TheGalacticVoid @ TheGalacticVoid @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

604

Joined

2 yr. ago

I guess barely anyone did

Gym going made me uncontrollably hyper. Beat Saber has worked wonders.

SuYu is a way better name given why it was created in the first place.

While I don't think what you said is wrong (though I have some semantic disagreements; I don't think men are privileged but do think that women are disprivileged), I don't think it's that relevant. Power dynamics are far more complex than what you're describing. While you can conclude that women on average have less power than men on average, that doesn't mean there aren't a huge amount of men subordinate to other men, women subordinate to other women, or men subordinate to women. In all of those cases, some higher figure is abusing their power, whether it's by SA, violence, manipulation, or especially not holding someone else accountable.

The way I see it is that by making blanket statements implying that men are the problem, you're distracting yourself from the root problem while alienating a good chunk of people who would support your cause, including male SA victims. It (anecdotally) seems like the pool of vocal SA victims is in actuality limited to just women who have been assaulted by a man. That division seems unnecessary. It's the same way of thinking that alienates women who have Autism or adults who have ADHD; people only talk about the biggest or most substantial sub-group rather than the group as a whole.

Those are not the views of the people who represent them, nor does it routinely turn up in dicussions about gun control.

By that logic, regardless of what I do, say, or believe, because my president represents me, I support the conflict in Gaza. Furthermore, since my governor actively takes part in NRA conventions, I wholeheartedly support the NRA. Considering that individual people don't get to freely choose their representatives or especially the leaders of lobbying groups, this point is unfair.

If guns actually delivered on this promise, America wouldn't have "high crime areas" in the first place. It would be the safest country in the world by a huge margin.

I'm strictly talking about someone's right to use a gun to stop a criminal in or around their home, which isn't a population-scale thing. 1 responsible gun owner in a neighborhood of 50 houses doesn't protect all 50 houses. Also, many of these high-crime places make it incredibly difficult for responsible people to get a gun legally while other US states make it too easy for irresponsible/malicious people to get them.

America's gun laws help far more criminals than they dissuade. Even in the rare cases where a criminal can't just buy a gun from any store that sells them, "responsible gun owners" arm hundreds of thousands of criminals every year with their poorly secured firearms.

If we're talking about the US as a whole, I definitely agree. I'd however argue that those who don't lock up their firearms properly aren't responsible owners, even if they have good intentions. In my ideal world, guns should be easy to get once in a while for people who pass rigorous training. Engineers and medical professionals need their licenses to be maintained because they are often making decisions that make the difference between life and death. Gun ownership needs to be treated similarly.

If they don't like being lumped in with lobbyists, reactionaries and idiots, they can take it up with them because I'm not going to include a 5 page "not all gun owners" disclaimer at the top of every post so that nobody gets their feelings hurt. This shit is killing people for fucks sake.

Reasoning like this is why I freaking hate modern discourse. Treating all gun owners like this isn't effective messaging because it's such a binary way of viewing peoples' beliefs. It's essentially like an elementary school teacher punishing the entire class because one student was misbehaving. If your goal is to root out the bad apples, you need to convince the good ones to get rid of the bad ones and work with you. Saying "if you own a gun, you have blood on your hands" is much different from saying "look, I get your concerns, so let's both get what we want." The latter is what led to small policy changes in the federal government. The former more binary way of thinking is what causes gridlock in Congress and what caused Uvalde.

I'm guilty of this because I genuinely don't see why "not all men" is bad. As an example, I see a concerning amount of women who emotionally abuse their husbands or boyfriends publicly in subtle ways, but there isn't a huge culture around avoiding all women. As a dude, saying that "not all men" is negative doesn't seem that different from saying "I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm not sexist, but..." because the conversation never seems to be about men with red flags or the people in power who don't do anything when SA is reported.

What am I missing or not getting?

In my experience, this has been more of a Reddit thing than a Lemmy thing.

Not every gun owner is a POS like you say they are. A decent chunk of gun owners would be willing to give up their weapons if it legitimately helped society substantially. There's also legitimate reasons to have a gun if you have a home in a high-crime area or are otherwise a target. Why would you lump those groups in with NRA lobbyists?

Now we can do it to screw with the future generation

No, the more freedom America has, the more value American currency has. Our currency would be backed by freedom and eagle sounds, not the other way around.

Freedom.

3 figures for you:

1000/1000 for $0 85/20 for $70 350/25 for $35 with a data cap.

All 3 are physical connections in the same US state.

I was moreso pointing to the fact that it wasn't discovered until after 1700, not the fact that it could have been explained to someone in 1700. It's still wild how we don't know why it happens.

What's electricity?

How long did this take you wtf

Afaik your kids (under 18) are US citizens if you yourself are a citizen.

I don't see why that distinction matters. The US has documentation saying OP was born in the US. That alone is enough to say he's a citizen.

IMO the joke isn't terribly offensive, just unfunny. There are incredibly good jokes that would be way more offensive when taken literally. Look up the SNL joke swaps if you're curious.

I don't agree nor disagree. Yes, dudes wouldn't use those words, but they would say something equally as vile. "Kill him" also isn't meant to be taken literally.