Objectively intelligent.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Here's where a good editor would have been useful:



New York Magazine

Second degree? He ninjaed up and then hacked the shit out of the dude. What the hell is first degree in New York?

I feel horrible for his sister.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Here's where a good editor would have been useful:



New York Magazine

Maybe the editor made the word choice.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Chad Wolf's press conference is surreal. It's like he wants to be a villain out of Marvel. Did he get some bad testosterone that's really fucking (Hi Hank!) with his mind?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure what Less is saying, but if you are those feds, maybe you're choosing not to grab the people who look like they might start shooting. Open carry has a deterrent effect.

Maybe when the US has started resembling 1976 Argentina and its disappearances, people will wish they: (1) had the right to bear arms; and (2) we recognized a version of "stand your ground" as in John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900). but which most states have eviscerated. Or, in other words, "when in the course of human events ..."

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Second degree? He ninjaed up and then hacked the shit out of the dude. What the hell is first degree in New York?

I feel horrible for his sister.

To get all law technical on you, do they know when he julienned him? Because if he was already dead, it might constitute a separate crime of desecration of a corpse, but would be irrelevant to which murder charge is appropriate.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Maybe when the US has started resembling 1976 Argentina and its disappearances, people will wish they: (1) had the right to bear arms; and (2) we recognized a version of "stand your ground" as in John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900). but which most states have eviscerated. Or, in other words, "when in the course of human events ..."

The US has >120 civilian guns for every 100 people. How many more do you think would be enough to do the trick?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The US has >120 civilian guns for every 100 people. How many more do you think would be enough to do the trick?

Just one. The one that a person used to think was anathema, but now changes their mind to think "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist." or "when in the course of human events ..."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Just one. The one that a person used to think was anathema, but now changes their mind to think "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist." or "when in the course of human events ..."

You don’t need a gun to speak. Especially if the group speaking is large enough.

As usual, this crowd can’t think past the second step. They’ve got enough goons to push around 100 protesters. What will they do when it’s 100k?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am following this closely. I have family and a lot of friends in Oregon, and Portland in particular. But it should make (maybe one person, maybe) reconsider em's views on the Second Amendment. And, also, maybe reconsider one's view on "stand your ground" when presented by a bunch of guys in camoflage jumping out of an unmarked van.

Made me reconsider such that I am looking to buy AK47s on line.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Maybe when the US has started resembling 1976 Argentina and its disappearances, people will wish they: (1) had the right to bear arms; and (2) we recognized a version of "stand your ground" as in John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529 (1900). but which most states have eviscerated. Or, in other words, "when in the course of human events ..."

This is silly, we have the right to bear arms. And stand your ground is more often used as an excuse than a real defense - remember Trayvon Martin?

If they're grabbing people off the street, and you're a target, I'd suggest running for the hills, not sticking around and arming yourself. Because they're going to grab you when you can't take cover, and you may (may) get off a round or two before you get taken out, or a little burst if you have a semi, but you'll get taken out. Work on your hunting and trapping skills, they're more likely to be useful if you're worrying about getting disappeared.

If you are going to arm yourself, get some drones and travel in packs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure what "the sentiment of the letter" is, so let's be more concrete.

:
What Are You Fighting About?

Free speech defenders cast their argument as upholding first principles, but it’s not. A substantial majority of Americans agree that:

1) The government should not use state power to punish people for expressing their opinions, especially opinions about the government.
2) In general, influential private actors — employers, media outlets, universities, crowds, etc. — should not use their power to punish people for expression, whether or not they agree with the substance.
3) Some expressions are beyond the pale, and private actors should use their power to reduce the space in which those expressions are socially acceptable.

While both sides of this debate cast it in sweeping, sometimes civilizational terms, the entire thing takes place within point three: Which expressions should be beyond the pale, and how should private actors punish transgressions?

Is there anything here you disagree with?

No. The argument is one of degree within points two and three. And that seems and probably is an easy debate between people like us.

The problem is there exist a huge number of morons in the country who believe that disagreement with their orthodoxy deserves severe punishment by powerful private organizations. And their right to request such punishment is itself free speech.

This I think will create a bifurcated public square. There will be conversation like what we have here, and there will be shouting among the morons.

The problem is, corporations respond to the morons. There aren’t enough of us to buy their products, so they must punish a few of those the mob demands to be sacrificed.

We can spot the morons and ignore them, but for content producers and public figures there remains a chilling effect. You see this playing out already. Privately, everyone rolls their eyes at the most extreme voices, but publicly everyone pretends to take them seriously to avoid becoming a target of their ire.

I think this is bad because it allows the dimwits to remain extreme and think it’s acceptable. They fail to develop critical thinking and become more orthodox. Society splits into Those Who Know Better and The Mobs of Imbeciles.

I guess it’s a self-correcting problem, as it allows the extreme right and extreme left to battle over who are the bigger idiots while the rest of us go about our business. But these nuts vote.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Made me reconsider such that I am looking to buy AK47s on line.

I don’t fear the feds. If they come for you, you’re done. No fighting them.

I fear a collapse where the desperate devolve to use of crime for survival. If the lines for food banks in LA and Atlanta are indicators, we may have a lot more people pushed to the edge than we know.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. The argument is one of degree within points two and three. And that seems and probably is an easy debate between people like us.

The problem is there exist a huge number of morons in the country who believe that disagreement with their orthodoxy deserves severe punishment by powerful private organizations. And their right to request such punishment is itself free speech.

This I think will create a bifurcated public square. There will be conversation like what we have here, and there will be shouting among the morons.

The problem is, corporations respond to the morons. There aren’t enough of us to buy their products, so they must punish a few of those the mob demands to be sacrificed.

We can spot the morons and ignore them, but for content producers and public figures there remains a chilling effect. You see this playing out already. Privately, everyone rolls their eyes at the most extreme voices, but publicly everyone pretends to take them seriously to avoid becoming a target of their ire.

I think this is bad because it allows the dimwits to remain extreme and think it’s acceptable. They fail to develop critical thinking and become more orthodox. Society splits into Those Who Know Better and The Mobs of Imbeciles.

I guess it’s a self-correcting problem, as it allows the extreme right and extreme left to battle over who are the bigger idiots while the rest of us go about our business. But these nuts vote.

I trust you saw the admission that they cancelled Greenwald from signing the letter because they didn’t like his views.

The whole discussion is a joke driven be deeply unserious people who just don’t like the concept of accountability.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t fear the feds. If they come for you, you’re done. No fighting them.

I fear a collapse where the desperate devolve to use of crime for survival. If the lines for food banks in LA and Atlanta are indicators, we may have a lot more people pushed to the edge than we know.

They are going to prevent the 2020 election. I get emails about contributing to Biden. Cute. Like there's going to be an election. Sorry. I'm saving my money for that eventual charter boat to Cuba.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog...-this-national

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Adder

You don’t need a gun to speak. Especially if the group speaking is large enough.

As usual, this crowd can’t think past the second step. They’ve got enough goons to push around 100 protesters. What will they do when it’s 100k?

Sooner or later, the left will study Timothy McVeigh's playbook.