daltotron @ daltotron @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

528

Joined

2 yr. ago

if you're chasing panache, I would probably just like, do some light anti-corporate government funded terrorism, which the government has, for some reason, been somewhat reluctant to fund, relative to your regular right wing domestic wedge issue diet fascist terrorism. Can't imagine why. But that could have some serious flash. Oh no! Somebody dumped 5 metric tons of manure right at google headquarters! Stuff like that, that could have some flash, some sizzle. And, blam, seems like we have a very desperate population of homeless people who are on dire straits and have very little left to lose, who could accomplish these tasks! What joy!

But yeah I dunno if there's a great flashy way to like. Solve homelessness.

Some people think that Lemmy should be more like 4chan. Downvotes are Life and all that.

wdym? 4chan infamously doesn't have a ratings system, things are posted chronologically, and the currency is how many triggered idiots you can get to respond to your bait posts, rather than upvotes or downvotes. Which is why the platform tends to be edgy, and contrarian, and full of attention begging half-wits. Rather than devolving into echo chambers, and people posting like 10 inside baseball lowest common denominator references to a TV show's joke, where they just play out a bit verbatim, like every fucking reddit, or reddit imitator.

this is a dumb solution, the aircraft carrier thing, but the spirit of a US military intervention in order to build housing, is, I'm pretty sure, totally within biden's jurisdiction, and would be a pretty good solution to the problem.

nooo but our heckin epic presidenterino! that's MY president! he's really sticking it to the woke libs, or, no, I mean the nazi chuds! he's really sticking it to them! he's such a le ebin troll, guys! he's a master baiter! he posted this personally for our salvation! I'm sure this will help his poll numbers! don't forget to vote for our heckin ebin president now guys!

I have brain worms. the situation is not looking good. the libs are just as broken as the chuds. maybe even more, in certain respects. it's all about respectability politics and proper order, until the president, personally, at the age of 81, posts a meme, definitely him and not some intern. then it's time to shit on the "other side", even though they all agree on the most basic premises, and just not on what level of racist they should be.

I mean, you really think that the 81 year old president of the united states, is terminally online enough to know about a niche meme, related to him, called "shadow brandon", and is also terminally online enough to want to turn around and post it on twitter?

I dunno, sometimes people want, say, hormones to transition, but can't get them from a doctor. Hormone blockers, stuff like that, so it's kind of not entirely useless. Weed isn't legal in lots of places still either, and if your government sucks, it's always good for buying [redacted], and stuff like that, but then you're probably just getting entrapped by feds, so that's not always a great situation.

I'm not going to say that the idea itself is entirely without merit, but I do think it kind of got corrupted almost immediately after it was conceived, because silicon valley keeps wanting to attract venture capital to fund whatever completely unprofitable idea, before it gets shelled out and zombified for short term profits, and apparently the best way to make any money in capitalism is basically just with loaded gambling and this is a great method to enable that. It's a pretty good minor analogue for what capitalism does generally, but also what it specifically did to a lot of this techno-libertarianism idealism that was spouting out almost constantly form the late 80's until, I wanna say like, around the 2010's, is when it maybe stopped being such a thing.

This is sort of like the same phenomena of the politically correct (not in the PC sense but in the sense of like, what is and isn't like, correct in the realm of political discourse. Like definitions of semantics and shit) definition of liberalism that leftists have to kind of churn through and give, every time someone says liberals and leftists are the same thing, and then it's explained in some sort of hackneyed way usually that "on the global scale of leftism actually you're wrong sweetie", when realistically the better way to describe it is that liberalism isn't necessarily left or right wing because it's kind of a mercenary ideology that leaves up a free market which may either be left or right wing, depending on circumstance.

And then everyone gets confused by that distinction between liberalism and leftism, and just go back to using the words how they were using them to begin with, and calling people libtards, despite themselves wanting a free market more than their opposition (usually). So what I mean to say is that your definition is technically correct by all given definitions, and is the only one that makes sense, right, but, despite that, when most people refer to libertarians, they're referring to this exact type of twat who drives a yuge truck, is generally obsessed with firearms, may or may not be a pedophile who doesn't like the age of consent, may or may not be an austerity hawk, and believes in the NAP as some sort of holy preventative doctrine that you can build a society on. Hackneyed, conservative-flavored anarchism, basically. That strain of conservatism where they actually believed Reagan when he said the enemy was the government. That's what people mean when they say someone's a libertarian, and it's usually also what people mean when they self-define as a libertarian.

It's not a technically correct or logically coherent definition, but it's the one that's worked it's way into common cultural parlance.

Nah, I meant your comment for sure. I'd also, you know. trolling isn't a great uhhhh use of the space on the website, I would say. Violation of rule 4 and all that. Also, not a particularly good excuse for having badly formatted content. Whenever I troll, I make sure I'm doing it with long paragraphs on paragraphs of text, to really be thorough. If you were critiquing my formatting, you'd probably be better off critiquing the disjointed and staccato nature of the comment itself. It has three relatively discontinuous parts, I'd say the two latter parts are somewhat superfluous, is the comment itself really worth it, apparently not, etc. I'm effectively saying that your critiques are kind of surface level.

I'd also submit that you and the other guy have had the same exact critique of my comments, which is funny. I'd also say that both of your critiques are kind of moot, since my comments are only like, a line or two at most, and both of you seemed to understand them perfectly well and without flaw. Capitalization is only really necessary when you're seeking to distinguish one sentence from another in a larger paragraph of body of text. If anyone should be throwing that by the wayside, it should be the both of you, since you're both so keen on line-breaking after every sentence.

If your trolling was being graded, which it is, it would be getting a D, for more reasons than just the formatting. I'm gonna also scribble down one of those notes in big red capital letters that says "APPLY YOURSELF" at the top of the page.

I mean if you just want something for hunting or plinking, I feel like any classic bolt action rifle would probably be fine, no? The reasoning being that it's a relatively low risk gun generally, if someone else decides to steal it, compared to like, a tricked out ar-15, and it's also much cheaper than that, as well. Depending on what you're wanting to hunt, you could have an air gun, or a much smaller caliber, as well, and improve the cost and relative safety. If you're looking for hiding and hunting guns, then something that you can take down might be a good call, and then you could store the two halves in different places.

I dunno, I'm assuming you're wanting to hide your guns from people who might steal them, rather than like, your kids, or friends, or some sort of accidental discharge situation, cause if that was the case, I would probably just recommend one of those trigger locks that everyone tends to poo-poo on, which would pretty easily prevent any accidental idiocy as far as other people are concerned, but not not prevent a committed criminal from breaking through it, and they might steal it pretty easily as well. I guess it doesn't matter what you end up getting as much, but if you're really concerned, you could put a bike lock through the magwell, and out of the chamber, and then through some harder piece of your car, so nobody can get it out unless they're bringing a hacksaw, or unless they're a great lockpick. I would recommend anything you might get with a tubular lock, those are pretty hard to open, kind of overkill.

I think most gun deaths tend to be handguns, and tend to be suicides, which would probably be people who would still be allowed to have a firearm in this circumstance, though I can see the insurance dissuading that in the case of people who are killing themselves on impulse (though I would think a wait period would be equally as effective, is already implemented in some places, doesn't financially discriminate, and neither legislation nor really any legislation we have actually would flag someone as being at risk if they wanted to kill themselves, except for the kind of pathetic mental health check form).

The other large category of gun deaths tend to be what is defined as "organized crime", which tends to stem from a couple different convergent factors. High value property, in drugs, that exists outside the legal system but still must be protected, lack of real social safety nets, large amounts of poverty, redlining, etc. . Generally though these people aren't like, legally acquiring their firearms anyways. What they are doing, and what is a real concern, is them acquiring firearms from legal gun owners, as the US has quite a lot of guns and not a lot of limitations or protection on them. The cartels can get a bunch of fourth generation military surplus used up garbage at an expensive black market price, or they can just rob like one gun nut, shave off a sear, and bing bang boom you have a spiffy new gun, pretty easily. I don't have a great solution to that problem, but in any case you could tackle that issue from the other side by just providing social safety nets, legalizing drugs, trying to lower housing prices, shit like that.

The stand out category in everyone's mind tends to be "mass shootings", or, lone wolf, usually stochastic, terrorism, which is kind of an interesting hot button political issue. By any analysis, though, it tends not to be a huge issue in terms of raw deaths, though, I would like to see some sort of crackdown on it happen, but you would probably need some even-handed, discriminating approach to that, or, again, better flags for mental illness, rather than a large encompassing law. Also getting a shoutout is unjustifiable police shootings but I also don't have a great solution beyond that outside of abolishing police, and getting rid of this stupid fucking patent that axon has on the taser.

In any case basically, you are correct, this law's gonna do jack shit.

I would love to have a firearm with smart safety features like a fingerprint scanner, but the anti-gun crowd prevents them from being developed because they pushed for laws that would outlaw all guns that don’t have the features once they become available on any gun. The result was every gun manufacturer instantly stopped developing the tech to keep their entire portfolios from being banned.

I think the biofire gun might conform to the criteria that you're looking for, but it strikes me more as a "nightstand" gun than maybe something you might want to carry around, and I dunno what you really want your gun for.

this is also terribly formatted holy shit the brainrot is contagious

you know, I gotta say, this is the worst formatted comment that I've come across on this whole website, I think, and I say that as someone with a great history of writing meandering and poorly formatted comments. going line by line through someone else's argument is extremely tedious and so is spacing out almost every single line of your argument. the thickest it ever gets is two lines at a time. christ.

It kind of sucks infrastructurally for sure. I dunno. I've had the thought that at least if I could go over and harvest some of it then that might at least make it a little less stomach-churning, ironically, but that's kind of my weird instinct.

I don't even come to a conclusion in the thing itself, but the tl;dr is basically just that this is all political farce, political theater, and the nature of the opposition's control is too like. granular, too atomized, to be able to co-ordinate a large scale war. What we see instead are discrete "events", discrete attacks, civil unrest which is corralled and channeled towards political ends by political powers. That's what we see, we don't see like, large scale organized institutional conflict, because the institutions are (mostly) all on the same side.

This strikes me as correct, it's kind of more complicated than just the blanket statement of "oh, everyone will have too calloused of a mind to believe anything ever again". People will just try to intuit truth from surrounding context in a vacuum, much like how they do with our current every day reality where I'm really just a brain in a vat or whatever.

well to be fair, there is no magazine in the gun

okay no but seriously why do people think this is gonna happen? is the media like, trying to make this a thing? fetch isn't going to be a thing, stop trying to make it a thing.

but for real like I'm pretty sure 90% of the national guard and reserve are just in the military for free college tuition at this point, so like what's the big idea here? those guys are not fighting a war, I'm telling you straight up.

From what I've heard, the supreme court decision was mostly about the feds having access to the border, and the ability to cut down the razor wire, rather than any specific opposition to the razor wire existing in and of itself. I would wager this whole deal is mostly just a kind of political play, to try and egg biden into doing something stupid, while simultaneously keeping up the appearance that everyone at the head of these states is doing something dangerous, anti-institutional, and counter-cultural, even though they're all kind of inherently unable to do anything along those lines just as a matter of their positions.

Everybody's correct when they say that the political divides in this country are less clear-cut, but I also don't think that the radicalization that we've seen, as a matter of perspective from being in online space, necessarily reflects reality. I think if you look at most people, most people want social security of some kind, and want healthcare of some kind, and want drug legalization of some kind, and want us to stop fighting wars in some form. Those are all kind of generalities, because the specific mechanism by which people want those things achieved differs from person to person. It's very fractured as a matter of course, as a matter of how our political system and society is set up, and the ruling class has taken advantage of this to enact a divide and conquer strategy, where they can selectively promote whatever ideological positions benefit them the most, and cordon everyone off into a relatively small set of solutions over which they have a high amount of control. Rather than, you know, what a good democracy might do, which is come to a compromise solution, that everyone but the most extreme propagandized radicals might be kind of okay with. There is a reason why lots of conservatives like communism, as long as you use the right words. Both parties attempt to be mostly "populist" parties. This is all kind of obvious, right, but people understate the degree to which it's a deliberate thing, and the overstate the degree to which it's been successful, you know, which isn't surprising, because, again, serves the interests of the powerful. People aren't, broadly, morons, people have realized that this is all the case. That's mostly what the "radicalization" that you've seen online has been, people just realizing that they hate these shitass solutions that aren't really compromise solutions. See how everyone is cripplingly disappointed with the democratic party, and also how, likewise, conservatives are consistently disappointed with their own party, as well, and for many of the same reasons, barring the extreme radicals.

Most people are focused on how the internet divides people into radicalized swaths and conspiracy theorists, which is true, but even the mainstream monopolized internet is kind of a good tool for mass mobilization. See the occupy movement and the arab spring for older examples, for more recent examples, maybe the george floyd protests, or the french retirement protests. The only risk of these is kind of that they more easily get co-opted as a result of their visibility, i.e. "defund the police" gets turned into an argument for "fund the police". If you were an asshole, you could cite charlottesville, or jan 6th, for examples of internet mobilization, but those are relatively smaller scales of things, compared to the others, which were more popular, they just got disproportionate media attention relative to their size, and had disproportionate political effects.

I think if we're looking at the true, extreme political radicals, we're seeing them come about as a result of a kind of well-oiled engine. I'm not gonna say that this is an institutional kind of thing, and it's maybe more of a third level effect of active decisions, but it's still something that, nonetheless, has been deliberately constructed. 4chan is funded by a japanese toy company and a hands off japanese internet techbro, and is administrated by some former american military freak who's deliberately organized the site. The more radical offshoots, that use the same source code, tend to be funded by oil money, and political action committees, but through second-level effects, where they fund some small level conservative actor, and then they prop up the space. Which churns out some radical terrorists that are capable of your more fucked up bombings, and shootings, and controlled and coordinated protests. And then you kind of get military people at almost every level of this, in lower numbers, who act to control the space.

I dunno what I mean to extrapolate from all of this, but yeah. There's probably not going to be a civil war.

I will say this is an omega cringe take though, tl;dr is a pretty valid way to request someone else chew your food for you when you don't wanna do jawzrsize, and your political extrapolations from that are completely irrelevant. The person who's left an unpoliticized single four letter acronym might be of any political persuasion, you're hallucinating shit.

Also the

Choosing to be ignorant isn't the flex you think it is.

doesn't make any sense. The acronym is a request for more information. It's someone asking to no longer be ignorant. Why did you decide to go goono mode with this comment?