the trauma when an actual good person kills someone.

“I don’t feel like I killed a human,” says Wilson. “I killed an evil and that’s how I’m coping with the situation.”

“The individual did not make any attempt to get up because of his head wound. He didn’t make any… it was just quivering and that was it.”

He is actively forcing himself to not see the shooter as a person and it's clear the image of the person he killed twitching on the ground will haunt him forever.

The pro-gun crowd didn't save that man, they sold him and everybody else in that church out. They armed the mass shooter then used Wilson as propaganda, claiming his trauma is actually the gold standard for dealing with gun violence and that teachers and targeted minorities should be enthusiastically following suit.

I'm sure the fact that it would preserve or increase the profits of a lobby group that gives $16 million a year to Republicans is purely coincidence.

After all, if an industry was causing massive social harm, they'd immediately cease operation for the public good, not suppress research and statistics about how many people they'd killled while astroturfing and hiring politicians as shills.