Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Derec]

Canonizing dirtbags is a far rarer and more dangerous occurrence.

 

[Gospel]

The idea that citizens armed with handguns, assault rifles, and 3D printed Saturday night specials could fend off government forces equipped with better guns, more ammunition, drones, missiles, Apache helicopters, armored vehicles, landmines, RPGs, etc., is ludicrous.

It's a childish Red Dawn fantasy masking the genuine intent to force other citizens, usually minorities and people who follow other faiths, to comply with neighborhood-level local tyranny.

There are real examples, Afghanistan, Iraq & Vietnam, where armed local resistance made foreign occupation costly. I don’t fully endorse the argument, but I understand it: you can’t always defeat a standing army outright, but armed resistance can make occupation politically and practically unsustainable.

Thinking closer to home, some Black communities in the civil rights era did embrace armed self-defense. Groups like the Deacons for Defense and Justice in Louisiana, for example, provided protection for activists and forced white supremacists to think twice. It didn’t end racial violence, but it did raise the risks for those who were used to attacking Black families with impunity. And overtime, they died down significantly (Granted, WWII exposing America’s hypocrisy and the Great Migration of Black people to the North played a major role.)

Another thing is given the way Trump has been talking about leftists lately, not all leftist are willing to part with their guns just yet.

Lastly and not to minimizing mass-shooting tragedies, if police put the same level of energy into monitoring white communities as they do in Black ones, maybe they could actually make a dent in preventing some of those mass shootings. Most of the time, the police had all the warning signs, and dindunuffin, as the white supremacists like to say.

 

[Derec]

I weep from any country where knocking a hat askew is considered assault and battery.

In England people get arrested for yelling "bacon" in the vicinity of Muslims.
In Germany you can get prosecuted for insulting somebody (some of you'd be doing life!)
In Netherlands a politician (Geert Wilders) was prosecuted just for saying that there were too many mass migrants.

In comparison, we have it pretty good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no problem ending shit.

Yet you propose no end to the fascist shit that is going on.
Maybe you have no problem ending shit, but don't regard fascism as "shit".

I disagree with the overly expansive meaning of "fascist" that has been applied, and I think it's incredibly irresponsible and inflammatory.

Many of us do not think it's being remotely expansive, but rather that you are not recognizing the signs.

I also disagree with the overly expansive meaning of "nazi" that gets applied to any number of situations,

When Nazi salutes get thrown around in a supportive context I think "Nazi" is a reasonable term. (Giving a Nazi salute to a Swasticar is another matter, I would not consider such a person remotely a Nazi.)

"bigotry" applied to a disagreement over rights and safety,

Except all the data purporting to show the safety risk doesn't actually do so. When it's framed as a safety issue yet no risk is demonstrated it looks an awful lot like bigotry.

"communist" applied to anyone who wants to reduce the wealth gap,

No. "Communist" gets applied to those who propose eat-the-rich type answers. It's just eat-the-rich comes in an awful lot of guises.

"slavery" applied to wage earners, and all sorts of other abuses of language that are intended to incite an emotional response and override reason.

This one I will agree with you on.

Which freedoms have we lost?

As of today? The freedom speak out against a president, for one, i.e. freedom of speech.

Trump is an arrogant asshole and he's making piss-poor decisions that weaken the country and he's directly and personally adding to the increasing vitriol in the country.

Gee. Somehow I'm still here, and so are you, and so are a ton of political commentators and comedians who are making a living out of criticising him.

He's only going after non-citizens so far. That has to be normalized before he goes after Americans.

Yeah, I know you can spend the rest of the day listing types of speech that are not (yet) verboten without ever mentioning the types of speech that were once permitted and are now forbidden. The ones still permitted but under assault are more common. Pay attention.

What's forbidden? Please provide support for your assertion, preferably in the form of executive orders or laws. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Look at the recent declaration of "Antifa" as a terrorist organization. They aren't an organization in the first place! Antifa is a position, not a group.

Yeah, we haven't seen their [Christianity's] insanity in about 400 years or so.

WUT? You mean god no longer sends those he loves to eternal torture?
Which do you belief to have been purged in the last 400 years - that god loves us or that he sends people to eternal torture?
I'm less than 400 years old and have heard that shit right up to today, represented as "Christian" doctrine. And it's insane.

Let me guess - none of that is TROOO Xtian doctrine, right?

This is stupid, Elixir. You're quoting bible bullshit and pretending like the belief that sinners burn in hell is exactly the same as actual terrorists declaring the rest of the world to be infidels who should be murdered, blowing up people who make cartoons of mohammed, and women being denied even the most basic forms of human rights.

The Republicans use more hidden language but they aren't too far behind Islam. We have major Republicans saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote. We have some saying birth control should be outlawed--you shouldn't be having sex if you're not open to a baby. We have some who say all abortions should be prohibited. "Medical reasons" are always just an excuse to let the slut escape her punishment, there are no medical reasons. And we have that legislator in Florida who objects to the left's scare tactics about what an abortion ban means interfering with her getting an abortion for her ectopic pregnancy. And when you hang a "pig" sign on a cow you can get bacon.

No ID if you don't have legal name change documents and your name doesn't match your birth certificate. Presto, a lot of women forced home and kept from the polls.

 

[Derec]

Sex work is work in the same way that child labor is labor.

Bullshit. This view is infantilizing adult women, saying that they have as little agency over their bodies as children.

Call it what it actually is: exploitation and commodification of women's bodies for the sexual gratification of men who don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of the people that they're LITERALLY using.

Again, bullshit. If two people mutually agree to exchange sexual services for money, how is that "exploitation and commodification" any more than any other service profession? And just because one hires a hooker does not mean he does not care about her welfare.

And lastly, there are also women who hire sex workers, as well as male sex workers.

 

[laughing dog]

Canonizing dirtbags is a far rarer and more dangerous occurrence.

But no one is calling you an enemy of the state for your ugly views.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plus the disgusting members of SCOTUS have made it easy for anyone to own guns, no background checks, no safety training, no problem. if you've been treated for mental illness in the past, no problem. Fuck it. Guns are all these people care about.

Objection: Most "mental illness" has no bearing on whether one should be allowed to own a firearm. Want to avoid the knee-jerk reactions, limit it to those whose problems are of a nature that suggests they might misuse guns. And beware of rebound--you'll keep people away from treatment to avoid getting banned. I do support denying firearms to the dangerous, it's just that we need a narrow definition, not a sweeping definition.

And in practice it tends not to work--in states with red flag laws they tend not to be enforced against the very people they're meant to apply to. The cops are afraid of being met by bullets if they try to disarm the ones that need it. It's one of these things that looks good on paper but turns out to not work very well in reality, basically only catching those that didn't need catching. And in many cases it turns into punishment based on accusation--they're not returned even if the original trigger is found to be incorrect.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Plus the disgusting members of SCOTUS have made it easy for anyone to own guns, no background checks, no safety training, no problem. if you've been treated for mental illness in the past, no problem. Fuck it. Guns are all these people care about.

Objection: Most "mental illness" has no bearing on whether one should be allowed to own a firearm.

You want to rephrase that, you know, narrow the definition?

Want to avoid the knee-jerk reactions, limit it to those whose problems are of a nature that suggests they might misuse guns. And beware of rebound--you'll keep people away from treatment to avoid getting banned. I do support denying firearms to the dangerous, it's just that we need a narrow definition, not a sweeping definition.

I've got bad news for you, mental health isn't an easy thing to "narrow definition".

My favorite thing about guns is that we can't do anything about guns because that could either not help, not be enacted, or the boogeyman is coming for your guns. So what we should do instead is embrace the butcher's bill.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sex work is work in the same way that child labor is labor.

Bullshit. This view is infantilizing adult women, saying that they have as little agency over their bodies as children.

You care about women in this conversation would come across a little more legitimate if your position wasn't exclusively self-serving.

Call it what it actually is: exploitation and commodification of women's bodies for the sexual gratification of men who don't give a flying fuck about the welfare of the people that they're LITERALLY using.

Again, bullshit. If two people mutually agree to exchange sexual services for money, how is that "exploitation and commodification" any more than any other service profession?

The seller is under duress. But the buyer wouldn't know that. Legalization and regulation could help remediate this concern, but not solve it. Also, what in the fuck does your hobby horse have to do with the targeted murder of Charlie Kirk?

And lastly, there are also women who hire sex workers, as well as male sex workers.

And lawyers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Plus the disgusting members of SCOTUS have made it easy for anyone to own guns, no background checks, no safety training, no problem. if you've been treated for mental illness in the past, no problem. Fuck it. Guns are all these people care about.

Objection: Most "mental illness" has no bearing on whether one should be allowed to own a firearm.

You want to rephrase that, you know, narrow the definition?

Want to avoid the knee-jerk reactions, limit it to those whose problems are of a nature that suggests they might misuse guns. And beware of rebound--you'll keep people away from treatment to avoid getting banned. I do support denying firearms to the dangerous, it's just that we need a narrow definition, not a sweeping definition.

I've got bad news for you, mental health isn't an easy thing to "narrow definition".

My favorite thing about guns is that we can't do anything about guns because that could either not help, not be enacted, or the boogeyman is coming for your guns. So what we should do instead is embrace the butcher's bill.

I know it's hard to define.

Ask a psychiatrist what diagnoses warrant gun restrictions. Don't just say "mental illness".

And people don't keep advocating for bogeymen. There are powerful groups that seek to remove guns from civilian hands. A list of legally owned guns is their holy grail. You can't just ban them, the frog has to be boiled.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The seller is under duress. But the buyer wouldn't know that. Legalization and regulation could help remediate this concern, but not solve it. Also, what in the fuck does your hobby horse have to do with the targeted murder of Charlie Kirk?

And why are we to assume the seller is under duress?

If she truly is go after the person putting her under duress. That should carry very heavy penalties.

But "want money" is not duress.

 

[TomC]

The seller is under duress.

Why do you think that a sex worker is under duress, but the people working in an auto parts factory or a slaughter house aren't? Do you think that the people working at McDonald's are doing it out of love for burgers?

What about people who stay with a partner that they can't stand because they can provide a lifestyle that they are not equipped to provide for themselves? Do you think that Melania Trump stays with Donald because she loves him so much?

Where do you draw the line between sex worker and and wife?
Tom

 

[Toni]

Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's just we haven't seen much of their insanity.

Speak for yourself because your eyes must be wide shut.

We do not see a lot with the level of wrongness that we see from Islam. Where is the Christian equivalent to the Iranian-backed genocides of Africa?

Also in Africa.

I am surprised you were unaware of this.

Islam and Christianity have been fighting a very bloody war there for control of various territories (often asynchronous with national boundaries, as is true of so much of post-colonial Africa) for a couple of centuries now.

Sure there have been Christian wrongs there. I'm saying there's nothing remotely at the level of the current genocides.

Really? Are you sure? Or do you just assume it's so, because it suits your preconceptions, and/or those of your preferred "news" providers?

There have been some pretty bad things but not at the genocide level. Nobody set out to annihilate a population for religious reasons. Yes, there has been genocidal intent towards armed groups, not against groups that aren't attacking.

What, exactly, do you think the Spanish Inquisition was? And weren’t the Nazis ‘good Christians?! What do you think the Crusades were? What do you think ‘mission schools’ were? Oh, sure, they were only a part of the plan but make no mistake: the goal was to beat the Indian out of NA’s and exterminate those who would not be made into useful servants.

 

[Toni]

The seller is under duress.

Why do you think that a sex worker is under duress, but the people working in an auto parts factory or a slaughter house aren't? Do you think that the people working at McDonald's are doing it out of love for burgers?

What about people who stay with a partner that they can't stand because they can provide a lifestyle that they are not equipped to provide for themselves? Do you think that Melania Trump stays with Donald because she loves him so much?

Where do you draw the line between sex worker and and wife?
Tom

McDonald’s workers are not subject to beatings and worse for not following the bosses’ orders. McDonald’s workers are not expected to provide sex to whoever plunks down their money. Neither are auto workers.

Lots of couples stay together, not out of love but out of habit, economic necessity, economic advantage ( as applies in the Trumps’ case, presumably), malice, etc. some couples stay together ‘for the kids.’

I understand that this may be a novel idea to you but many wives marry and stay with their husbands because they love them. Women no longer exist for the sole purpose of providing God sanctioned sex and legitimate offspring. We are allowed to read, write, have our own bank accounts, property—including businesses and real estate, and to pursue our own wishes hopes and dreams —and careers! aside from ‘serving’ our spouses. Women today mostly marry men they’ve previously slept with and enjoyed the sex enough to want to continue the relationship in a more formalized manner. I know it is difficult for many men to grasp but not only are women fully fledged human beings but some men are loving and caring and skilled enough to make sex a pleasure and not a chore.

Comparing a wife to a sex worker is extremely offensive. It is just as apt to describe husbands as prostitutes.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

It was a precedent setting case.
Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.
Stare Decisis, which at least two of the three Trump justices (not sure about the third) swore to respect during the confirmation hearing pageant.
What a joke.

BTW Ems,
In its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. That fact can easily be confirmed by any respectable source.

You keep forgetting what "in The Constitution" actually means. It means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it means.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Dude, it is interesting to learn that you flunked remedial reading.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.
You can say the same about ANY decision that overturns precedent.
Get someone to read it to you if you still think it implies that I support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
It has exactly ZERO to do with my support of ANY decision.

Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[scombrid]

'Scary as all hell': Onlookers horrified as Stephen Miller parrots Nazi speech

Stephen Miller delivered a venomous speech at right-wing activist Charlie Kirk's memorial service that bore a close resemblance to one given by a notorious Nazi leader at a similar event, according to reports.The White House deputy chief of staff and top adviser to President Donald Trump called...

www.rawstory.com

Stephen Miller’s violent rhetoric is obviously not a concern for most conservatives or ‘libertarians’. Now where’s that hooker I ordered? I hope they don’t send a Muslim.

 

[crazyfingers]

'Scary as all hell': Onlookers horrified as Stephen Miller parrots Nazi speech

Stephen Miller delivered a venomous speech at right-wing activist Charlie Kirk's memorial service that bore a close resemblance to one given by a notorious Nazi leader at a similar event, according to reports.The White House deputy chief of staff and top adviser to President Donald Trump called...

www.rawstory.com

Miller may be an even more disgusting an individual than Trump. Maybe.

 

[Derec]

He says, in the very same five-sentence long post in which he also calls someone a "cockroach"...

That's just what her name means.

An aptonym if I ever saw one!
She is a hateful person. Once she tweeted this:

 

[Derec]

Now where’s that hooker I ordered? I hope they don’t send a Muslim.

Although, she can polish my knob any day of the week.

 

[Derec]

He says, in the very same five-sentence long post in which he also calls someone a "cockroach"...

He's a leftist though - just ask him if he's right wing! (He only SOUNDS like that)

I am definitely not a leftist, but I am not a rightist either. It's not a binary choice!

I consider myself a liberal, and I agree with most liberal positions: legal gay sex/marriage, legal weed, legal sex work. I am also for progressive taxation (as long as it does not go overboard) and government services and investments, like ACA or building and maintaining better public transit.

Just because I am critical of many positions of frequent posters on here, and of parts of the Democratic Party, does not make me a rightist. Particularly here, despising an Islamist like Linda Sarsour and being critical of Dems who embrace her (Sanders is most disappointing, since as a Jew he should know better) does not make me a rightist.