In highly polarized themes it is pretty usual for the truth to not being at either extreme but rather somewhere in the middle.
Re the cartoon, fundamentalist anything tends to be annoying.
Do you have any idea how much of a sad. unproductive cliche that statement is?
Saying it does not make it true.
If an opinion is true, demonstrate how it is true. Otherwise this braggart posturing of âprincipled undecided moderateâ is just a very successful attempt to be obnoxious.
3 Likes
It is however usually true. Being âsadâ, âunproductiveâ, and/or âclicheâ is all orthogonal to the true/false axis.
No. But it is true even before it being said.
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2008/03/what-is-just-so-story/
Iâm sure this sounds better in your head.
Nice, but a non-sequitur in this context. Evolution is âcontroversialâ only because of a bunch of noisy but deluded believers in an invisible friend. As a testable hypothesis it is about as proven as it can be, with details being already incorporated into technologies.
Itâs an example in practice of the sort of company you have with Just So Stories like the âtruth is in the middle ALWAYSâ.
Maybe step back and avoid those overreaching cliches? They lead to a deep font of proud ignorance.
1 Like
There is certain difference between âalwaysâ and âusuallyâ. Which is usually lost on those who prefer debates to be highly polarized.
You may like to revisit my claims.
Maybe try to get out of an ideological trench. Itâs more interesting in the argument-cratered No Manâs Land.
8 Likes
1 Like
He was a black man who saw racism in every workplace; a gay man who felt demeaned, especially by other black men; a floundering son who addressed his accusatory suicide note to his successful father; an aspiring television newsman who, despite some talent, could not succeed at work or get along with his colleagues.
I know an Indian guy like this - he has faced a number of examples of real racism, but he is also paranoid to the point that he sees it everywhere (and not in the sense that itâs systemic, but he will second-guess everyoneâs motives, assume that his colleagues are conspiring behind his back, break off friendships because of imagined grievances and lash out at people who care about him). He also has very demanding parents and is very talented, but he canât keep a job or work with people, and itâs all the fault of his co-workers/racism/the government. Any suggestion that he should change his behaviour tends to result in accusations of gaslighting (not by name, but the same idea). In the meantime, he has to deal with real issues, without the ability to distinguish between the two or trust people enough to have an effective support network.
4 Likes
Iâll wade in here again.
I canât help but think that thereâs some pretty solid parallels between this sort of behavior and the conditions that turn people radical- I mean, he was a radical, right?
So if we look for root causes (and thatâs complicated, of course), what I see is inequity. I see a system that provides no safety net for a personâs dignity. And that, as much as the rest, is the problem.
So something like a minimum guaranteed income would help- an amount of money that provides a cushion against your life bottoming out- lose your job, lose your house, lose your whatever, and thereâs still this lump of money to keep a roof over your head and food in your belly. That doesnât easy the hurt of the loss, but maybe it helps keep it from being so overwhelming. Maybe it means that people donât have to steal so much, or use violence so much- because they have the other option of just buying it.
Add to that some guaranteed health care, and woo-boy, we might really have something.
Iâd like to believe that would mean that guns would simply be less relevant, but Iâm likely wrong.
6 Likes
There is a class division there. Bombs are the weapons of the poor and disenfranchised. Guns are reserved for those with the power or privilege to own and maintain them.
The penis mightier than the gun.
1 Like
I think youâre onto something. It needs more. Like a quadfecta of guaranteed mental health care, job placement/minimum pension of limited duration, tighter gun control and more restricted access to controlled substances. Or also a much, much more stringent regulation of the type and number of guns allowed to be manufactured and distributed. Some combination of âtaking this seriouslyâ needs to occur. Continuing to do nothing = not taking the issue seriously.
As Iâve said in previous threads, not enough of the right people are being shot. Unfortunately, the reporter and cameraman are the right people. Soon it will be people closely associated with businessmen, politicians and the famous. Then, itâll be the businessmen, politicians and the famous, themselves, getting shot and THEN weâll see action on the issue. Sad. But I give it a solid 10 to 20 years before any substantive combination is even attempted.
Yes, that is the one. I am assuming (eek) that since the White House, pentagon and Secây of State say we are involved in (5) wars, then at least 50% of the citizenry would accept and agree.
So, get a group together, start raising some money, and campaign to repeal the second amendment. Itâs not a quick process, it was specifically designed not to be.
Bear in mind that if you succeed in that, all it does is to take the fedgov out of the picture, and allow states to make their own laws.
Once youâve gotten the states to enact much more draconian gun laws, all you have to do then is to either convince the owners of the 300-400 million guns out there to give them up, or, have the police force their way into 50-60 million houses, one at a time, to take them.
1 Like
Most of these have well-armed police escorts or well-armed private security. This (1) makes your scenario less likely and (2) lessens their credibility in making the case that Joe Sixpack has no need for a gun.
1 Like
That could work.
Unlikely to work, double so in the coming age of microreactors and cheap at-home CNC. Both of which I am trying to get involved in, or at least to know enough to kibitz from the peanut gallery.
They already do. So there are ranges of ballistic clothing on the market. Not cheap but also not unaffordable for the upper middle class.
But if you donât live in an inner city war zone, your chance of getting shot is low enough to neglect.
Wait, so gun crimes are perpetrated be the powerful and privileged?
3 Likes
This is exactly what Iâve been saying for years. Gun violence isnât a problem, itâs a symptom of a larger problem.
Itâs not the fact that someone has a killing machine- Anyone with a a gallon of bleach and a bottle of ammonia has that. Itâs the fact that someone is so angry, so hopeless, so frustrated, and has so little to lose, that they actually think mass murder sounds like a reasonable way to lash out.
People with something- anything- to live for just donât think that way. Sure, maybe you get that momentary urge to strangle the guy in front of you in line who decides to argue over whether the store can take a check- But you donât, and that feeling passes, and you go on with your life. Why? Because you have friends and family and a career and a hobby and some self-respect and the slightest little shred of belief that things will get better.
Thatâs a lot of cracks to fall through. The fact that anyone can slip through all of them says something frightening about our system. The fact that so many can slip through should be a wake up call for everyone in that society.
3 Likes
