Lauri Carleton's career in fashion began early in her teens, working in the family business at Fred Segal Feet in Los Angeles while attending Art Center School of Design. From there she ran “the” top fashion shoe floor in the US at Joseph Magnin Century City. Eventually she joined Kenneth Cole almost from its inception and remained there for over fifteen years as an executive, building highly successful businesses, working with factories and design teams in Italy and Spain, and traveling 200 plus days a year.
With a penchant for longevity, she has been married to the same man for 28 years and is the mother of a blended family of nine children, the youngest being identical twin girls. She and her husband have traveled the greater part of the US, Europe and South America. From these travels they have nourished a passion for architecture, design, fine art, food, fashion, and have consequently learned to drink in and appreciate the beauty, style and brilliance of life. Their home of thirty years in Studio City is a reflection of this passion, as well as their getaway- a restored 1920's Fisherman's Cabin in Lake Arrowhead. Coveting the simpler lifestyle with family, friends and animals at the lake is enhanced greatly by their 1946 all mahogany Chris-Craft; the ultimate in cultivating a well appreciated and honed lifestyle.
Mag.Pi for Lauri is all about tackling everyday life with grace and ease and continuing to dream…
What a waste. A tragedy for that whole family for literally nothing. No reason at all other than small minded assholes.
Yeah, it's the second civil war starting. Expect to see more terrible garbage like this on your feeds as we reach 2024 and beyond.
there aren't enough psychopaths to have a civil war over lgbt flags
Don't tempt fate by challenging it.
Bring it on fate. You useless fucking concept developed by village shamans
Not just the shamen, but the shawomen, and shachildren, too!
These same people couldn't go three weeks without a haircut in 2020. There are some who'll shoot someone over a pride flag, but not enough to fight a war. They'd be begging to surrender the first time their grocery order doesn't arrive.
Didn't some of them try to take over a cabin somewhere and they were flooded with dicks deliveries and relented?
if there's a civil war that stupid, then the country deserves to end
Nah, it's just a chance to finish the job Reconstruction failed to do.
Lmao.
While I agree that is what should happen, there is literally nothing about current day Democrats that makes me think they'll actually take the hard stance and punish people for their actions. We'll have Biden or whoever is in charge at the time saying some bullshit "we need to heal now. We've been though rough times, let's welcome our neighbors back home. Blah blah blah no repercussions other than for the ring leaders."
The first civil war never REALLY ended, just went a bit cold.
I'm curious, do you actually think there is going to be another civil war?
We're literally already in one. We've been in a cold civil war for about a decade now (arguably the past few decades), and the war's been growing hotter with every mass shooting and tragedy like this one.
This is how civil wars are fought in the modern age. It's not all fancy suits and muskets. It's large swaths of people with opposing views killing each other over it at every opportunity, like this one.
Why do you think school shootings happen? Or mass shootings in general? The vast majority of them are committed by members of right-wing hate groups and it's part of this civil war they've been waging against the left. The whole point is to eradicate the left or force them to submit to their will.
The first civil war never ended. It entered a cold phasw for 150 years or so. That's heating up now.
There were even people waving the battle flag of the Confederate army/navy when the neoconfederates invaded Congress on January 6, 2021.
I still can't believe that these people are getting such light sentences for taking up arms and invading the Capitol.
If they were communists, they'd have been executed by now.
A viewpoint like that is very subject to confirmation bias. Literally any crime is held up as evidence that it is correct. Look at the terms you are using "cold" "about a decade". It isn't a who, what, where, why, and how. It is vague.
Reverse it for a moment. Treat it like a claim in science. What evidence would you use to try to prove your hypothesis wrong?
Here’s a podcast where the first handful of episodes lays out what it’d look like if a civil war were to happen and why the author thinks there’s a reasonable chance that it could happen.
I do really like Robert Evans, but this is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo could definitely happen, but I think it's far more likely that we'll see an American version of The Troubles. I don't think there are enough people who would truly be willing to fight and die over this; but there's plenty of people willing to commit terrorist bombings or acts of sabotage if they think they can get away with it.
I think the most likely scenario is a dissolution limitation, similar to what happened with the soviet union.
The Soviet Union didn’t collapse from political rhetoric and hurt feelings.
And the morons with enough guns and ammo to fight a war are far too economically comfortable to want actually want one.
If the shit really ever did hit the fan having a few chickens and a garden is going to get you a lot farther than a few thousand rounds.
I haven't listened to the podcast, so maybe I'm wrong... but isn't the "it" in "it could happen here" referring to fascism, not a second civil war?
If you just call it terrorism more people will understand you. I understand you’re trying to draw a distinction and I’m here to tell you as someone who grew up in a rural town of 1200 people…just call it terrorism. These people aren’t backtracking on language because they thought of an exception. It’s part of why they hate us.
Only the left has to use language accurately. The right does not care about language.
I find it important to make clear it was a hate crime, but Lauri Carleton was NOT killed "over a rainbow flag outside her clothing store".
No one gets killed because of a rainbow flag. You get killed because an asshole who wants to rather die than adapt to the world changing wants to spread fear with his last action and needs desperately to find a "reason". Let's not pretend he had a reason any other than being a coward.
My heart goes out to her family, friends and the community impacted.
That headline is doing the murderer's work by literally propagating his anti-LGBT terrorism. Shame on that periodical.
Why has calling murderers cowards become such a thing? I blame someone who acts out of fear less than someone who acts out of hate or greed. Fear is a normal emotion and often reasonable. I don't think this person acted out of fear though.
A lot of them are terrified of LGBTQ people and mask it as outrage. They honestly believe the shit they get told and it terrifies them what the world is becoming.
The reality is that terrorists like this guy are armed and carrying all the time, but the second amendment is for all Americans including liberals, lefties, moderates and everyone in between.
Im not advocating for violence, in fact having a concealed carry permit nearly always means the exact opposite. Someone being aggressive? You walk away and let them win. Someone tailgating you? Let them pass.
Carrying is about situations like this, between a shop owner with a rainbow flag and someone out looking for an excuse to murder someone over rage bait.
the problem I have with this is that you're basically saying more people should have guns. a significant part of the issue is that there already are too many guns around and accessible and that is statistically going to result in more alterations resulting in shooting. you can talk about how much respect guns should be given all you want. but if more people have guns then there will be more gun violence.
You're not wrong and I mainly don't disagree with you.
But look at it from another perspective.
Those millions of guns in households are largely in the hands of conservatives since gun ownership skews heavily towards white people, males, and those living in rural areas which we already know also skews conservative, within which is a subset that fantasize about having a reason to murder their neighbors over dumb shit like colorful flags or opinions.
Liberals are much more diverse of a population than conservatives which means that when it comes to liberals, women or poc the odds of them having a fighting chance are not great in a life or death situation they didnt create, vs who is most likely to be the aggressors, conservative white men.
My take on it is that the cat is already out of the bag. In a perfect world I would prefer not having easy to operate life-ending tools spread freely throughout the country, but that's not the reality we live in. The best shot we have is to even the playing field so to speak even with the downsides it presents. The current status quo is letting terrorists gun us down with impunity and that doesn't sit well with me.
I disagree and think the core problem of too many guns could be solved the same way other Anglophone nations did it.
However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.
I'm open to a solution, but it's unrealistic to expect Americans to give/sell back enough of their guns for it to work like it did in Australia.
We have A LOT more guns here, and each one lasts 100 years or more. We could give up 99% of them (we wouldn't though) and there would still be like 6 million guns here.
Demanding people give up their guns would just cause an open civil war. The solution that worked in other countries wouldn't work here because the ideology is different.
I have no faith that what has worked in europe would work here given the political and cultural landscape before us. If it was feasible for america I'm not sure we would be in this situation now.
I wish it was, you and me both, but until that changes I'm simply accepting the lay of the land for what it is and reacting accordingly. We can work towards a better solution in the meantime; these actions and thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.
Thanks for the kind words. It is rather annoying being the change I want to see in the world though.
I mean.. I kind of get where you're coming from but "with impunity"? The shooter is now dead. If they weren't dead they'd be either executed eventually or in prison for 50+ years, or more likely, life.
The trouble with this is that like @Liz@midwest.social pointed out in her comment about individual rights vs societal safety, from the perspective of the individual being shot, it is with impunity.
That woman had a right to life and safety and some stupid asshole came along and ended that no matter what justice the shooter rightfully faces after the fact.
Yeah that's fair.
It's a balance between individual rights and societal safety. You have a right to defend yourself from threats to your life and safety by using deadly force. To say otherwise removes the ability for a good chunk of the population to adequately defend themselves. I'm related to plenty of people who cannot defend their life against the average male aggressor without a gun, and you are too. At a certain point size and strength are insurmountable.
But yes, encouraging people to responsibility engage with firearms for self defense use means that there will be more guns floating around, which means more accidents, suicides, and murders. Just as with any other choice for the rules of society, it's a trade-off. How much do we value keeping the right to adequate self-defense as a universal right? How much do we value preventing accidental injury and death?
The classic comparison is cars, simply because the annual death numbers are similar, and pretty much no other reason. But even so, we can draw parallels. Cars have mandatory features that reduce the likelihood of injury without impacting the usefulness or general experience of using a car. So too do guns, with nearly all guns having to meet industry requirements for safety, like being able to handle an overpressure event, and being drop-safe.
Cars have a licensing procedure (though it's essentially a joke here in the US) and a licensing procedure would be fine for guns, so long as it can't be used to restrict access (racist approvals and denials would become a problem in a hurry). My ideal licensing program would be a free handling skills course where failure would require some sort gross negligence, and even then you'd still get racist denials.
And really, this is the fundamental problem with guns: I (and many others) view them as a necessary tool to accessing a highly valuable right. The chances you'll need a gun are very low, but the cost of not having it can be very high. You don't have full control over whether someone else will attempt to take your life, and I don't want to say to a large chunk of the population "we're going to take away your ability to defend yourself in order to save other people who would still have that option either way."
And I want to be clear, I completely agree with the other person. If you're going to bring guns into your life, you had better learn medical skills, social skills, and you had better train with your firearm in somewhat realistic conditions. You should carry pepper spray, you should practice learning how to actually effectively calm people down, you need to learn how to safely store your guns and ammo, etc. Etc.
I get the desire ban guns in order to save lives, but you'd also be endangering others. Compare that with the car analogy, and banning cars would have a similar trade-off. Some people would live thanks to not getting in a car accident, others would die thanks to not having the same level of mobility (which has about a billion knock-on effects for quality of life).
Without regard to the rest of your comment, somehow the lack of guns works ok in Europe and they aren’t all exactly equally sized.
So, two things:
If you read that comment and didn't realize I knew perfectly well that an increase in access to guns results in an increase in gun violence, I don't know what to tell you. That whole comment was about balancing the needs to the individual against the needs of society.
By your own data, the rape rate in the US was seven times higher than in Europe. Surely we would be talking about how common rape at gunpoint was in the US if that crime was increased by access to guns. The study you cited makes it very clear that direct, unqualified comparisons of crime rates between nation is a bad idea, since there's a million factors that influence crime.
One of those factors is access to guns, but so are things like poverty, population density, education level, pollution, social services, community engagement, access to green space, noise pollution, after school programs, etc. And the thing is, I want to fix and improve all of those things, something which seems to be lacking among hardcore gun nuts. I also want to fix and improve our relationship to guns, I'm just unwilling to restrict access in a way that can become a civil rights issue on a hurry.
I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing there aren't more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it's possible you're exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I'm convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.
obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there's already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.
regardless, to me there's no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.
Oh, no, it's just that I don't weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that's okay that we disagree there.
To me, removing a potential victim's ability to protect themselves isn't worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they're not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that's okay, but I place a high value on an individual's agency, to the point where I'm willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.
This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don't necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.
so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what's better for everyone. you can't pretend this is your choice for others. it's definitely for yourself.
Uh, no, it's so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that's ridiculous. We're just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.
in this case there's only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can't argue it's better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it's clear that position results in more gun violence and death.
Carrying doesn't do crap for self defense. The moment a crazy asshole pulls their gun at you and shoots you won't even be able to comprehend the situation quick enough and get your own piece out of the holster.
The crazy asshole always wins as they shoot first (they are usually cowards on top, so you might just get shot in the back).
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns, I feel much safer in European countries.
In the situation you outline, yeah you'd have no real chance at protecting yourself. And those situations do happen in cases like the Las Vegas hotel shooting or any of the various school shootings we're seeing all over these days.
In many other cases even the most craven assholes need to work themselves up to shoot another human being.
That means arguments, harassment and threats.
These are helpful advance warning signs that tell you that you're entering dangerous waters and de-escalation tactics take priority. Many of our lady friends can already tell from a mile away if someone is dangerous even before they start flapping their mouthholes as a matter of everyday survival.
If all of that fails and I hope to god that it doesn't, that's when having a concealed weapon gives you a fighting chance at defending your right to live. Especially for women, guns are the great equalizer.
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns
You're right, this is true.
Unfortunately the cost of encountering a rather persistent strapped terrorist is extremely high even if the chance of it happening to you is low.
Well, I rather live in a country where pretty much no one is strapped (except police and military and even then not all of them).
Even the whole hero fantasy a lot of Americans have, it doesn't work out. There is a famous video of someone shooting up a mall. A random guy carrying tried to sneak up on him. Then the girlfriend of the shooter popped him right in the head from behind (as he didn't notice her following at a distance).
You likely don't hear much about it because liberal gun owners don't fetishize guns or base their personality around them like the chuds on the other side of the fence do.
Guns are tools, not an identity.
It's odd, I don't think I've ever heard of a lefty or a gay person outright killing someone over a Dixie or Trump flag. I keep reading about far-righties killing people over the scary rainbow flag though
Closest I've come is punching a skinhead for his jacket patches.
Maybe it wasn't a particularly good idea to make firearms so easily available to everyone and especially to (neo)Nazis?
The need for the 2nd amendment is fundamental if you want the people, able to form a tyranny.. oh wait..
The problem is they don't see the hypocrisy. They think tyranny only applies to the government.
Generally yeah most tyranny definitions refer to government. It's hard to exert tyrannical rule without being a de facto government.
Turns out they have always been pro tyranny as long it's their guy hurting the "correct" people...
You couldn't be more wrong Telllos. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? (Pokes Telllos) Huh? (Shoves Telllos) Do ya!?
How much of a pussy do you have to be to go shoot somebody over a rainbow flag. What a fucking fairy. People are so sensitive these days and don't know how to act. We can blame the internet all we want, but at the end of the day, people need to learn to have some social skills. How to talk disagreements out and let people have an opinion, even if it may be wrong or stupid in their eyes.
It absolutely infuriates me that people gotta die over stupid shit.
In like 2021 when the truckers were protesting g the vaccine at the border I made a man snap in public over what was legitimately a luke-warm shot at the protest.
I said something like "these dipshits are acting like they didn't get their mandated MMR shots already." And a guy next to me, not in the conversation, dramatically stood up, and loudly announced "You know what?! All you fuckin idiots think the situation is simple, but it's a lot more fucking complex that the corporate media is making it out to be!" He stormed out. Didn't pay his tab.
The whole bar just sat there in awe. Like "damn I guess some of us really got hit with that isolation crazy"
Truly, a year alone for some was just too much.
You say that like any of those people actually quarantined.
Talk about an easily triggered snowflake. Ahh they have a flag presented! I need my gun to protect my fragility!
Just another example of far-right extremist violence.
It's just regular conservative violence at this point.
Two sides of the same coin, since all "regular" conservatives are also "far-right" extremists. Any "moderate conservative" is just a centrist Democrat at this point.
Except no. The majority of "moderate conservatives" would still vote for the Republican candidate. 74 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020.
And those 74 million people are far-right extremists and in no way "Moderate."
That's the point. That's the Overton Window.
I was with you until that line. I know too many people who voted for Trump because they were ignorant and detached from politics, not because they were alt-right.
There is a difference. Many of those detached-from-politics people are seeing Trump face all those charges, and moving on. Some are being told that it's part of some Democratic conspiracy against Trump. If you've ever traveled to a red state on business and seen the local news, you'd understand how easy it is for someone to get convinced of the lie even though they are more aligned with Democrats on the issues than Republicans.
I'm torn on how to respond to this. On one hand, I grew up in rural Appalachia in a Republican household. Eventually my family pivoted 180 towards Democrats and never looked back. I shudder to wonder if we would've been the idyllic Trump supporter 20-years-ago. I know what it's like when Fox News is blaring in every doctor's lobby, every bar, etc. When on the job site every other person is espousing those same conservative views. So I recognize that people are capable of change and we should not give up entirely on them (though their vote is less needed these days).
The thing is, many voted for Hitler not out of dyed-in-the-wool SS Nazi beliefs, but as you said: Complete ignorance.
Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right. In the end, I don't find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism, versus those who know the game and commit 100% — both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion. Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.
Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right
I can't speak for everyone. But I knew quite a few Trump voters who clearly did not understand the for-right platform. They thought they voted:
Anti-corruption
This idea that both parties are the same and here's someone who actually wants to pull a Perot
Saving jobs (he actually dramatically overperformed the labor vote that, while they can be racist, don't usually run towards the dogwhistle candidate)
This, to me, is similar to a lot of the folks voting for Obama thinking he was actually progressive despite openly being conservative.
In the end, I don’t find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism
There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we're not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.
both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion
This is true, and why it's both important that we educate people, and that we work towards a country where campaigns of lies are either illegal or at least made ineffective. The Democrats ran fairly hard on "everything Trump said is a lie" and were able to prove it, and that wasn't enough.
Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.
Sure, but not every fool is a racist. Most of them are "centirsts" or merely uninterested in politics and just want to go on with their lives.
A lot of Americans are certainly being duped by right-wing propaganda. Distinguishing between the right-wing propaganda that dominates the airwaves and what is actually right-wing are two different things, which I think you fairly note. There are many people, including members of my extended family and many others who I'd consider generally "good" people, but duped and led astray — no doubt. I too have met these same people who cited the same points you did. But man, at this point if they haven't changed, I have very little hope that they ever will. These aren't centrists; these are largely red-hats through and through.
Like I said, this is how fascism rises to power. it hinges on the gullible and ignorant, not as I said the dyed-in-the-wool believers. They Thought They Were Free is a great book that examines this. That 1940s, "Don't be a Sucker" video illustrated this well, too.
I think it's reasonable to say that Obama was a progressive at heart, but conservative because a large swath of the country leans conservative, no thanks to right-wing talk radio, the influence of church, and Fox News (we can discuss modern influences like Russia's foreign influence operation, Bannon & Breitbart, Joe Rogan, etc. and their effect today of course). The thing is, people believe right-wing talking points: (a) unions bad, (b) the rich earned it, (c) immigrants are bad, etc. Meanwhile many people publicly espouse "moderate" views but if among trusted acquaintances on a back patio, they show their true colors. So while I still to this day believe Obama is a progressive at heart, he felt one could not force too rapid of progress for a country still skewed to the right. I find that slightly different than those who were outright duped by thinking Trump was some sort of leader of blue collar worker when anyone with a brain could see from history he was anything but.
There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we’re not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.
I think there's somewhat of a difference as to origin of beliefs, but I don't know if there's much in the outcome or even the capacity to move these people. I'd be more likely to fully buy that argument if this was still midway through Trump's first term. For instance, after all has been said and done by Trump over the years. Scandal after scandal. Lie after lie. From grabbing women by the pussy, racist comments toward Mexico, Trump University fraud, or even the very first lie of his Presidency: the size of his inauguration... To catastrophic response to COVID, the damning 2 impeachments and even more compelling 91 criminal charges across 4 Grand Jury indictments... All of this is public record. All these losers know what Trump is, and yet they still continue to vote for him. Don't count on a large number of them simply being innocently gullible. At what point do you simply conclude, "They just don't care, do they?"
After all, even after showing his true colors and saturating the national media spotlight for 4 years, he came away with 11 million more votes. If people are that ignorant, then I regret to think there's little hope for the vast majority of them and they are just as complicit in the outcome. Willful ignorance at best. Still, so incredibly dangerous. And after nearly 8 years of trying to get through to these people how bad Trump is, how much progress have we actually made among those who already fell for the cult?
Here's where I hope we can find common ground: Every year there is a new batch of citizens who enter the political fold for one reason or another — whether that's coming of age and finally taking an interest in civics, or someone who has had some major issue personally impact them. Generally there are a lot of the middle-ground "enlightened centrist," fence-sitters who have yet to fully commit to a side. These are the people we must reach out to. They're the ones not too far gone and too isolated among right-wing echo-chambers to catch before they're gone (great allegory for this in The Matrix / Plato's Cave). As we're pursuing these fence-sitters, we must also energize the left by actually committing to progressive policy that we know works. Time and again, we shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to water down our policies in order to appeal to voters whom we'll never get on the right anyway — only to disenfranchise the most active part of the left and water down our policies to such an extent that it backfires when implemented.
I agree with quite a few of your points, but not all of them. The biggest disagreement we have is on the nature of Obama.
In his political career, he was always a conservative/moderate. The fact that he seemed to hide his conservativeness in his campaigning suggests he knew progressives might be a fair draw and he needed their vote. Maybe he's a lifestyle liar, but I wouldn't bet on it.
As for Trump voters. Yeah. Two counterpoints.
Undecided voters are often short-sighted. Hell, most voters are short-sighted. We don't remember 6 months ago if we're not repeatedly reminded.
Buttery males, Bernie the commie, Hunter's laptop. Birth Certificate. To someone distanced, the scandals started around 2007 and hasn't stopped since. It takes actually paying attention to the scandals to realize that they're not all fake. This is one of the neocon strategies: desensitize us to the evils they cannot hide.
Generally there are a lot of the middle-ground “enlightened centrist,” fence-sitters who have yet to fully commit to a side. These are the people we must reach out to.
1000% agree. But it's not easy. I look at some of my family members in their formative voting years (19-22). They are uninterested in the left... why? Because they have family who won't shut up about how bad Trump is. I kid you not. They have analyzed enough to realize it's true, but then found themselves just not caring to vote because some people are just so damn passionate. Like passion is a bad thing. And it's not just one or two people. The attitude seems fairly common, and reiterates the "desensitize" thing. The real problem could well be that after this influx of gen y upping the vote out of fear of Trump, we're going to watch the voting rate plummet again... and we all know what happens when not enough people vote.
I think there were some hints to Obama's progressive streak, and while I generally agree that Obama was probably as centrist as they come in terms of his Presidency -- if not center-right in many respects -- I think deep down he was frustrated that his hands were tied from enacting more progressive policies. Some of which he clearly signaled in the lead-up to his win in '08, like the desire for universal health care, initially seeking single-payer healthcare (something his rival Clinton famously espoused, "would never happen."), then public option, then settling for an insurance mandate because of obstruction. As left as Bernie or Warren at heart? I wouldn't say so; or if he is, he approaches it not with strong convictions but of pragmatism. That pragmatism unfortunately only works if the other side has the mutual interest in improving the country and they do not.
I can see that a bit. Fortunately my younger sister in that age group is still very active and gets it. But my sister in-law who is normally quite outspoken and willing to discuss and debate simply "did not have time to vote" and more or less bought into the rhetoric of her conservative dad that your vote doesn't matter. I tried so hard to to ensure they voted, but it just hasn't clicked with them. MAYBE passion like mine has driven them away, but let's be honest, there's a reason the crazy uncle who listens to Limbaugh or the latest charlatan runs their mouth and everyone else remains quiet. The loud mouth gets their voice heard and to the detriment of the country, that's influential. I think it's high time the left gets loud and vocal; for if not now, when?
Overall I'm hopeful, considering youth showed up big for a midterm no less last year. I think that trend overall might continue with Gen Y and Z, considering there has been no progress on abortion and Republicans have only continued to cripple LGBTQ rights as well as obstruct tuition forgiveness. Though I'm thoroughly convinced we're not doing ourselves any favors running Biden again, it is what it is. For the sake of the country, I certainly hope it's Trump who is their nominee. If someone like Chris Sununu runs, then we're fucked. Even NPR was kissing his ass yesterday...
Overall I view Trump supporters as a lost cause, and I literally cannot count more than 2 people I know who regretted their support for Trump since 2015. Most cultists, no differently than the casual nazi party members before them, will double-down on the lie because that's what people do when they've been hooked. Sure they're capable of change if they really work for it as my family did, but it's not worth the time and effort. Now it's a matter of containing the spread of misinformation, inoculating the apathetic before they get in too deep.
I think deep down he was frustrated that his hands were tied from enacting more progressive policies
Ultimately, I cannot know what was going on in his mind, so we are theorizing. But here's my counter-theory. He was frustrated because he believed in bipartisanship, in both parties working together for a better country despite neither getting everything it wanted, and he discovered the other side would literally burn the country down for an edge. I think he was an idealist, but his ideal was "one country, one people" instead of this Plymouth/Jamestown contrast we still seem to represent. To that end, he was willing to sacrifice almost anything, and only started playing hardball when he realized after he gave EVERYTHING, the other side smiled and said "so we're going to vote against that".
MAYBE passion like mine has driven them away, but let’s be honest, there’s a reason the crazy uncle who listens to Limbaugh or the latest charlatan runs their mouth and everyone else remains quiet. The loud mouth gets their voice heard and to the detriment of the country, that’s influential.
You're not wrong. I don't like that we can't have successful left-loudmouths. I like to say/think it's because a large part of the Democratic base is interested in truth and facts, but that doesn't explain the lazy people who are willing to allow for alt-right nonsense but not leftist discussion.
there has been no progress on abortion and Republicans have only continued to cripple LGBTQ rights as well as obstruct tuition forgiveness
I used to think that Roe being overturned would be the last nail, that Red states would spontaneously turn Blue from people who suddenly realized they were in Gilead. I used to actually think they wouldn't let their best tool to rally the alt-right go away. And I was right that it hurt them now that people are living in the hell of abortion being illegal, but it hasn't been the wave I expected. I really hope you're right, but look at Texas. It was supposed to be purple already, and quickly turning Blue in the next 20 years. And that was before Dobbs. I just don't see that motion yet. I hope to see it soon.
Overall I view Trump supporters as a lost cause, and I literally cannot count more than 2 people I know who regretted their support for Trump since 2015.
Sad, but true. I swear, there's a mile-long list for why the Republican party should be failing. And they KNOW it. They hate Trump as much as we do. Coming in to 2016, Republicans were internally talking about looking more moderate because they were afraid they'd alienated too many people. Trump wasn't supposed to have a chance in the Primary. They're like a zombie party. Things that would destroy almost any other party in the world are reinvigorating them. Non-stop sex scandals? MORE VOTES.
When they vote for, and are ok with open arms for far right extreme shit, what should it be called?
I know some people might seem to be normal and perhaps moderate, but when you sit down with them and explain some of this shit to them, and they basically are ok with it because they feel the bad shit will only impact other people and not themselves (for example religious persecution - "I'm Christian so I'll be fine") what does one call that?
One calls that bigotry because that's exactly what it is. They're bigots and prejudicial against other religions and I'd wager races as well.
Ever notice how there's no such thing as a liberal hate crime?
"We are all domestic terrorists".
How much more do we have to put up with before we do something about this? Sadly I'm guessing it's a lot more.
If I am ever killed over my rainbow stuff, I'm haunting the son of a bitch who killed me as a rainbow.
I'd tend to trust someone haunted by a rainbow personally, I don't think it's the best plan
Leprechauns are starting to make sense.
I would love to have my personal rainbow, could you haunt me a little as well? Maybe Tuesdays?
They want you dead. It's time to return this sentiment.
Normalizing political violence will inevitably, and possibly literally, blow up in your face.
We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it's supposed to be wrong?
The dude who shot her was killed by the police. What more were you thinking should have been done to him?
There are more like him
So what are you recommending? It sounds like you're recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It's also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren't involves in hate in the first place.
All i am saying is that if someone were to kill one of those terrorists, they wouldn't get my pity
What do you define as "one of those terrorists"? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?
If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.
Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world's problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.
No action will also reinforce their agenda
There's a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on...
I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It's about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn't accomplish that, and in this case I don't blame them.
All I'm saying is there's a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have "reduced suffering in the world?"
Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.
Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.
One could make the argument war didn't get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.
One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn't mean its a good argument.
No it wouldn't, you are helping their agenda by discouraging the left from taking up arms.
You're not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn't the US.
The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that's ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.
Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I'm talking about.
The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There's enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.
No they wouldn't. Our military doesn't even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn't even get to play with their big toys.
Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit
But not enough to stop them without the left shedding their unhelpful way of thinking on the matter and mobilize, and you know that.
Lately I've been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support
That's basically how it's been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we'll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it'll be downhill from there.
Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.
Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn't even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.
For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.
This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.
Okay, fair, my bad. You're right.
Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?
Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?
In yesterday's society it was to protect the wealth and position of the Upper and Middle classes. In today's society it's because it seems like an obvious response to things like Mass Shootings and Gun Crime. The hidden in plain sight truth though is that modern day Gun Control proposals are doing the same thing as yesterday's Gun Control proposals because if you have enough money they will not apply to you.
Pass a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban? No problem for the wealthy, they'll just drop $20,000 on a pre-ban machine gun that can be legally transferred to them. Pass a Federal "Red Flag" law? They don't care as they know it'll never be enforced against them; their connections, money, and lawyers will see to it. Federal UBC? Again, no worries as their connections, money, and lawyers all make sure they won't be impacted. Remove the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of firearms? No worries, the bodyguards surrounding them and their families will still be armed, just like they are everywhere else in the world.
What makes it even more stupid is that no direct causal link between the number of guns in circulation and the amount of "Gun Crime", however you define that, has ever been shown. In fact the data shows something very different than the reality most people believe in.
In short US Citizens bought a SHIT ton of guns starting in the 90s and tens of millions of new owners were added as our population grew...all while both Violent and Gun Crime continued to drop. We have a problem for sure, but it ain't the number of guns in circulation.
I always thought the drop on violent crime was because of the ban on leaded gasoline.
It's a good theory and one that I bought into as well but the statistics should have stayed down if that was the cause. Since they didn't there must have been another factor.
So? In what world does that necessitate you owning a gun? One where Robert Evans's civil war happens?
The idea that everyone needs to be strapped because a few morons are, is paranoid race to the bottom thinking, not how you make a better future.
The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.
Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they're not strapped. That's so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!
Yes, they are. 1in 6 of all women on average are raped in their lifetime. Girls under 18, those rates are 1 in 4. And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.
And you're evil for claiming otherwise. And for insinuating women should have to accept any risk of being raped at all just to not offend your sensibilities. My sensibilities are more important than yours.
1 in 6 women is raped in their lifetime
Is that stat higher in Canada / Europe or the US?
And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.
[citation needed]
My sensibilities are more important than yours.
Yes you've made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.
Is that star higher for Europe or the US?
It's higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show. It's actually a lot worse. Everywhere. The numbers I gave you are estimates from RAINN.
But let's say what you want to believe is right -- that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.
You're arguing that rape is rare anyway, so rape victims shouldn't have a tool they can use to stop it from happening, and if that means any big, strong male threatens to or actually does rape them, they should just bend over and take it, and go to therapy and move on so you can make yourself feel better. If that means more completed rapes, so be it. If that means aggressors will therefore always be at an advantage and enjoy protection from you when you morally condemn and even physically force victims to stop when they try to resist, all the better. If that means even survivors will likely die from pregnancy complications because of so may countries around the world imposing abortion bans specifically so men can forcibly impregnate them against their will, too bad. Fuck them bitches -- literally.
It doesn't matter that it is very much worse than death -- in fact, that's what you're gonna argue next, because you don't care about other people or human life. You only care about being right.
And no sane person thinks like you.
You're sick.
[citation needed]
Resisting against rapists works:
When confronted with a sexual attacker, women are often extremely concerned with avoiding rape completion. While narrative reviews typically suggest that the victim resistance is linked to rape avoidance, much of the existing literature relies on overlapping samples from the National Crime Victimization Survey. The current meta-analysis examines whether victim resistance is related to a greater likelihood of avoiding rape completion. Results from a systematic literature search across 25 databases supplemented by a search of the gray literature resulted in 4,581 hits of which seven studies met eligibility criteria for the review. Findings suggest that women who resist their attacker are significantly more likely than nonresisters to avoid rape completion. This finding held across analyses for physical resistance, verbal resistance, or resistance of any kind. Limitations of the analysis and policy implications are discussed, with particular focus on other research findings that resistance may be linked to greater victim injury.
Wong JS, Balemba S. The Effect of Victim Resistance on Rape Completion: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2018 Jul;19(3):352-365. doi: 10.1177/1524838016663934. Epub 2016 Aug 12. PMID: 27519993.
Resisting rapists doesn't actually result in greater physical injury:
The impact of victim resistance on rape completion and injury was examined utilizing a large probability sample of sexual assault incidents, derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-2002), and taking into account whether harm to the victim followed or preceded self-protection (SP) actions. Additional injuries besides rape, particularly serious injuries, following victim resistance are rare. Results indicate that most SP actions, both forceful and nonforceful, reduce the risk of rape completion, and do not significantly affect the risk of additional injury.
Tark, Jongyeon & Kleck, Gary. (2014). Resisting Rape The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury. Violence against women. 20. 10.1177/1077801214526050.
Stop fucking telling women not to resist rape:
Women's resistance strategies to rape were examined using police reports and the court testimonies of 274 women who either avoided rape or were raped by subsequently incarcerated sex offenders. The sequence of behaviors in the offender-victim interaction was analyzed to determine whether women who resist rape with physical force are, as some have suggested, exacerbating the potential for physical injury or are simply responding to the severity of the offender's physical attack. The results indicated that 85% of the women in the study who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender's initiated violence. The remaining 15% who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender's verbal aggression. Moreover, those women who responded with physical aggression to the offender's violent physical attack were more likely to avoid rape than were women who did not resist such force. Also, the potential for physical injury was no greater for these women than for those who used other resistance strategies or who offered no resistance. These analyses suggest that the frequently found correlation between physical resistance and injury of the woman might be the result of the initial level of the offender's violence and should not be used to discourage women from physically resisting rape.
ULLMAN, S. E., & KNIGHT, R. A. (1992). Fighting Back: Women’s Resistance to Rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007001003
Guns allow for more effective resistance:
What are the consequences when rape victims resist rapists? Analysis of a nationally representative sample of rape incidents reported in the National Crime Surveys for 1979 to 1985 yields the following findings: (1) Victims who resist are much less likely to have the rape completed against them than nonresisting victims, a pattern generally apparent regardless of the specific form of resistance: (2) The form of resistance that appears most effective in preventing rape completion is resistance with a gun, knife, or other weapon: (3) Most forms of resistance are not significantly associated with higher rates of victim injury. The exceptions are unarmed forceful resistance and threatening or arguing with the rapist: (4) Even these two forms of resistance probably do not generally provoke rapists to injure their victims, as ancillary evidence concerning assaults and robberies indicates that resistance rarely precedes injury. Attack against the victim appears to provoke victim resistance, rather than the reverse: (V Only about three percent of rape incidents involve some additional injury that could be described as serious. Thus it is the rape itself that is nearly always the most serious injury the victim suffers. Consequently, refraining from resistance in order to avoid injury in addition to the rape is a questionable tradeoff.
Kleck, Gary & Sayles, Susan. (1990). Rape and Resistance. Social Problems - SOC PROBL. 37. 149-162. 10.1525/sp.1990.37.2.03a00020.
Now sit down and shut the fuck up you worthless rape apologist
You are an enemy to women and freedom-loving people everywhere. Including us independents.
Yes you’ve made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.
You've made it very clear that you value being superior to others over their literal lives, so you're not anyone that should be taken seriously.
You're evil.
Is that star higher for Europe or the US?
It's higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show.
Yeah, you didn't answer the question. European and Canadian women do not get raped at a higher rate than American women, despite not being strapped up like a commando.
And guess what? They suffer lower rates of spousal killing, and their children do not die from gun violence at any statistically meaningful rate.
But let's say what you want to believe is right -- that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.
Never said rape was rare, just pointed out that making guns easy for every psychopath to gets their hands on doesn't make it less rare. Increasing gun ownership increases the rate of rapists who own guns as well, you, evilevil gun wielding rapist supporter 🙄
Congratulations on living in the only country in the world where dozens of children are regularly gunned to death at school. All your decisions are going great.
History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.
They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.
I dunno. I've thought, for quite some time, that we'll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I'm increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I'm horrified by violence and probably wouldn't have the courage to do so.
If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).
Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.
At minimum, teach your children why we don't do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.
It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.
There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.
That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be "right" it's still a strategic error. It's much harder to build than destroy and any "successful" deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.
Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action
Everyone talking about the victim, etc what happened to the murderer? Is they in prisión now?
According to the article they were shot and killed by law enforcement
Murica
Good. Hopefully, they suffered before being thrown back into the hole they crawled out of
Shot them back.
"The suspect was found and shot dead by responding officers"
I don't think they made it to jail.
Extremely extremely uncommon police W
Unless the shooter was African American and they had no idea about the shop shooting which I wouldn't doubt
I don't call it a win. That murderer deserved to be tried and convicted for their crime and serve decades behind bars. They gave him the easy way out.
From another article (The Sun is owned by Murdoch iirc), they suggested that the murderer did not want to get arrested and was aggressive. It's sad that people get so hateful that they would rather die hating people than just going about life.
My cognitive dissonance is thinking both you and the guy you replied to are correct.
As much as I will defend my stance that I'm glad the shooter is dead, I still do agree with Flying Squid to an extent. Immediately murdering the aggressor goes against the whole of the system of law, I suppose a fair trial should still be taken place, but I'd be the happiest if they got the death penalty. Keeping him behind bars just keeps the hate alive
Yeah it is really easy to fall for the schadenfreude when a POS gets got by cops but don't forget cops are wrong about who did what all the fucking time...
I hope they weren't wrong here...
It's not their job to execute people. It's their job to arrest them and provide evidence in a court of law to get them jail time. Even if it's the perpetrator.
That is why I'm arguing for not celebrating this way of handling problems. Executions, even official ones that are done "correctly" by the state, often kill innocent people. And, as you said, people that have directly commited a crime still deserve their rights.
Situations like this, where no one wants to see a killer like that get away, it becomes easier to overlook bad policing, and everyone should make a conscious effort try and hold police to a higher standard to do things properly.
I am actually interested to know the race of the murderer. I know some people are against giving that information, but truth is, that provides a lot of information.
If you can't be bothered to read TFA, please don't enter the discussion.
Trying to make memes is a waste of time. Spend an hour trying to make something funny in photoshop, 4 upvotes. Literally just read the second line of an article and put it in the comments, 50 upvotes. Not that I care about internet points, but if I did I would never waste my time actually trying to make something insightful!
I'm hoping they never release the killers identity to the public. Spreading around that hateful persons likeness and beliefs all over media and articles only empowers others to do the same thing. Leave them as a nameless pictureless murderer with no agenda or beliefs, just some bigoted murderer.
Others are empowered and emboldened to do the same thing regardless of whether this person's name makes it out. The right knows that they have a near monopoly on political violence so their agenda is to feed poison to the unstable so that they'll commit violence to make people fear to be themselves and supportive of others. I've heard about a shit-ton of abortion clinic bombings and murders, can't think of a single "crisis pregnancy center" issue.
Hell, when the Supreme Court got concerned about protesters they were absolutely fine with there being special guidelines for them. But for a person seeking an abortion? Nope, you'll get to have unstable "Christian" shitheads yelling in your face while they take pictures of you and your car to distribute to their network of terrorists.
I see what you're getting at, but the point of keeping this person anonymous is to lessen their ability to be used by people as a symbol or turn them into a martyr. It's far easier for bigots to say "remember Joe Johnson, we fight for him or whatever" and spin it their way than it is to say "remember that guy who shot the guy who hung up a flag? He's our man!"
Not tying a name to the criminal prevents them from being immortalized because they're not "Joe the defender" or whatever, they're "a murderer". There will still be bigots out there for sure, but leaving this person nameless gives them one less thing to latch on to.
Disturbed - Legion of Monsters
You made sure the world will remember the name
But didn't the thought even enter your mind?
You′d give a new legion of monsters
A reason to take your life
The song originally is about a school shooting, but the point is the same
You're absolutely not wrong. Sadly though, there's a world in which are both right and we're living in it. More than a few times school shooters have been copycats who likened themselves to the colombine shooters, or who literally wanted to be in the media and have people talking about them.
The amount of time and effort put into remembering the perpetrators of these heinous crimes is so much greater than the memories of those they killed. That's the part I'd like to change. I know it'll never happen, gotta get those views for the ad money, but I can hope.
Kill-billies kill. It's all they know, it's all they can do.
The bio of the victim from her store's website:
What a waste. A tragedy for that whole family for literally nothing. No reason at all other than small minded assholes.
Yeah, it's the second civil war starting. Expect to see more terrible garbage like this on your feeds as we reach 2024 and beyond.
there aren't enough psychopaths to have a civil war over lgbt flags
Don't tempt fate by challenging it.
Bring it on fate. You useless fucking concept developed by village shamans
Not just the shamen, but the shawomen, and shachildren, too!
These same people couldn't go three weeks without a haircut in 2020. There are some who'll shoot someone over a pride flag, but not enough to fight a war. They'd be begging to surrender the first time their grocery order doesn't arrive.
Didn't some of them try to take over a cabin somewhere and they were flooded with dicks deliveries and relented?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge
if there's a civil war that stupid, then the country deserves to end
Nah, it's just a chance to finish the job Reconstruction failed to do.
Lmao.
While I agree that is what should happen, there is literally nothing about current day Democrats that makes me think they'll actually take the hard stance and punish people for their actions. We'll have Biden or whoever is in charge at the time saying some bullshit "we need to heal now. We've been though rough times, let's welcome our neighbors back home. Blah blah blah no repercussions other than for the ring leaders."
They said the same things in Germany in the 1930s
The first civil war never REALLY ended, just went a bit cold.
I'm curious, do you actually think there is going to be another civil war?
We're literally already in one. We've been in a cold civil war for about a decade now (arguably the past few decades), and the war's been growing hotter with every mass shooting and tragedy like this one.
This is how civil wars are fought in the modern age. It's not all fancy suits and muskets. It's large swaths of people with opposing views killing each other over it at every opportunity, like this one.
Why do you think school shootings happen? Or mass shootings in general? The vast majority of them are committed by members of right-wing hate groups and it's part of this civil war they've been waging against the left. The whole point is to eradicate the left or force them to submit to their will.
The first civil war never ended. It entered a cold phasw for 150 years or so. That's heating up now.
There were even people waving the battle flag of the Confederate army/navy when the neoconfederates invaded Congress on January 6, 2021.
I still can't believe that these people are getting such light sentences for taking up arms and invading the Capitol.
If they were communists, they'd have been executed by now.
A viewpoint like that is very subject to confirmation bias. Literally any crime is held up as evidence that it is correct. Look at the terms you are using "cold" "about a decade". It isn't a who, what, where, why, and how. It is vague.
Reverse it for a moment. Treat it like a claim in science. What evidence would you use to try to prove your hypothesis wrong?
Here’s a podcast where the first handful of episodes lays out what it’d look like if a civil war were to happen and why the author thinks there’s a reasonable chance that it could happen.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/it-could-happen-here/id1449762156?i=1000433661458
I do really like Robert Evans, but this is something I wholeheartedly disagree with. Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo could definitely happen, but I think it's far more likely that we'll see an American version of The Troubles. I don't think there are enough people who would truly be willing to fight and die over this; but there's plenty of people willing to commit terrorist bombings or acts of sabotage if they think they can get away with it.
I think the most likely scenario is a dissolution limitation, similar to what happened with the soviet union.
The Soviet Union didn’t collapse from political rhetoric and hurt feelings.
And the morons with enough guns and ammo to fight a war are far too economically comfortable to want actually want one.
If the shit really ever did hit the fan having a few chickens and a garden is going to get you a lot farther than a few thousand rounds.
I haven't listened to the podcast, so maybe I'm wrong... but isn't the "it" in "it could happen here" referring to fascism, not a second civil war?
Pretty important distinction imo
Stochastic terrorism.
If you just call it terrorism more people will understand you. I understand you’re trying to draw a distinction and I’m here to tell you as someone who grew up in a rural town of 1200 people…just call it terrorism. These people aren’t backtracking on language because they thought of an exception. It’s part of why they hate us.
Only the left has to use language accurately. The right does not care about language.
Or facts.
The systemic favoritism the right gets is insane, even from left wing people. We need to atop biasing in their favor, they don't deserve it
Good points. And anyway, once the trigger was pulled it became normal terrorism.
All the regressive media bullshit that poisons these peoples' minds is the stochastic terrorism.
Yeah they’re no different from people calling a fatwa on a journalist.
Kill-billies.
It absolutely is. We need laws, and police forces which aren't overrun by these same criminals, to handle these terrorists.
I blame the gop for radicalizing the shooter.
I find it important to make clear it was a hate crime, but Lauri Carleton was NOT killed "over a rainbow flag outside her clothing store".
No one gets killed because of a rainbow flag. You get killed because an asshole who wants to rather die than adapt to the world changing wants to spread fear with his last action and needs desperately to find a "reason". Let's not pretend he had a reason any other than being a coward.
My heart goes out to her family, friends and the community impacted.
That headline is doing the murderer's work by literally propagating his anti-LGBT terrorism. Shame on that periodical.
Why has calling murderers cowards become such a thing? I blame someone who acts out of fear less than someone who acts out of hate or greed. Fear is a normal emotion and often reasonable. I don't think this person acted out of fear though.
A lot of them are terrified of LGBTQ people and mask it as outrage. They honestly believe the shit they get told and it terrifies them what the world is becoming.
The reality is that terrorists like this guy are armed and carrying all the time, but the second amendment is for all Americans including liberals, lefties, moderates and everyone in between.
Im not advocating for violence, in fact having a concealed carry permit nearly always means the exact opposite. Someone being aggressive? You walk away and let them win. Someone tailgating you? Let them pass.
Carrying is about situations like this, between a shop owner with a rainbow flag and someone out looking for an excuse to murder someone over rage bait.
the problem I have with this is that you're basically saying more people should have guns. a significant part of the issue is that there already are too many guns around and accessible and that is statistically going to result in more alterations resulting in shooting. you can talk about how much respect guns should be given all you want. but if more people have guns then there will be more gun violence.
You're not wrong and I mainly don't disagree with you.
But look at it from another perspective.
Those millions of guns in households are largely in the hands of conservatives since gun ownership skews heavily towards white people, males, and those living in rural areas which we already know also skews conservative, within which is a subset that fantasize about having a reason to murder their neighbors over dumb shit like colorful flags or opinions.
Liberals are much more diverse of a population than conservatives which means that when it comes to liberals, women or poc the odds of them having a fighting chance are not great in a life or death situation they didnt create, vs who is most likely to be the aggressors, conservative white men.
My take on it is that the cat is already out of the bag. In a perfect world I would prefer not having easy to operate life-ending tools spread freely throughout the country, but that's not the reality we live in. The best shot we have is to even the playing field so to speak even with the downsides it presents. The current status quo is letting terrorists gun us down with impunity and that doesn't sit well with me.
I disagree and think the core problem of too many guns could be solved the same way other Anglophone nations did it.
However, your argument was very well written, and I appreciate both its intention and its focus on the human.
I'm open to a solution, but it's unrealistic to expect Americans to give/sell back enough of their guns for it to work like it did in Australia.
We have A LOT more guns here, and each one lasts 100 years or more. We could give up 99% of them (we wouldn't though) and there would still be like 6 million guns here.
Demanding people give up their guns would just cause an open civil war. The solution that worked in other countries wouldn't work here because the ideology is different.
I have no faith that what has worked in europe would work here given the political and cultural landscape before us. If it was feasible for america I'm not sure we would be in this situation now.
I wish it was, you and me both, but until that changes I'm simply accepting the lay of the land for what it is and reacting accordingly. We can work towards a better solution in the meantime; these actions and thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
Thanks for the kind words. It is rather annoying being the change I want to see in the world though.
I mean.. I kind of get where you're coming from but "with impunity"? The shooter is now dead. If they weren't dead they'd be either executed eventually or in prison for 50+ years, or more likely, life.
The trouble with this is that like @Liz@midwest.social pointed out in her comment about individual rights vs societal safety, from the perspective of the individual being shot, it is with impunity.
That woman had a right to life and safety and some stupid asshole came along and ended that no matter what justice the shooter rightfully faces after the fact.
Yeah that's fair.
It's a balance between individual rights and societal safety. You have a right to defend yourself from threats to your life and safety by using deadly force. To say otherwise removes the ability for a good chunk of the population to adequately defend themselves. I'm related to plenty of people who cannot defend their life against the average male aggressor without a gun, and you are too. At a certain point size and strength are insurmountable.
But yes, encouraging people to responsibility engage with firearms for self defense use means that there will be more guns floating around, which means more accidents, suicides, and murders. Just as with any other choice for the rules of society, it's a trade-off. How much do we value keeping the right to adequate self-defense as a universal right? How much do we value preventing accidental injury and death?
The classic comparison is cars, simply because the annual death numbers are similar, and pretty much no other reason. But even so, we can draw parallels. Cars have mandatory features that reduce the likelihood of injury without impacting the usefulness or general experience of using a car. So too do guns, with nearly all guns having to meet industry requirements for safety, like being able to handle an overpressure event, and being drop-safe.
Cars have a licensing procedure (though it's essentially a joke here in the US) and a licensing procedure would be fine for guns, so long as it can't be used to restrict access (racist approvals and denials would become a problem in a hurry). My ideal licensing program would be a free handling skills course where failure would require some sort gross negligence, and even then you'd still get racist denials.
And really, this is the fundamental problem with guns: I (and many others) view them as a necessary tool to accessing a highly valuable right. The chances you'll need a gun are very low, but the cost of not having it can be very high. You don't have full control over whether someone else will attempt to take your life, and I don't want to say to a large chunk of the population "we're going to take away your ability to defend yourself in order to save other people who would still have that option either way."
And I want to be clear, I completely agree with the other person. If you're going to bring guns into your life, you had better learn medical skills, social skills, and you had better train with your firearm in somewhat realistic conditions. You should carry pepper spray, you should practice learning how to actually effectively calm people down, you need to learn how to safely store your guns and ammo, etc. Etc.
I get the desire ban guns in order to save lives, but you'd also be endangering others. Compare that with the car analogy, and banning cars would have a similar trade-off. Some people would live thanks to not getting in a car accident, others would die thanks to not having the same level of mobility (which has about a billion knock-on effects for quality of life).
Without regard to the rest of your comment, somehow the lack of guns works ok in Europe and they aren’t all exactly equally sized.
So, two things:
If you read that comment and didn't realize I knew perfectly well that an increase in access to guns results in an increase in gun violence, I don't know what to tell you. That whole comment was about balancing the needs to the individual against the needs of society.
By your own data, the rape rate in the US was seven times higher than in Europe. Surely we would be talking about how common rape at gunpoint was in the US if that crime was increased by access to guns. The study you cited makes it very clear that direct, unqualified comparisons of crime rates between nation is a bad idea, since there's a million factors that influence crime.
One of those factors is access to guns, but so are things like poverty, population density, education level, pollution, social services, community engagement, access to green space, noise pollution, after school programs, etc. And the thing is, I want to fix and improve all of those things, something which seems to be lacking among hardcore gun nuts. I also want to fix and improve our relationship to guns, I'm just unwilling to restrict access in a way that can become a civil rights issue on a hurry.
I think your argument sounds good until you look at other countries. I don't know for sure but I'm guessing there aren't more violent attacks on vulnerable people in countries that have gun bans. I think it's possible you're exaggerating the fear of attack without factoring in the overall safety benefits of removing so much gun violence. I'm convinced that if it could be done the benefits would fast out weigh the draw backs.
obviously the reality is that actually accomplishing this task in a country whose identity is so pathetically attached to guns is the impossible task. there's already just too many gun nuts so that ship had long sailed.
regardless, to me there's no question whether it would be better or worse for there to be more people with guns.
Oh, no, it's just that I don't weigh all violence as equal. I have a different value system then you do when it comes to interpersonal violence and that's okay that we disagree there.
To me, removing a potential victim's ability to protect themselves isn't worth removing a potential victim from being attacked at all. To me, they're not a 1:1 trade. You probably disagree, and that's okay, but I place a high value on an individual's agency, to the point where I'm willing to let them live in a slightly more dangerous society to get it.
This trade-off exists in all areas of life, and I don't necessarily side with personal freedom in all of them (I would ban cars if I could), but I do in this area.
so selfishness then. got it. your desires for yourself are more important than what's better for everyone. you can't pretend this is your choice for others. it's definitely for yourself.
Uh, no, it's so that everyone has the ability to make the choice for themselves. We could force everyone to live in padded cells for their own safety, but we both agree that's ridiculous. We're just arguing over what is and is not an acceptable trade-off between safety and agency.
in this case there's only really 2 options: better for society or better for yourself. you can't argue it's better for everyone to have the choice to own killing weapons when it's clear that position results in more gun violence and death.
Carrying doesn't do crap for self defense. The moment a crazy asshole pulls their gun at you and shoots you won't even be able to comprehend the situation quick enough and get your own piece out of the holster.
The crazy asshole always wins as they shoot first (they are usually cowards on top, so you might just get shot in the back).
More guns just leads to more crazy assholes with guns, I feel much safer in European countries.
In the situation you outline, yeah you'd have no real chance at protecting yourself. And those situations do happen in cases like the Las Vegas hotel shooting or any of the various school shootings we're seeing all over these days.
In many other cases even the most craven assholes need to work themselves up to shoot another human being.
That means arguments, harassment and threats.
These are helpful advance warning signs that tell you that you're entering dangerous waters and de-escalation tactics take priority. Many of our lady friends can already tell from a mile away if someone is dangerous even before they start flapping their mouthholes as a matter of everyday survival.
If all of that fails and I hope to god that it doesn't, that's when having a concealed weapon gives you a fighting chance at defending your right to live. Especially for women, guns are the great equalizer.
You're right, this is true.
Unfortunately the cost of encountering a rather persistent strapped terrorist is extremely high even if the chance of it happening to you is low.
Well, I rather live in a country where pretty much no one is strapped (except police and military and even then not all of them).
Even the whole hero fantasy a lot of Americans have, it doesn't work out. There is a famous video of someone shooting up a mall. A random guy carrying tried to sneak up on him. Then the girlfriend of the shooter popped him right in the head from behind (as he didn't notice her following at a distance).
We need more people who think like you
There's more than you realize.
You likely don't hear much about it because liberal gun owners don't fetishize guns or base their personality around them like the chuds on the other side of the fence do. Guns are tools, not an identity.
It's odd, I don't think I've ever heard of a lefty or a gay person outright killing someone over a Dixie or Trump flag. I keep reading about far-righties killing people over the scary rainbow flag though
Closest I've come is punching a skinhead for his jacket patches.
Maybe it wasn't a particularly good idea to make firearms so easily available to everyone and especially to (neo)Nazis?
The need for the 2nd amendment is fundamental if you want the people, able to form a tyranny.. oh wait..
The problem is they don't see the hypocrisy. They think tyranny only applies to the government.
Generally yeah most tyranny definitions refer to government. It's hard to exert tyrannical rule without being a de facto government.
Turns out they have always been pro tyranny as long it's their guy hurting the "correct" people...
You couldn't be more wrong Telllos. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that? (Pokes Telllos) Huh? (Shoves Telllos) Do ya!?
How much of a pussy do you have to be to go shoot somebody over a rainbow flag. What a fucking fairy. People are so sensitive these days and don't know how to act. We can blame the internet all we want, but at the end of the day, people need to learn to have some social skills. How to talk disagreements out and let people have an opinion, even if it may be wrong or stupid in their eyes. It absolutely infuriates me that people gotta die over stupid shit.
In like 2021 when the truckers were protesting g the vaccine at the border I made a man snap in public over what was legitimately a luke-warm shot at the protest.
I said something like "these dipshits are acting like they didn't get their mandated MMR shots already." And a guy next to me, not in the conversation, dramatically stood up, and loudly announced "You know what?! All you fuckin idiots think the situation is simple, but it's a lot more fucking complex that the corporate media is making it out to be!" He stormed out. Didn't pay his tab.
The whole bar just sat there in awe. Like "damn I guess some of us really got hit with that isolation crazy"
Truly, a year alone for some was just too much.
You say that like any of those people actually quarantined.
Talk about an easily triggered snowflake. Ahh they have a flag presented! I need my gun to protect my fragility!
Just another example of far-right extremist violence.
It's just regular conservative violence at this point.
Two sides of the same coin, since all "regular" conservatives are also "far-right" extremists. Any "moderate conservative" is just a centrist Democrat at this point.
Except no. The majority of "moderate conservatives" would still vote for the Republican candidate. 74 million Americans voted for Trump in 2020.
And those 74 million people are far-right extremists and in no way "Moderate."
That's the point. That's the Overton Window.
I was with you until that line. I know too many people who voted for Trump because they were ignorant and detached from politics, not because they were alt-right.
There is a difference. Many of those detached-from-politics people are seeing Trump face all those charges, and moving on. Some are being told that it's part of some Democratic conspiracy against Trump. If you've ever traveled to a red state on business and seen the local news, you'd understand how easy it is for someone to get convinced of the lie even though they are more aligned with Democrats on the issues than Republicans.
I'm torn on how to respond to this. On one hand, I grew up in rural Appalachia in a Republican household. Eventually my family pivoted 180 towards Democrats and never looked back. I shudder to wonder if we would've been the idyllic Trump supporter 20-years-ago. I know what it's like when Fox News is blaring in every doctor's lobby, every bar, etc. When on the job site every other person is espousing those same conservative views. So I recognize that people are capable of change and we should not give up entirely on them (though their vote is less needed these days).
The thing is, many voted for Hitler not out of dyed-in-the-wool SS Nazi beliefs, but as you said: Complete ignorance.
Most of the people who voted for Trump knew what he was for and agreed with his platform. That platform was far-right. In the end, I don't find much difference between those so incredibly gullible (useful idiots?) enough to fall for the shallow fox news propaganda of far-right extremism, versus those who know the game and commit 100% — both lead to the same dangerous logical conclusion. Besides, I think every far-right extremist at their core is ignorant in themselves.
I can't speak for everyone. But I knew quite a few Trump voters who clearly did not understand the for-right platform. They thought they voted:
This, to me, is similar to a lot of the folks voting for Obama thinking he was actually progressive despite openly being conservative.
There is a drastic difference between evil people and stupid people, and knowing that is both important for keeping your sanity in a country that elected him, but also politically important for knowing that we're not just a few votes away from the majority of Americans wanting a fascism.
This is true, and why it's both important that we educate people, and that we work towards a country where campaigns of lies are either illegal or at least made ineffective. The Democrats ran fairly hard on "everything Trump said is a lie" and were able to prove it, and that wasn't enough.
Sure, but not every fool is a racist. Most of them are "centirsts" or merely uninterested in politics and just want to go on with their lives.
A lot of Americans are certainly being duped by right-wing propaganda. Distinguishing between the right-wing propaganda that dominates the airwaves and what is actually right-wing are two different things, which I think you fairly note. There are many people, including members of my extended family and many others who I'd consider generally "good" people, but duped and led astray — no doubt. I too have met these same people who cited the same points you did. But man, at this point if they haven't changed, I have very little hope that they ever will. These aren't centrists; these are largely red-hats through and through.
Like I said, this is how fascism rises to power. it hinges on the gullible and ignorant, not as I said the dyed-in-the-wool believers. They Thought They Were Free is a great book that examines this. That 1940s, "Don't be a Sucker" video illustrated this well, too.
I think it's reasonable to say that Obama was a progressive at heart, but conservative because a large swath of the country leans conservative, no thanks to right-wing talk radio, the influence of church, and Fox News (we can discuss modern influences like Russia's foreign influence operation, Bannon & Breitbart, Joe Rogan, etc. and their effect today of course). The thing is, people believe right-wing talking points: (a) unions bad, (b) the rich earned it, (c) immigrants are bad, etc. Meanwhile many people publicly espouse "moderate" views but if among trusted acquaintances on a back patio, they show their true colors. So while I still to this day believe Obama is a progressive at heart, he felt one could not force too rapid of progress for a country still skewed to the right. I find that slightly different than those who were outright duped by thinking Trump was some sort of leader of blue collar worker when anyone with a brain could see from history he was anything but.
I think there's somewhat of a difference as to origin of beliefs, but I don't know if there's much in the outcome or even the capacity to move these people. I'd be more likely to fully buy that argument if this was still midway through Trump's first term. For instance, after all has been said and done by Trump over the years. Scandal after scandal. Lie after lie. From grabbing women by the pussy, racist comments toward Mexico, Trump University fraud, or even the very first lie of his Presidency: the size of his inauguration... To catastrophic response to COVID, the damning 2 impeachments and even more compelling 91 criminal charges across 4 Grand Jury indictments... All of this is public record. All these losers know what Trump is, and yet they still continue to vote for him. Don't count on a large number of them simply being innocently gullible. At what point do you simply conclude, "They just don't care, do they?"
After all, even after showing his true colors and saturating the national media spotlight for 4 years, he came away with 11 million more votes. If people are that ignorant, then I regret to think there's little hope for the vast majority of them and they are just as complicit in the outcome. Willful ignorance at best. Still, so incredibly dangerous. And after nearly 8 years of trying to get through to these people how bad Trump is, how much progress have we actually made among those who already fell for the cult?
Here's where I hope we can find common ground: Every year there is a new batch of citizens who enter the political fold for one reason or another — whether that's coming of age and finally taking an interest in civics, or someone who has had some major issue personally impact them. Generally there are a lot of the middle-ground "enlightened centrist," fence-sitters who have yet to fully commit to a side. These are the people we must reach out to. They're the ones not too far gone and too isolated among right-wing echo-chambers to catch before they're gone (great allegory for this in The Matrix / Plato's Cave). As we're pursuing these fence-sitters, we must also energize the left by actually committing to progressive policy that we know works. Time and again, we shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to water down our policies in order to appeal to voters whom we'll never get on the right anyway — only to disenfranchise the most active part of the left and water down our policies to such an extent that it backfires when implemented.
I agree with quite a few of your points, but not all of them. The biggest disagreement we have is on the nature of Obama.
In his political career, he was always a conservative/moderate. The fact that he seemed to hide his conservativeness in his campaigning suggests he knew progressives might be a fair draw and he needed their vote. Maybe he's a lifestyle liar, but I wouldn't bet on it.
As for Trump voters. Yeah. Two counterpoints.
1000% agree. But it's not easy. I look at some of my family members in their formative voting years (19-22). They are uninterested in the left... why? Because they have family who won't shut up about how bad Trump is. I kid you not. They have analyzed enough to realize it's true, but then found themselves just not caring to vote because some people are just so damn passionate. Like passion is a bad thing. And it's not just one or two people. The attitude seems fairly common, and reiterates the "desensitize" thing. The real problem could well be that after this influx of gen y upping the vote out of fear of Trump, we're going to watch the voting rate plummet again... and we all know what happens when not enough people vote.
I think there were some hints to Obama's progressive streak, and while I generally agree that Obama was probably as centrist as they come in terms of his Presidency -- if not center-right in many respects -- I think deep down he was frustrated that his hands were tied from enacting more progressive policies. Some of which he clearly signaled in the lead-up to his win in '08, like the desire for universal health care, initially seeking single-payer healthcare (something his rival Clinton famously espoused, "would never happen."), then public option, then settling for an insurance mandate because of obstruction. As left as Bernie or Warren at heart? I wouldn't say so; or if he is, he approaches it not with strong convictions but of pragmatism. That pragmatism unfortunately only works if the other side has the mutual interest in improving the country and they do not.
I can see that a bit. Fortunately my younger sister in that age group is still very active and gets it. But my sister in-law who is normally quite outspoken and willing to discuss and debate simply "did not have time to vote" and more or less bought into the rhetoric of her conservative dad that your vote doesn't matter. I tried so hard to to ensure they voted, but it just hasn't clicked with them. MAYBE passion like mine has driven them away, but let's be honest, there's a reason the crazy uncle who listens to Limbaugh or the latest charlatan runs their mouth and everyone else remains quiet. The loud mouth gets their voice heard and to the detriment of the country, that's influential. I think it's high time the left gets loud and vocal; for if not now, when?
Overall I'm hopeful, considering youth showed up big for a midterm no less last year. I think that trend overall might continue with Gen Y and Z, considering there has been no progress on abortion and Republicans have only continued to cripple LGBTQ rights as well as obstruct tuition forgiveness. Though I'm thoroughly convinced we're not doing ourselves any favors running Biden again, it is what it is. For the sake of the country, I certainly hope it's Trump who is their nominee. If someone like Chris Sununu runs, then we're fucked. Even NPR was kissing his ass yesterday...
Overall I view Trump supporters as a lost cause, and I literally cannot count more than 2 people I know who regretted their support for Trump since 2015. Most cultists, no differently than the casual nazi party members before them, will double-down on the lie because that's what people do when they've been hooked. Sure they're capable of change if they really work for it as my family did, but it's not worth the time and effort. Now it's a matter of containing the spread of misinformation, inoculating the apathetic before they get in too deep.
Ultimately, I cannot know what was going on in his mind, so we are theorizing. But here's my counter-theory. He was frustrated because he believed in bipartisanship, in both parties working together for a better country despite neither getting everything it wanted, and he discovered the other side would literally burn the country down for an edge. I think he was an idealist, but his ideal was "one country, one people" instead of this Plymouth/Jamestown contrast we still seem to represent. To that end, he was willing to sacrifice almost anything, and only started playing hardball when he realized after he gave EVERYTHING, the other side smiled and said "so we're going to vote against that".
You're not wrong. I don't like that we can't have successful left-loudmouths. I like to say/think it's because a large part of the Democratic base is interested in truth and facts, but that doesn't explain the lazy people who are willing to allow for alt-right nonsense but not leftist discussion.
I used to think that Roe being overturned would be the last nail, that Red states would spontaneously turn Blue from people who suddenly realized they were in Gilead. I used to actually think they wouldn't let their best tool to rally the alt-right go away. And I was right that it hurt them now that people are living in the hell of abortion being illegal, but it hasn't been the wave I expected. I really hope you're right, but look at Texas. It was supposed to be purple already, and quickly turning Blue in the next 20 years. And that was before Dobbs. I just don't see that motion yet. I hope to see it soon.
Sad, but true. I swear, there's a mile-long list for why the Republican party should be failing. And they KNOW it. They hate Trump as much as we do. Coming in to 2016, Republicans were internally talking about looking more moderate because they were afraid they'd alienated too many people. Trump wasn't supposed to have a chance in the Primary. They're like a zombie party. Things that would destroy almost any other party in the world are reinvigorating them. Non-stop sex scandals? MORE VOTES.
When they vote for, and are ok with open arms for far right extreme shit, what should it be called?
I know some people might seem to be normal and perhaps moderate, but when you sit down with them and explain some of this shit to them, and they basically are ok with it because they feel the bad shit will only impact other people and not themselves (for example religious persecution - "I'm Christian so I'll be fine") what does one call that?
One calls that bigotry because that's exactly what it is. They're bigots and prejudicial against other religions and I'd wager races as well.
You're not a moderate if you support overthrowing the government. They can delude themselves, but they should absolutely be denied that label.
Domestic terrorism
Regular conservative domestic terrorism.
Good old homegrown god fearing terrorists.
US-perspective.
I guess the perpetrator also wore a brown shirt? Here we go again: Weimar Republic 2: Nuclear Boogaloo
Ever notice how there's no such thing as a liberal hate crime?
"We are all domestic terrorists".
How much more do we have to put up with before we do something about this? Sadly I'm guessing it's a lot more.
If I am ever killed over my rainbow stuff, I'm haunting the son of a bitch who killed me as a rainbow.
I'd tend to trust someone haunted by a rainbow personally, I don't think it's the best plan
Leprechauns are starting to make sense.
I would love to have my personal rainbow, could you haunt me a little as well? Maybe Tuesdays?
They want you dead. It's time to return this sentiment.
Normalizing political violence will inevitably, and possibly literally, blow up in your face.
We are not going to sit here and watch people get killed for no reason just for nothing to happen to the terrorists in return. As terrorists, they deserve to be treated as terrorists. A hundred years ago killing Nazis after the liberation of Germany was the right thing to do, but now it's supposed to be wrong?
The dude who shot her was killed by the police. What more were you thinking should have been done to him?
There are more like him
So what are you recommending? It sounds like you're recommending pre-emptive violence towards people with no crime, no trial, no jury. That is likely to end badly. It's also likely to be used as an excuse to kill people who aren't involves in hate in the first place.
All i am saying is that if someone were to kill one of those terrorists, they wouldn't get my pity
What do you define as "one of those terrorists"? Any person who is a conservative, or any person who has already murdered someone for being gay? Or somewhere in the middle?
If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.
Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world's problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.
No action will also reinforce their agenda
There's a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on...
I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It's about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn't accomplish that, and in this case I don't blame them.
All I'm saying is there's a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have "reduced suffering in the world?"
Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.
Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.
One could make the argument war didn't get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.
One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn't mean its a good argument.
No it wouldn't, you are helping their agenda by discouraging the left from taking up arms.
You're not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn't the US.
The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that's ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.
Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I'm talking about.
The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There's enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.
No they wouldn't. Our military doesn't even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn't even get to play with their big toys.
Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit
But not enough to stop them without the left shedding their unhelpful way of thinking on the matter and mobilize, and you know that.
Lately I've been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support
That's basically how it's been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we'll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it'll be downhill from there.
Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.
Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn't even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.
For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.
This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.
Okay, fair, my bad. You're right.
Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?
In yesterday's society it was to protect the wealth and position of the Upper and Middle classes. In today's society it's because it seems like an obvious response to things like Mass Shootings and Gun Crime. The hidden in plain sight truth though is that modern day Gun Control proposals are doing the same thing as yesterday's Gun Control proposals because if you have enough money they will not apply to you.
Pass a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban? No problem for the wealthy, they'll just drop $20,000 on a pre-ban machine gun that can be legally transferred to them. Pass a Federal "Red Flag" law? They don't care as they know it'll never be enforced against them; their connections, money, and lawyers will see to it. Federal UBC? Again, no worries as their connections, money, and lawyers all make sure they won't be impacted. Remove the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of firearms? No worries, the bodyguards surrounding them and their families will still be armed, just like they are everywhere else in the world.
What makes it even more stupid is that no direct causal link between the number of guns in circulation and the amount of "Gun Crime", however you define that, has ever been shown. In fact the data shows something very different than the reality most people believe in.
The household ownership rate has been bouncing around the low to mid 40s since 1972.. The population of the US grew from 240M in 1972 to 322M in 2014 too, so that 40% household ownership rate includes an addition 80 Million people.
The number of NICS (Federal Background Checks) in the United States quadrupled from 10 Million per year to 40 Million per year between 1998 and 2020.
Meanwhile Intentional Homicide fell from it's high of 9.82 in 1991 to 4.4 in 2014, a decrease of 50%. Gun Crime specifically peaked in 1993 and then declined by 49% over the next 20 years.
In short US Citizens bought a SHIT ton of guns starting in the 90s and tens of millions of new owners were added as our population grew...all while both Violent and Gun Crime continued to drop. We have a problem for sure, but it ain't the number of guns in circulation.
I always thought the drop on violent crime was because of the ban on leaded gasoline.
It's a good theory and one that I bought into as well but the statistics should have stayed down if that was the cause. Since they didn't there must have been another factor.
Already happened a few times. Gca 68 was after Kennedy and 86 was after reagan.
So? In what world does that necessitate you owning a gun? One where Robert Evans's civil war happens?
The idea that everyone needs to be strapped because a few morons are, is paranoid race to the bottom thinking, not how you make a better future.
The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.
Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they're not strapped. That's so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!
Yes, they are. 1in 6 of all women on average are raped in their lifetime. Girls under 18, those rates are 1 in 4. And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.
And you're evil for claiming otherwise. And for insinuating women should have to accept any risk of being raped at all just to not offend your sensibilities. My sensibilities are more important than yours.
Is that stat higher in Canada / Europe or the US?
[citation needed]
Yes you've made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.
It's higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show. It's actually a lot worse. Everywhere. The numbers I gave you are estimates from RAINN.
But let's say what you want to believe is right -- that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.
You're arguing that rape is rare anyway, so rape victims shouldn't have a tool they can use to stop it from happening, and if that means any big, strong male threatens to or actually does rape them, they should just bend over and take it, and go to therapy and move on so you can make yourself feel better. If that means more completed rapes, so be it. If that means aggressors will therefore always be at an advantage and enjoy protection from you when you morally condemn and even physically force victims to stop when they try to resist, all the better. If that means even survivors will likely die from pregnancy complications because of so may countries around the world imposing abortion bans specifically so men can forcibly impregnate them against their will, too bad. Fuck them bitches -- literally.
It doesn't matter that it is very much worse than death -- in fact, that's what you're gonna argue next, because you don't care about other people or human life. You only care about being right.
And no sane person thinks like you.
You're sick.
Resisting against rapists works:
Wong JS, Balemba S. The Effect of Victim Resistance on Rape Completion: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2018 Jul;19(3):352-365. doi: 10.1177/1524838016663934. Epub 2016 Aug 12. PMID: 27519993.
Resisting rapists doesn't actually result in greater physical injury:
Tark, Jongyeon & Kleck, Gary. (2014). Resisting Rape The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury. Violence against women. 20. 10.1177/1077801214526050.
Stop fucking telling women not to resist rape:
ULLMAN, S. E., & KNIGHT, R. A. (1992). Fighting Back: Women’s Resistance to Rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007001003
Guns allow for more effective resistance:
Kleck, Gary & Sayles, Susan. (1990). Rape and Resistance. Social Problems - SOC PROBL. 37. 149-162. 10.1525/sp.1990.37.2.03a00020.
Now sit down and shut the fuck up you worthless rape apologist
You are an enemy to women and freedom-loving people everywhere. Including us independents.
You've made it very clear that you value being superior to others over their literal lives, so you're not anyone that should be taken seriously.
You're evil.
Yeah, you didn't answer the question. European and Canadian women do not get raped at a higher rate than American women, despite not being strapped up like a commando.
And guess what? They suffer lower rates of spousal killing, and their children do not die from gun violence at any statistically meaningful rate.
Never said rape was rare, just pointed out that making guns easy for every psychopath to gets their hands on doesn't make it less rare. Increasing gun ownership increases the rate of rapists who own guns as well, you, evil evil gun wielding rapist supporter 🙄
Congratulations on living in the only country in the world where dozens of children are regularly gunned to death at school. All your decisions are going great.
What about Finland? https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/65/rate_of_civilian_firearm_possession
History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.
They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.
I dunno. I've thought, for quite some time, that we'll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I'm increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I'm horrified by violence and probably wouldn't have the courage to do so.
If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).
Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.
At minimum, teach your children why we don't do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.
It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.
There are times violence is necessary, with Nazi Germany being the classic example.
That said, most of the time, even for many times where violence might be "right" it's still a strategic error. It's much harder to build than destroy and any "successful" deployment of violence requires physical and institutional/relational rebuilding.
Violence can make it harder to attract supporters to your cause. It gives your opponents the feeling of moral justification in also exercising violence. In a full on conflict, it reduces the ability of key supporters (the young, elderly, disabled, many women) from contributing to the struggle compared with non violent action
Militant trans sentiment is growing.
Everyone talking about the victim, etc what happened to the murderer? Is they in prisión now?
According to the article they were shot and killed by law enforcement
Murica
Good. Hopefully, they suffered before being thrown back into the hole they crawled out of
Shot them back.
"The suspect was found and shot dead by responding officers"
I don't think they made it to jail.
Extremely extremely uncommon police W
Unless the shooter was African American and they had no idea about the shop shooting which I wouldn't doubt
I don't call it a win. That murderer deserved to be tried and convicted for their crime and serve decades behind bars. They gave him the easy way out.
From another article (The Sun is owned by Murdoch iirc), they suggested that the murderer did not want to get arrested and was aggressive. It's sad that people get so hateful that they would rather die hating people than just going about life.
My cognitive dissonance is thinking both you and the guy you replied to are correct.
As much as I will defend my stance that I'm glad the shooter is dead, I still do agree with Flying Squid to an extent. Immediately murdering the aggressor goes against the whole of the system of law, I suppose a fair trial should still be taken place, but I'd be the happiest if they got the death penalty. Keeping him behind bars just keeps the hate alive
Yeah it is really easy to fall for the schadenfreude when a POS gets got by cops but don't forget cops are wrong about who did what all the fucking time...
I hope they weren't wrong here...
It's not their job to execute people. It's their job to arrest them and provide evidence in a court of law to get them jail time. Even if it's the perpetrator.
That is why I'm arguing for not celebrating this way of handling problems. Executions, even official ones that are done "correctly" by the state, often kill innocent people. And, as you said, people that have directly commited a crime still deserve their rights.
Situations like this, where no one wants to see a killer like that get away, it becomes easier to overlook bad policing, and everyone should make a conscious effort try and hold police to a higher standard to do things properly.
I am actually interested to know the race of the murderer. I know some people are against giving that information, but truth is, that provides a lot of information.
Good. Thank you.
If you can't be bothered to read TFA, please don't enter the discussion.
Trying to make memes is a waste of time. Spend an hour trying to make something funny in photoshop, 4 upvotes. Literally just read the second line of an article and put it in the comments, 50 upvotes. Not that I care about internet points, but if I did I would never waste my time actually trying to make something insightful!
Is this the start of them hunting down libs? Party of law and order people.
Tragic and unacceptable.
I'm hoping they never release the killers identity to the public. Spreading around that hateful persons likeness and beliefs all over media and articles only empowers others to do the same thing. Leave them as a nameless pictureless murderer with no agenda or beliefs, just some bigoted murderer.
Others are empowered and emboldened to do the same thing regardless of whether this person's name makes it out. The right knows that they have a near monopoly on political violence so their agenda is to feed poison to the unstable so that they'll commit violence to make people fear to be themselves and supportive of others. I've heard about a shit-ton of abortion clinic bombings and murders, can't think of a single "crisis pregnancy center" issue.
Hell, when the Supreme Court got concerned about protesters they were absolutely fine with there being special guidelines for them. But for a person seeking an abortion? Nope, you'll get to have unstable "Christian" shitheads yelling in your face while they take pictures of you and your car to distribute to their network of terrorists.
I see what you're getting at, but the point of keeping this person anonymous is to lessen their ability to be used by people as a symbol or turn them into a martyr. It's far easier for bigots to say "remember Joe Johnson, we fight for him or whatever" and spin it their way than it is to say "remember that guy who shot the guy who hung up a flag? He's our man!"
Not tying a name to the criminal prevents them from being immortalized because they're not "Joe the defender" or whatever, they're "a murderer". There will still be bigots out there for sure, but leaving this person nameless gives them one less thing to latch on to.
Disturbed - Legion of Monsters
The song originally is about a school shooting, but the point is the same
You're absolutely not wrong. Sadly though, there's a world in which are both right and we're living in it. More than a few times school shooters have been copycats who likened themselves to the colombine shooters, or who literally wanted to be in the media and have people talking about them.
The amount of time and effort put into remembering the perpetrators of these heinous crimes is so much greater than the memories of those they killed. That's the part I'd like to change. I know it'll never happen, gotta get those views for the ad money, but I can hope.
Kill-billies kill. It's all they know, it's all they can do.
https://www.pinkpistols.org/
Damn my hometown...
This shit is why I just stay at home.