Meanwhile in the LITERAL Death of America

[TomC]

It's about time the average citizen woke up.

woke up? to what? from what?

this is exactly what the average citizen in the US wants - right-wing types love mass shootings, and left-wing types love capitulating to right-wing types on everything all the time and then suffering the consequences of the abomination that is right-wing political theory.

this is a win-win for everyone who has a stand on the issue.

also... is this a sign our country is starting to recover from the pandemic? random mass shootings starting up again feels like a real return to normal.

Where do you get the idea that right wing types love mass shootings?

Or where "left wing types love capitulating to right wing types."?

Looks like a partisan ideologue with a poor grasp of reality, to me.
Tom

 

[prideandfall]

Where do you get the idea that right wing types love mass shootings?

two reasons:
1. the conditions set in the US by the right-wing gun loving body has lead directly to a scenario wherein anyone in the US can get their hands on a gun, which inevitably leads to mass shootings.
when the natural and inexorable reaction to a certain situation is consistent, endorsing the situation is endorsing the reaction.

2. i've known a LOT of gun people in my life and at the end of the day every single one of them harbored some measure of a rambo-esque power fantasy where they imagined themselves the unstoppable vigilante prevailing in a firefight.
they want these things to happen because of the boner it gives them to imagine that had they been there they would have done a john woo style dual-wielding pistol lunge while mowing down a room of bad guys.
if these types of shooting incidents don't happen, that fantasy can't take root.

 

[prideandfall]

Or where "left wing types love capitulating to right wing types."?

um... observing reality?
the left has been meekly cowing to the right in the US since about the mid 70s - at least on an institutional level.
obviously there's a difference between the political left, citizen activist left, and general ideological left and i'm mostly talking about the institutional left which frankly doesn't really even exist in the US anymore, and is instead a tepid centrist body.
the democrats are a center-right political party because there is no will by the people to elect and endorse strongly progressive voices, and the majority of elected democrats spend the bulk of their time caving to the republican narrative (at best) or being complicit in maintaining a social paradigm established by the right (at worst).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Or where "left wing types love capitulating to right wing types."?

um... observing reality?
the left has been meekly cowing to the right in the US since about the mid 70s - at least on an institutional level.
obviously there's a difference between the political left, citizen activist left, and general ideological left and i'm mostly talking about the institutional left which frankly doesn't really even exist in the US anymore, and is instead a tepid centrist body.
the democrats are a center-right political party because there is no will by the people to elect and endorse strongly progressive voices, and the majority of elected democrats spend the bulk of their time caving to the republican narrative (at best) or being complicit in maintaining a social paradigm established by the right (at worst).

That seems a bit oversimplified. After all, the Dems were slaughtered in the 2010 election having voted and passed ACA, though I suppose the response would be ACA wasn't UHC, but it couldn't be with the requirement of 60 votes in the Senate.

 

[J842P]

Or where "left wing types love capitulating to right wing types."?

um... observing reality?
the left has been meekly cowing to the right in the US since about the mid 70s - at least on an institutional level.
obviously there's a difference between the political left, citizen activist left, and general ideological left and i'm mostly talking about the institutional left which frankly doesn't really even exist in the US anymore, and is instead a tepid centrist body.
the democrats are a center-right political party because there is no will by the people to elect and endorse strongly progressive voices, and the majority of elected democrats spend the bulk of their time caving to the republican narrative (at best) or being complicit in maintaining a social paradigm established by the right (at worst).

That seems a bit oversimplified. After all, the Dems were slaughtered in the 2010 election having voted and passed ACA, though I suppose the response would be ACA wasn't UHC, but it couldn't be with the requirement of 60 votes in the Senate.

The ACA was based on a plan written by the Heritage Foundation. It is a right-wing plan. It is not left wing in the slightest, and really just bolsters prideandfall's point that there is effectively no institutional left.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Colorado attack is the 7th mass shooting in 7 days in the US

Tuesday, March 16
Atlanta, Georgia
Eight people, including six Asian women, were killed when a White gunman stormed three spas, police said.

Wednesday, March 17
Stockton, California
Five people who were preparing a vigil in Stockton, in California's Central Valley, were shot in a drive-by shooting, the San Joaquin Sheriff's Department said. None had life-threatening injuries.

Thursday, March 18
Gresham, Oregon
Four victims were taken to the hospital after a shooting in the city east of Portland, police said in an initial report.

Saturday, March 20
Houston
Five people were shot after a disturbance inside a club, according to police. One was in critical condition after being shot in the neck, the rest were in stable condition, according to CNN affiliate KPRC.

Saturday, March 20
Dallas
Eight people were shot by an unknown assailant, one of whom died, according to police.

Saturday, March 20
Philadelphia
One person was killed and another five were injured during a shooting at an illegal party, CNN affiliate KYW reported. "There were at least 150 people in there that fled and believed they had to flee for their lives," Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said.

Monday, March 22
Boulder, Colorado
Ten people, including a Boulder police officer, were killed in a shooting at the King Soopers supermarket, according to police.

 

[prideandfall]

That seems a bit oversimplified. After all, the Dems were slaughtered in the 2010 election having voted and passed ACA, though I suppose the response would be ACA wasn't UHC, but it couldn't be with the requirement of 60 votes in the Senate.

yeah, they were slaughtered in part because they passed an enormous hand-job to the health-for-profit industry which federally mandated an increase to their profits, at the expense at the US people and with no action to even attempt to correct the horrendous shit-show that is the US health-for-profit model.
then, after gagging on Cigna's balls to give them a tickle, then sat back and utterly shit the bed on messaging and let the right completely dominate the national conversation about the legislation and control every aspect of the narrative.
that behavior doesn't convince your political opposition that you're a force for good in your life, and it doesn't convince your base that you're a political body worth fervent support.

do you remember in 2010 how "obamacare" was the slur that the right invented in order to label it as that horrible thing that evil man did to destroy america?
have you noticed how "obamacare" is now just what everyone calls it?

the right controls the US zeitgeist almost utterly, and even when it ostensibly fights back on certain issues the left generally just rolls over and shows its belly, especially the institutional left.

 

[WAB]

Where do you get the idea that right wing types love mass shootings?

two reasons:
1. the conditions set in the US by the right-wing gun loving body has lead directly to a scenario wherein anyone in the US can get their hands on a gun, which inevitably leads to mass shootings.
when the natural and inexorable reaction to a certain situation is consistent, endorsing the situation is endorsing the reaction.

2. i've known a LOT of gun people in my life and at the end of the day every single one of them harbored some measure of a rambo-esque power fantasy where they imagined themselves the unstoppable vigilante prevailing in a firefight.
they want these things to happen because of the boner it gives them to imagine that had they been there they would have done a john woo style dual-wielding pistol lunge while mowing down a room of bad guys.
if these types of shooting incidents don't happen, that fantasy can't take root.

I agree with much of what you say, and have talked about it in many a thread. I don't like guns or gun culture; I do not own a gun and have never owned a gun, except for a BB gun when I was a kid.

I think Hollywood and the film industry in general - and particularly in America - are as guilty of feeding that Rambo fantasy as any other body of people. American films glorify and sexify the alpha male protector hero archetype, to the point that practically everyone in certain types of films is a bad-ass with a gun in their hands or on their bodies, in their cars, and in their homes. Everywhere, a fucking gun. And everyone is Indiana Jones on steroids. Of course now all the lead female actors are gun-slinging bad asses too.

I know a lot of gun people with this hero fantasy also. My father and brother just for starters. But neither of them love mass killings. They cite such things as the reason, or one of the reasons, that law abiding people ought to arm themselves, for protection of themselves and others in situations where there is some nutjob with a gun who might possibly be stopped, or hindered, from doing wanton harm without restraint.

I do not have this fantasy. I would much rather that police or some law enforcement body could intervene and stop the shooter. But they are not always around. And often it is too late by the time they get on the scene.

All that being said, I agree that having so many citizens armed and some of them anxious to prove something is a recipe for disaster. But I also see the other side.I am all for stricter gun control laws and procedures, but I am opposed to disarming law abiding citizens, especially women and people who live in crime ridden areas.

 

[Treedbear]

What else is there?

that the right is acting according to its moral guidelines, that the masses on the right vote for republicans for the express purpose of having them continue doing what they're doing, because this behavior that you (and myself, btw) find so abhorrent is virtue to them.

That doesn't preclude the truth of the matter:

... They are blind to their political folly and they are seriously misled by the entire Republican leadership. What else is there? ...

The German people thought they were morally justified in following Hitler. They were wrong. Morally wrong! There is no appeal to moral relativism in this issue. Everyone follows their own moral principles. The drug dealer thinks they are justified. Even the murderer thinks they are justified. Yeah they believe in the Constitution. So what. So do I. But I didn't sign up to live where people could walk around brandishing semi automatic weapons.

BTW, you say you've lived the boulder area. Have you encountered people carrying firearms openly? Never seen that in CT. We're so fragile here. We bleed much too easily.

assuming you hold the keys to the answer of moral rightness is a mistake, thinking that what you believe is what everyone believes and anyone who does otherwise is being misled or tricked somehow.

I'm not assuming I'm right. I'm making a moral argument. But I am assuming the right believes in what they are doing, just as you seem to be saying. And so I'm pretty sure they and I don't agree. They are wrong and they are being misled, but they are not being tricked. (Well that's not entirely true. Trump was only in it for his own benefit, despite their adoration for him.) That they are being lied to and loving it doesn't change that. Alternative facts is a thing. Just like saying herd mentality instead of herd immunity. Gives them a warm fuzzy feeling.

i think this is a grievous mistake of the left, when the actual answer is that these things that they do is what they consider virtuous and good, and their behavior is in keeping with their moral character.

That's what Al Capone thought too. A regular Robin Hood. I think it's you who are mistaken to give so much credit to the right. They don't need more justification for their mistaken views on patriotism. Especially if they hear it being offered by someone from the left.

 

[prideandfall]

I am all for stricter gun control laws and procedures, but I am opposed to disarming law abiding citizens, especially women and people who live in crime ridden areas.

but i think that's the problem with guns and gun violence in the US - it's a genie that's out of the bottle.
in the US, arming law abiding citizens leads directly to arming law-breakers, because a culture of gun commerce equals easy access to guns by both legal and illegal means.

it's completely pointless to make laws and regulations preventing johnny crazypants from buying a gun if he can just go into his uncle's garage arsenal and pick up a dozen assault rifles, or hand a guy 200 bucks in an alley.

the legal proliferation of guns is directly tied to the illegal proliferation of guns, so with respect i must posit that being against disarming the populace is being for criminal gun use.

 

[prideandfall]

The German people thought they were morally justified in following Hitler. They were wrong. Morally wrong! There is no appeal to moral relativism in this issue. Everyone follows their own moral principles. The drug dealer thinks they are justified. Even the murderer thinks they are justified. Yeah they believe in the Constitution. So what. So do I. But I didn't sign up to live where people could walk around brandishing semi automatic weapons.

but this still goes to my point - assuming for the sake of argument that you're correct in your assessment of morality on some kind of objective cosmic scale, it's irrelevant if others do not recognize that moral compass.

your nazi analogy fails because the nazis were in power from late 1933 to late 1945 - in a time of massive political and economic upheaval (notably in the aftermath of WWI) and no unfettered dissemination of information, there is a not unreasonable logistical argument to be made about how a populace could be convinced of the rightness of a political party but ignorant of the specifics of what that party is doing.

however, the US right has been doing this bullshit for 65 years now, there's no longer any valid argument to be made that supporters don't know what's going on.

BTW, you say you've lived the boulder area. Have you encountered people carrying firearms openly? Never seen that in CT. We're so fragile here. We bleed much too easily.

i grew up 8 blocks from this grocery store, lived in boulder from ages 5 to 22 - this would be from the mid 80s until the early 2000s.
it's a very weird town culturally, with the expected liberal attitude of a small town with a major university sitting in the middle of it, but the town itself is run by upper class monied elite and far more conservative politics.
anyways, it's not surprisingly uncommon to see lots of guns in the smaller mountain towns just up the canyon, but within boulder itself i don't recall ever seeing a gun in public in all my years living there.

 

[Swammerdami]

What else is there?

that the right is acting according to its moral guidelines, that the masses on the right vote for republicans for the express purpose of having them continue doing what they're doing, because this behavior that you (and myself, btw) find so abhorrent is virtue to them.

assuming you hold the keys to the answer of moral rightness is a mistake, thinking that what you believe is what everyone believes and anyone who does otherwise is being misled or tricked somehow.
i think this is a grievous mistake of the left, when the actual answer is that these things that they do is what they consider virtuous and good, and their behavior is in keeping with their moral character.

prideandfall makes an important point here. Many gun-lovers regard guns as a moral issue: it is manly to defend one's home, etc. In the 19th century Southern good ol' boys proudly identified with 17th-century Cavaliers. I think the morality is perverted and misbegotten, but right-wingers don't. If liberals acknowledged the existence of sincere right-wing morality, would that help lead to reconciliation?

Abortion is another example. Some on the right honestly believe that abortions in America constitute mass murder, dwarfing the crimes of Hitler, let alone a few thousand killed by cops or right-wing psychopaths. Voter suppression and other tactics to keep the right-wing strong are means justified by the hoped-for end of stopping abortion.

 

[Tigers!]

The Colorado attack is the 7th mass shooting in 7 days in the US

Tuesday, March 16
Atlanta, Georgia
Eight people, including six Asian women, were killed when a White gunman stormed three spas, police said.

Wednesday, March 17
Stockton, California
Five people who were preparing a vigil in Stockton, in California's Central Valley, were shot in a drive-by shooting, the San Joaquin Sheriff's Department said. None had life-threatening injuries.

Thursday, March 18
Gresham, Oregon
Four victims were taken to the hospital after a shooting in the city east of Portland, police said in an initial report.

Saturday, March 20
Houston
Five people were shot after a disturbance inside a club, according to police. One was in critical condition after being shot in the neck, the rest were in stable condition, according to CNN affiliate KPRC.

Saturday, March 20
Dallas
Eight people were shot by an unknown assailant, one of whom died, according to police.

Saturday, March 20
Philadelphia
One person was killed and another five were injured during a shooting at an illegal party, CNN affiliate KYW reported. "There were at least 150 people in there that fled and believed they had to flee for their lives," Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said.

Monday, March 22
Boulder, Colorado
Ten people, including a Boulder police officer, were killed in a shooting at the King Soopers supermarket, according to police.

Too many guns in the hands of those who should not have them.

 

[prideandfall]

If liberals acknowledged the existence of sincere right-wing morality, would that help lead to reconciliation?

i personally don't think it would lead to reconciliation, especially not in the short term - but i also don't think reconciliation or compromise should be the goal.
i ascribe to what i have come to call 'dick liberalism': i'm extremely liberal, but a total dick about it.
for example: "on demand without apology or explanation" is the only morally viable position to have on abortion, and if you disagree with that go fuck yourself.
another example: everyone should have full access to medical care that is uncoupled from their financial reality. everyone gets healthcare. if you don't like it, fuck you, you get it anyways.
etc etc - i believe in being liberal without being apologetic for it, aggressively asserting human rights for everyone whether they like it or not, and implementing policy that benefits the human condition even in the face of staunch opposition.

so no, i don't think it would help reconciliation because we're at a point where the right in the US has evolved to a point where their central goal is to dismantle the very concept of human governance and to retard the advancement of human civilization.
you can't reconcile with that, there's no middle ground between the technological and cultural furthering of our species and a regressive attitude of enriching a handful of white assholes at the expense of literally everyone else on the planet.

but maybe, just maybe, if the left recognize that the right are a pack of mewling fuckwits who can't be trusted to be in charge or even to have a say in government because they're too fucked up and stupid to allowed to participate, then we'll stop *asking* if it's OK if maybe we could vastly improve the state of the human condition for hundreds of millions of people and just fucking do it.

i want to see an aggressive and determined left that forces substantial quality of life improvements on the people of this country whether they like it not.
and while i recognize this is my version of pie-in-the-sky idealism, i feel like if we just did that and didn't take any shit about it and never backed down, in 1-2 generations it's possible that the improved conditions of life in this country could start to naturally weed out the self-destructive regressive ideology that so much of the populace clings to.

 

[Swammerdami]

If liberals acknowledged the existence of sincere right-wing morality, would that help lead to reconciliation?

i personally don't think it would lead to reconciliation, especially not in the short term - but i also don't think reconciliation or compromise should be the goal.
i ascribe to what i have come to call 'dick liberalism': i'm extremely liberal, but a total dick about it.
for example: "on demand without apology or explanation" is the only morally viable position to have on abortion, and if you disagree with that go fuck yourself.
another example: everyone should have full access to medical care that is uncoupled from their financial reality. everyone gets healthcare. if you don't like it, fuck you, you get it anyways.
etc etc - i believe in being liberal without being apologetic for it, aggressively asserting human rights for everyone whether they like it or not, and implementing policy that benefits the human condition even in the face of staunch opposition.

so no, i don't think it would help reconciliation because we're at a point where the right in the US has evolved to a point where their central goal is to dismantle the very concept of human governance and to retard the advancement of human civilization.
you can't reconcile with that, there's no middle ground between the technological and cultural furthering of our species and a regressive attitude of enriching a handful of white assholes at the expense of literally everyone else on the planet.

but maybe, just maybe, if the left recognize that the right are a pack of mewling fuckwits who can't be trusted to be in charge or even to have a say in government because they're too fucked up and stupid to allowed to participate, then we'll stop *asking* if it's OK if maybe we could vastly improve the state of the human condition for hundreds of millions of people and just fucking do it.

i want to see an aggressive and determined left that forces substantial quality of life improvements on the people of this country whether they like it not.
and while i recognize this is my version of pie-in-the-sky idealism, i feel like if we just did that and didn't take any shit about it and never backed down, in 1-2 generations it's possible that the improved conditions of life in this country could start to naturally weed out the self-destructive regressive ideology that so much of the populace clings to.

Emotionally, I agree with you 100%.

But the political gulf in the U.S. is huge and getting worse. If there were some way for the partisans to tone down the hatreds on both sides, appreciate each other and bridge that gulf, it would be a very good thing for America. (But I have no plan to recommend.)

 

[prideandfall]

But the political gulf in the U.S. is huge and getting worse. If there were some way for the partisans to tone down the hatreds on both sides, appreciate each other and bridge that gulf, it would be a very good thing for America. (But I have no plan to recommend.)

see i just think that view is naive because it's based on a social paradigm that no longer exists.
that view you just espoused works if you have two sides who both recognize that a problem exists, agree the problem should be addressed, and then have different ideas about how to fix the problem and need to find a way to compromise on what measures are taken to fix the problem.

but while that might have been true 50 or 60 years ago that simply isn't what the US political system is anymore. and it hasn't been since at least the late 70s.
now, you have one center-right party trying to maintain a generally corporate-centric predatory capitalist society, that occasionally throws a bread crumb to the people in the form of an incredibly minor (and woefully inadequate) legislation to improve the life of the average wage slave... and you have one pack of howling dipshits who's *literal political party platform* is to dismantle the very concept of human governance itself.

you can't appreciate each other when one side's entire purpose is to just stop literally anything from being done that isn't in the name of degrading the idea of human self governance, and/or enriching a handful of white assholes at the expense of everyone else on the planet.
you can't bridge a gulf when one side meekly proposes weak solutions to major issues facing the future of human civilization, and the other side is just sitting in a shit-filled diaper screaming "LYNCH ALL THE NIGGERS"

i agree that compromise and reconciliation is necessary in order to implement differing opinions on how to go about a fix or a change for challenges present, but i completely disagree with the assertion that a differing opinion on how to implement change is what is happening in US politics.

i know i'm pulling a godwin here and this is very hyperbolic, but that mentality you're espousing sounds exactly to me like it being 1943 and going "oh well i'm sure if we just leave the nazis alone they'll stop invading everyone, let's not be a bother, we wouldn't want to be seen as acting contrary."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is an odd parity. Gun violence overall is still near record lows, near half of what it was at its peak in the early 90s. But mass shootings are sky-rocketing and mass killings are unfathomable. You take Columbine out of the statistics, and the assault weapons ban absolutely worked! That we can't put that back into effect is maddening.

 

[RVonse]

This comic strip came out nearly a decade ago:

Patooka's cartoon pretty much says it all. "The occasional Horrific Civilian massacre is the price we pay".

I have no argument with that statement at all. Furthermore, I am in the camp who believes the price is well worth it even though I have never purchased a gun in my life. The price of freedom and liberty has never come easily. And keeping what little freedom and liberty is left of this country does not come easy either.

This is nothing more than a judgement call. It is the judgement of whether the costs are worth the rewards of freedom and liberty.

 

[Swammerdami]

This comic strip came out nearly a decade ago:...

Patooka's cartoon pretty much says it all. "The occasional Horrific Civilian massacre is the price we pay".

I have no argument with that statement at all. Furthermore, I am in the camp who believes the price is well worth it even though I have never purchased a gun in my life. The price of freedom and liberty has never come easily. And keeping what little freedom and liberty is left of this country does not come easy either.

This is nothing more than a judgement call. It is the judgement of whether the costs are worth the rewards of freedom and liberty.

"Freedom and liberty." What do the words even mean? Certainly not the freedom to be an Asian working in a spa in Georgia. Nor even the freedom to sit peacefully in one's own apartment in Texas. And certainly not the freedom to speak freely in a saloon full of right-wing red-necks, most of who are probably toting guns.

No, the only ones who feel "freedom" due to their guns are the perverted gun lovers themselves. The have the FREEDOM to (and often do) shoot themselves in the foot. The have the FREEDOM to leave the gun out where their kid can play with it. FREEDOM!! Yay, Yay!

And what's with the Freedom AND Liberty? Care to explain the difference? My guess is that, ALL you have is the mistaken right-way view of FREEDOM and 1-word rhetorical appeals, so indulged in the hendiadys of using a word and its synonym for lack of any rational argument.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This comic strip came out nearly a decade ago:

Patooka's cartoon pretty much says it all. "The occasional Horrific Civilian massacre is the price we pay".

I have no argument with that statement at all. Furthermore, I am in the camp who believes the price is well worth it even though I have never purchased a gun in my life. The price of freedom and liberty has never come easily. And keeping what little freedom and liberty is left of this country does not come easy either.

This is nothing more than a judgement call. It is the judgement of whether the costs are worth the rewards of freedom and liberty.

As long as we consider it non-delusional to think that the FBI can't overcome a bunch of idiotic militants... and military can't mow their ass down using a drone from 100 miles from one's home.

The trouble we have run into is the mass delusion created by the US Government's hesitation to enforce the rule of law with the BLM facility and the stupid Bundy standoff. The FBI could have easily overcome the tiny dicked militants. But because there was absurd restraint, the militants and right-wingers are deluded into thinking their guns kept freedom alive... when in fact, their guns just allowed a crime to go unpunished and it was the FBI's restraint from killing such ardent idiots, ie it wasn't worth the cost of life. The FBI could have ripped them to shreds. Then you put the military into the picture and it just becomes delusionally adorable how these people think their guns are protecting their justice and liberty.

Fuck them, fuck their delusions.