TheSanSabaSongbird @ TheSanSabaSongbird @lemdro.id

Posts

0

Comments

625

Joined

2 yr. ago

And yet, things like universal background checks and red flag laws poll at something like 80 percent support nationally. Most people are perfectly OK with changing the status quo on gun ownership. The problem is that there is a very determined and highly vocal minority that immediately leaps to "they're coming for our guns!" any time any kind of widely-supoorted common sense gun control measures are even mentioned. The result is that we can't even have a conversation about what said measures should look like so everyone continues to cling to their absolutist positions in ignorance and fear. This is by design and we are suckers for allowing ourselves to be played like this. It's pure manipulation on the part of political opportunists.

Hopefully we are able to entertain several different ideas in our minds at once. You make a valid point, but I think the comment above you is spot on as well and in fact I welcome it as being a little more well thought out than the cheap and superficial sloganeering that's so typical on Lemmy.

True, but Chromebooks are a type of Linux as well.

No, it's a right because it was deemed necessary to the security of a free state. But the individual right to bear arms was meant to be as part of a "well-regulated" militia, not simply as "everyone can have whatever weapon they want."

Even our current very loose and I would argue inaccurate interpretation of the 2nd does not contemplate the idea that private citizens should be allowed to own tanks or heavy machine guns or SAMs without a ton of oversight.

And of course none of this touches on the elephant in the room which is the rather obvious fact that if we take originalism seriously, then we have to concede that Madison's conception of the 2nd as being "necessary to the security of a free state," no longer applies since he was specifically concerned with large-scale civil insurrections such as Shay's Rebellion or slave uprisings, and we know very well that militias can play no role in putting down such incidents in a modern context, and to the contrary, generally only serve to exacerbate tensions and escalate violence.

Except that there are other restrictions and as has already been pointed out, you still can't own any weapon you want. This fact is something you should be admitting and grappling with. You can't simply ignore it, as you seem to want to do. It may be that there's an intellectually coherent way around it, but if so I have yet to see you or anyone else, let alone the SCOTUS, lay it out.

This intellectual inconsistency is, I would argue, a direct result of the fact that all of the decisions you mention above are based on a faulty reading of the 2nd.

I don't get it either. WTF?

Also, one idea is that UBI would give people the financial space to pursue their own interests which in turn could easily --at least in some cases-- be turned into productive businesses of their own.

Plenty of talk about Georgia being purple though too.

Luckily Desantis is no Trump. I will die before I'm able to wrap my head around what his followers see in him, but for whatever reason he pretty much really can do whatever he wants with zero repercussions. Desantis just doesn't have that.

Again, I will never understand it.

It would also be pretty cool if Lemmy wasn't overrun by dipshit edgelord teenagers. I've about had it with the signal-to-noise ratio around here, just not sure where else to go for wholesome timewasting.

The thing that was nice about Reddit is that as long as you stayed away from the big subs, it was pretty easy to find informed and intelligent discussion. Not so on Lemmy, unless I'm just doing it wrong, which is definitely possible.

That's fair. My mom passed away last year which just means that you're even that much more correct.

That said, I'm in my 50s so both my parents are dead which is pretty regular at my age.

I'm still getting used to not having parents, but at my age it's to be expected and probably easier than it would be were I younger.

Nope. Never. Every time people are easily able to figure it out in a matter of seconds.

In the grand scale of things it's probably one of the least important things I can think of.

Fun fact; something like 60 percent of all Israelis are Mizrahi Jews from across the Middle East. Both in terms of their physical appearance and their material culture they have far more in common with Arabs than they do with white Europeans. Calling them "white" really doesn't hold much water.

Where's your causality? You're basically arguing that since B happened at the same time as A, therefore B happened because of A, which may be true, but can't simply be assumed.

The country is far more polarized than it has been since the 1850s and 60s. This is an objective fact.

Same with feet and inches for distance.

Because they're teenagers. In the real world nobody actually gives a fuck. Call me weird, but the different formats have never caused me a single instant of confusion in my entire life.

The problem is that speaking different languages is not even remotely the same thing as knowing anything about linguistics. People have no idea of how little they actually know about the use of language.

Again, the difficulty of language acquisition is determined by how similar the new language you are trying to learn is to the languages you already speak. There isn't any kind of objective measurement of language acquisition difficulty.

For whatever reason people are often very resistant to this fact, but just speaking several languages fluently doesn't mean you actually know shit about linguistics, and this is a very well-established concept.

So a native Mandarin speaker would probably find English and German equally difficult to acquire because they are both so unlike their own language.

Fun fact about English; Old English was even more grammatically complex than modern German but it got stripped down over the years and now accomplishes through syntax much of what it used to do with grammar.

There are also a couple of very odd qualities to English that may have come from the Celtic languages, but the idea is still pretty controversial.

Languages are "easier" or more "difficult" based on how similar they are to your native language. There isn't some objective measure of difficulty across languages.