Lurker > Gaawa_chan

I will turn on Sudoku if I'm not feeling like anything else. It's a decent filler game. I'm pretty good and can solve most expert ones on my digital version of Sudoku without making a mistake, but I still feel like I'm missing maybe a strat or two. Maybe I'll peek online and see what patterns I'm may be overlooking.

It seems to me that the real challenge how quickly you can solve it rather than whether or not you can solve it. My fastest time on expert was... 3:26. Huh. Faster than I thought it would be, but I guess I play it a lot between interests.
---

Hi

I need to go veggie/vegan again. All ethical arguments aside, I was so much healthier back then. The difference it makes is pretty stark.
---

Hi

Bad praxis.
---

Hi

Nothing. Keep having random things happen that eat up whatever little I save.
---

Hi

I get the distinct impression that some people here just do not understand how gun control measures work, since they seem to think that they just don't. I think I'm done with this conversation though, considering this response:

Rasmoh posted...

Because they will have to pay for unnecessary background checks
If nothing else, raised taxes
More taxes

I've had a background checks done to get jobs. Those checks were unnecessary as I've never committed a crime. However, the places of employ have no reason to give a random person the benefit of the doubt and place their establishment in danger as a result.

Somehow I doubt anyone will see you running around screaming about how required background checks for acquiring a job is an undue burden despite the fact that many people who apply for jobs are unemployed and therefore have no income with which to pay for the process.

Well, at least we know how much the blood of your people is worth to you.
---

Hi

Ah, yes, PragerU. The only "education" Dennis Prager wants you to be able to afford. The history of bigotry in the USA isn't so simplistic as to be explained away purely by party lines in five minute videos funded by revisionist think tanks. I suppose most people find it comforting to think that only people that don't agree with them are bigots. >_>



FDR's administration was notoriously anti-Asian while Reagan let an incurable virus contracted by less than 50 people turn into an epidemic because he hated gay people more than he loved humanity.
---

Hi

Smarkil posted...

Ah yes, it's the mysterious incel illuminati network. I see.

Ah yes, it's the argument from incredulity. I see. Here. Let's see what one of the shooters has to say about that in his manifesto, starting 28:50 minutes in:

Edit: God, I forgot how much this guy rambles, but he's the only one I know of who did a video like this so *shrug* Now I remember why I muted it last time.
---

Hi

Rasmoh posted...

Gaawa_chan posted...

and not taking it seriously is just going to get more people killed.

Not punishing the 99.9% of law-abiding gun owners isn't the same as not taking it seriously.

Please point to the post I made where I said that we need to "punish law-abiding gun owners."

Oh, that's right, you can't, because there isn't one.

That was also not the argument. Don't be disingenuous; we are capable of going back up and re-reading your posts. You said that the shootings are sensationalized because the # of deaths is not really *that high* statistically speaking. That is not an argument about the 2nd Amendment. That's an argument for people not taking this public threat seriously at all, which is beyond stupid considering the goal of these shootings is to provoke a statistical escalation of violence.

Oh, but on the subject of "punishing law-abiding gun owners," care to explain how implementing universal background checks would punish law-abiding citizens? How would buyback programs punish law-abiding citizens? How would a ban on the production of high capacity weaponry punish law-abiding citizens? How would expanding mental health coverage punish law-abiding citizens?

Oh, that's right, they wouldn't.
---

Hi

Cacciato posted...

As much as I dislike Trump, you act like this country hasnt had mass shooters before him and even while its occuring you think theres a political motive?

How can there still be so many people who don't understand what is happening?

Trump is a rallying point, not the sole cause, but yes, this is almost certainly political.

Edit:
So, what a lot of people don't seem to know about this (I thought it was common knowledge but apparently not) is that these public shootings are being fueled by an online stochastic terrorist network in which neo-nazis encourage each other to commit violent acts against the general population. They are generally not encouraged to make manifestos, by the way, as those tend to backfire hard. The violence in and of itself is an attempt to destabilize the country. They are hoping to provoke homicidal retaliation from the public, and some of them believe that if tensions escalate, they can use their stocked up weaponry and seize control of the nation through violence (this is on the assumption that the Trump administration will choose to crack down on their opposition rather than the fascists themselves, and this is not unfounded, I suppose). Most, if not all of them, believe that these acts of targeting areas where people congregate will help damage any efforts for the general population to organize and resist them when tensions escalate.

Regardless of how individuals expect things to play out, their end game is obvious enough. They want to kill minorities and any political opponents who might try to stop them. They're not even subtle about it.

Edit: Forgot to mention. Now's a good time to start supporting antifascist action in public discourse even if you don't practice it yourself. These guys love it whenever someone equates their bullet hail to Antifa's freaking milkshakes. This is also why reading their manifestos is important. If you understand what they're trying to do, you inhibit their ability to recruit more people into their network.
---

Hi

Rasmoh posted...

Gaawa_chan posted...

Then you don't understand what these shooters are trying to do.

Enlighten me.

They want to eradicate political opposition and minorities. The individual shootings are an effort to kick-start more and more violence (they are particularly hoping to provoke an out-of-control cycle of retaliatory violence, but most minority folks aren't stupid enough to think that shooting up a bunch of neo-nazis in Charlottesville is going to do anything other than make things worse). Some of them are outright gunning for a civil war/race war. Turning a blind eye to this just because you don't think enough people people have died from it yet makes you look like a fool. This is fascist stochastic terrorism, and not taking it seriously is just going to get more people killed.
---

Hi

"Marriage is between one man and woman" he said, until it was his daughter that wanted to get married to her female partner.

"Abortion is murder" he said, until it was his mistress who got pregnant.

"Bailouts are bad" he said, until he needed a bailout for his farm.

"It's not a problem" he said, until it was his family under the barrel.

Rasmoh posted...

Who's pretending? It's a literal fact that homicide by gun is so uncommon that it doesn't even make up half a percent of total deaths in the US. Mass shootings make up a fraction of that. It's a sensationalized issue.

Then you don't understand what these shooters are trying to do.
---

Hi

Mead posted...

Dont even read or or spread his shit, thats what he wants

DO read his shit. Know what you're up against. People need to understand what they're trying to do, and I don't think many people do at this point.
Do you guys not realize that every time one of these idiots writes some sort of "thesis" on why they do what they do, the people who disagree with them freak out amidst themselves? Here, look:
https://imgur.com/2Mq7lTn
This is also not mentioning that any people listed as inspirations by these terrorists have a vested interest in you not looking at said manifestos. These manifestos actively work AGAINST the people who write them and inspire them, and this was particularly true after the NZ shooter.

Educating yourself about this is exactly what they do not want you to do. They do not want you to know that their end game is GENOCIDE of political opponents and minorities and that these are NOT a series of random events. They are trying to spark more and more violence because they believe that they are better armed and will win if push comes to shove. At the moment, the best thing you can do to counter that is to spread the word and bolster antifascist action.
---

Hi

wolfy42 posted...

What we need is torture, prolonged torture, that is TELEVISED

No, they will use that as a rallying point against the government and just stop surrendering to police after committing their shootings. The number of shootings would increase, not decrease, with that response. This is not even mentioning the blatant unconstitutionality as well as what a horrific idea it is to give the State the legal right to torture people as a crime deterrent.
---

Hi

Mr Hangman posted...

^I disagree with your posts implication that most of antifa's activity is not non-violent

? Did I state that somewhere? Oops. For the record I do not believe that. I haven't slept in like three days so I am not perhaps phrasing things as well as I ought to.
---

Hi

I mean... I've tossed cats when they're very naughty (like if one is attacking the other, and in one instance the tossed cat was perfectly fine and the attacked cat had to go to the vet) but I aim for cushioned furniture when I do it (and if there isn't any I'd just take the claws instead)... it's understandable to toss a cat if you're trying to get them away from whatever they're doing asap without getting maimed... unless you're being really rough or the cat is somehow physically incapable of landing in a way that won't hurt them, it shouldn't cause any harm I don't think?

The whiskey thing is worse, I think, because there is no real way to justify it under pretty much any circumstance.
---

Hi

Talking about political violence is kind of awkward because there are a lot of people out there who think (perhaps rightfully) that ALL politics is violent. States/laws are enforced through... well, force. So the question is not so much violence/non-violence, but when/where/what kind of violence is acceptable. See my example on the death penalty.
.
Antifa's primary defense against accusations that they are violent/just as bad as fascists/etc is that antifascist action is defensive in nature. In order to understand THAT position, you have to understand fascism which... I'll spare you the history lesson (god we'd be here forever), but to state it very generally, the problem with fighting fascism is that fascism uses the rights given by their democracy/republic in order to dismantle those very systems. If you want more information, I highly recommend watching videos made by Youtuber Three Arrows, who makes great videos on the history of fascism and German fascism in particular.

If you understand how fascism works, then you understand why Antifa behaves as it does. In general, most of our standard political systems are not really equipped to deal with fascistic attempts to dismantle the systems... using the systems. However... Antifa is. Antifa tactics have been shown to be highly effective against fascism... and non-violent protest has been shown to be highly ineffective against fascism, conversely, which is... not a very comfortable thing to admit. Violent protest was at its height of effectiveness during the era of fascism (late 30's to mid 40's) and declined sharply due to the shift in protest goals/targets.

(basics on Antifa thought, and this video specifically addresses the "is antifa terroristic?" at about 29 minutes in)


(three arrows)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCT8a7d6S6RJUivBgNRsiYg/videos

I will try and find some other interesting things on this topic for you... I watched a really interesting one that went into the statistical effectiveness of various forms of protest against fascists in history, but I am not seeing it anywhere... >_<

Anyway, hopes that helps you understand where they're coming from.

Edit: I forgot to explain stochastic terrorism. Uh, so you know how there are a lot of mass shootings going on right now? No small number of them actually came from people who were encouraged by others online to commit those shootings. That is stochastic terrorism; those people didn't pull the triggers, but they encouraged people to commit random acts of criminal violence for political reasons. It's like the terroristic equivalent of convincing someone to kill themselves or someone else. That makes it very hard to stop, because, again, they're using the rights afforded to them under their States to commit violence against people in order to undermine the State.

Edit2: Forgot to mention... Germany's history is really worth looking into when talking about this. Because of their history, Germany took specific pains in order to weaken any potential efforts to bring back fascism. Three Arrows talks about this a decent amount in this video:

---

Hi

Lokarin posted...

Not sure.
I was just watchin' a TJ Kirk vidya and he says that there's no way Antifa could be terrorists since they haven't killed anyone yet...
So I wanted to get pedantic

Ah. I assume you already know the arguments leveled against Antifa. If you want some nuanced material to look at in support of Antifa, I can give you some links as well as explain some of their positions myself (I'm not a member of Antifa btw). But I'm a slow typer so you have to be a little patient.
---

Hi

Depends on what you consider to be violence or what violence you think is acceptable. For example, a lot of people think it's okay to give the State the power to kill people (death penalty), and one justification that is commonly used for that is that they hope that it will scare other people into not committing crimes. This example? The only thing that makes it terrorism or not terrorism is whether or not the death penalty is legal.

I'm going to go ahead and say that I think that the definition is too broad. *shrug*

As an aside, are you talking about stochastic terrorism, by any chance?
---

Hi