[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.12527[Reply]

File: 1694492724922.png (753.31 KB, 1080x1779, 360:593, Screenshot_20230912-001047….png) ImgOps Google

Is the NFA tax on sound suppressors unconstitutional under the Second Amendment?
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12534

>>12533
Have to agree. Suppressors funnily enough are perfectly legal in Europe, by large, without any kind of issue.
The movie trope of untraceable silent murder that nobody notices is just not realistic.
Honestly, even if we did go by movies, it isn't like they're used by criminals, anyway. It's almost always state actors. Spies, assassins, agents of the powerful. Funny how that works.

But, yeah. All that's functioned with this is the creation of felons for no real cause, and significant distrust by the American people in the federal government thanks to events like Ruby Ridge.

 No.12535

>>12534

>Ruby Ridge
Why you should own guns a case study.

 No.12542

I would operate under the inherent, default assumption that any regulation of firearms given the 2nd Amendment has to pass an inherent sense of legal scrutiny in terms of rationality. And these rules don't work. They don't pass the bar. They should be gotten rid of.

I've yet to see any factual evidence whatsoever provided that imposing a de facto kind of quasi-ban on sound suppressors reduces violent crime. This idea kind of just comes out of whole cloth. Even without evidence, really, I don't get the logic. A firearm with a suppressor on it is noisy. Less noisy than otherwise. What does that matter, actually? Would this actually change the plans of violent criminals doing what they want to do? I don't think so.

 No.12448[Reply]

File: 1693010901722.jpg (141.86 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If you have a heterosexual relationship, you can identify that in public.  If you have a homosexual relationship, it's controversial, but maybe.  And if your relationship involves some kind of weird kink thing -- nobody wants to see or hear about that, keep it private.

Society is roughly a place for the normal. The assumption is that when people go out in public they consent to seeing normal things.  They don't consent to seeing weird things -- that should be done in private where people can opt in or out.

So some process determines what presentations, activities, things, and ideas may be public and what ought to be private.  What is this process?

I'm thinking of forming a science and tech society and have been thinking a lot about consent.  The more things we consider private business, the more we can give people the option to consent or not, possibly reducing conflict.  For example, should people's exposure to science happen only following consent?  Would that make people happier about science?
9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12499

>>12494
I doubt too many people would object to a police officer shooting an armed robber, at least under most conditions.

 No.12503

>>12494
>Either you destroy the freedoms of certain politically and religiously motivated people by preventing them from hurting their perceived enemies, or you grant those freedoms and therefore in term allow the liberties of those opposed enemies to die instead.

Some religious people prefer to destroy or harm others.  Religious people must at least remember God is not above the state, but religion should be granted as much freedom as possible.

 No.12504

>>12499
That's fair, but then most people would lament that the entire situation had to happen in the first place.

Similarly, doctors would celebrate a car crash victim successfully having a piece of a steering wheel or the like removed from their body and that individual walking around happily recovered, while at the same time lamenting that the person had their vehicle slammed into to begin with. Somebody with a cancerous tumor successfully removed would wish that they could've spent the entire hospital time with their families relaxing instead in the first place. And so on.

 No.12476[Reply]

File: 1693580623429.png (525.05 KB, 765x562, 765:562, Mitch-McConnell-Image.png) ImgOps Google

Should elderly U.S. politicians who've publicly suffered mental and physical impairments such as Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Diane Feinstein, and Mitch McConnell be kept from further public office? Is it time to work out tough legal changes?

Or is that fundamentally a terrible idea? What exact legal tweaks would you want if they do happen?

r.e. the OP image, https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/7/27/23810222/mitch-mcconnell-health-retirement-senate
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12481

>>12476
Adding such an additional qualification would require a constitutional amendment.  

 No.12496

>>12477
I personally agree with this.

>>12479
Context is indeed important. And "what counts as having suffered a mental or physical impairment" is a fuzzy concept. I agree as well. Your observation about "bigger problem of inadequate representation" is logically sound, but I personally don't know what to say about that.

>>12481
This seems rather logical, but I don't know the issues about U.S. law in this area personally.

 No.12497

>>12476
Age isn't the issue. Impairments are.
If you aren't physically capable of doing the job, you shouldn't be in it.
Though really, this ought be something the voters solve.

 No.12417[Reply]

File: 1691801538865.png (1.11 MB, 1080x1642, 540:821, Screenshot_20230811-193148.png) ImgOps Google

Did the West Yorkshire Police behave inappropriately in this incident?
16 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12482

File: 1693685962789.jpg (878.51 KB, 1280x1183, 1280:1183, a6b8bbc84269affbfa43507b5f….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>12465
First, it's not necessary for there to be an ethical line between two acts for there to be a good reason that one act is illegal but the other is 1A-protected.  The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to constrain the power of government.  If there is significantly more risk that the goverment will abuse a power to imprison people for one category of speech than another, then that might be a good reason for a difference in legal treatment between the two speech categories.

Second, saying something like "I will kill these people" is much more direct evidence of one's propensity to commit a crime than merely stating one's emotional response to an event that already happened.

 No.12491

>>12465

I think this topic has gotten too complicated for it to continue to make sense to me. On the one hand, speech is fundamentally just soundwaves that travel through the air and evoke certain impressions in our minds. Therefore, nothing that is said can actually hurt us. So, on this basis, all speech should be legal.

Yet, your speech does have an effect - both on yourself and others. This is undeniable. Therefore, you shouldn't just go around saying anything you happen to think...

But should the government have the authority to say what is and isn't allowed? If so, to what extent? There are other societal systems in place that regulate speech that don't involve punishing someone for saying the wrong thing. So, in the tradition of freedom, the U.S. government, at least, mostly tries to stay out of making laws against such things. The exceptions are limited to the most egregious situations. I think a lot of it has to do with the culture, as well... for exxample, the U.S. only attained independence after a war, yet the founders clearly articulated their reasons for the war. So, maybe all of this depends a lot on the reasonableness of a person's actions, as well. There are also a lot of Christians in the U.S., so its laws are going to reflect the myth found in the Christian religion.

 No.12493

>>12482
>>12491
At a practical level, if I'm forced to censor myself and am unable to do a gigantic number of things due to coercive intimidation from others, then my own freedoms are being impaired.

If you let these other people with violent political preferences be 'more free', then I will become 'less free'. I want to be able to go to a local religious institution without there being police presence nearby. I want to be able to wear certain clothes without there being the increased risk of sexual assault. And so on. The fact that I cannot do all that is a clear-cut harm. The better off those with coercive ideologies are and the freer they are to try to harass and intimidate their victims, the harder life is for those victims.

I don't think it's logical at all to just view this as citizens versus the government. It's governments at different levels (including federal versus local divisions) facing off against citizens that're opposed to each other (especially on religious lines, ethnic lines, racial lines, and so on).  The core reason why we have a government system at all instead of living in anarchy is in order to oppose the 'state of nature' of 'all against all' so that it's not possible for one person to just eliminate the right to life, liberty, and property of another. Right?

I agree certainly, though, that governments are at best a necessary evil and practically tend to be just plain evil. It's a difficult situation. There's no such thing as a 'good government'. There's a fumbling around for the 'least bad government'.

 No.12437[Reply]

File: 1692883897285.gif (1.51 MB, 399x600, 133:200, IMG_1249.gif) ImgOps Google

This year, I’ve dabbled in theology. Last March, I even attended a Church service for the first time in 18 years, at a Greek Orthodox cathedral. The only reason I’m agnostic is because I don’t know which denomination to belong to. But I do respect the tradition-rich high churches like Orthodox, Catholic, and even Lutheran and Reformed Protestants.

Your experiences and thoughts?
1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12440

Some thoughts...

1. If you're agnostic, wouldn't you also be considering other denominations and religions, atheism, and humanism?

2. Even though I didn't grow up with a lot of religion outside of my family and I am now technically atheist, I have always found it hard not to have a respect for those denominations because of their rich history, even if they did do some bad things in the past.

3. As an agnostic, perhaps a more liberal tradition such as Unitarian Universalism or United Church of Christ would make the most sense. UU people are generally open to many different spiritual beliefs (including outside of Christianity, agnostics, and atheists), while UCC people are generally open to many different interpretations of Christianity.

4. Of the general denominations you listed, I suppose Lutheran would probably be considered the coolest (if you like tradition), since they had the courage to break from the Catholic tradition's claimed authority, while retaining a lot its traditions (I think)?. Even so, there is a UCC church around where I live that seems to have a lot of its own tradition and emphasizes a surprising amount (I thought) of ritual stuff for it being a liberal denomination. I guess it also depends on the church and community.

(Another (mostly similar) version of the song I posted that I liked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CMclLT_Hjg - I think there is also a UU version, but I believe it's called something else.)

 No.12453

>>12440
This guy did open my eyes and clarify several Church doctrines and beliefs. In fact, he even pointed out that as a Presbyterian himself, he believes in evolution and how science and religion can coexist-despite the zeitgeist stating the opposite. Did you know the Big Bang was first theorized by a Catholic priest?

 No.12467

If, for whatever reason, you're interested in delving into religious thought on YouTube, there's a lot there related to the famous musical (which you can basically just watch for free):

https://www.youtube.com/@JesusChristSuperstarMusical/playlists

 No.12375[Reply]

File: 1691107875969.png (1021.33 KB, 1280x914, 640:457, large.png) ImgOps Google

We all know it's a human's duty to obey state power.  I was told in school America was founded mostly because British colonists were upset about taxes and political representation, and when the King didn't seem to care much, the colonists rebelled and created a new nation [the best nation in the world, by the way].

But...when the redcoats came to enforce order on the rebellious colonists, they were basically like the cops.  And hurting a cop is the worse thing a human can do.  Wouldn't that make the revolutionary war very evil?  People seldom seem happy about taxes or government, but these feelings are not an excuse to resist the state -- we know that now, why was it different then?

Shouldn't, respectfully, America's official start date be no sooner than it pleased the King to grant independence?
26 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12430

>>12413
I think before discussing subjects like Locke or Hobbes, we might first ask whether it could ever be appropriate for a philosophy or text that we might discuss here to motivate resistance to state power.  My answer is no.

 No.12431

>>12430
My stance is a rather firm and unabashed "yes".

 No.12432

>>12413
Thank you for the provided links.  Hobbes believed anarchy was treacherous, and any state that was less harmful should be respected, I think.  But a state that set out to destroy you needn't be obeyed.

Locke believed that anarchy was not the best for human rights.  Any state that seemed to fail to be an improvement to the state of nature in securing human rights should be resisted.  I think any state that did not form from a valid social contract (constitution) or deviated from the mandate of that document should be resisted, as well.

I understand the US founders believed some of what Locke believed.


Both these ideas contrast with the idea that it is a human's duty to obey and respect the state (and appears to contrast with the state's mission to resist existential threat).

 No.12397[Reply]

File: 1691303853197.png (42.51 KB, 597x393, 199:131, Screenshot from 2023-08-06….png) ImgOps Google

This problem is not solvable by the internet because of the ambiguous notation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/science/math-equation-pedmas-bemdas-bedmas.html

Do you think clearer notation can solve issues like these for mathematicians and "the internet"?
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12401

>>12397
>Do you think clearer notation can solve issues like these for mathematicians and "the internet"?
Mathematicians have clearer notations, would never write this, and are not usually unclear on ambiguous notation. Non-mathematicians just don't tend to use it.

First, mathematicians would never write an expression as written here. Second, if for whatever reason they did, the meaning of the expression as stated would be clear and ambiguous under the notation universally used by mathematicians. The problem is that that notation is not PEMDAS; it is something with a bit more subtlety to it, of which PEMDAS is an imperfect approximation, which in this particular case disagrees with the system it approximates, hence the confusion.

Which means that no, clearer notation evidently cannot solve these issues. There is a clearer notation, and people aren't using it.

 No.12402

>>12397

Rules:

1. Follow PEMDAS.
2. Work left to right.

My Extra Rule: If the spacing clearly indicates to use a different order of operations, then use the spacing to help determine the order of operations.

8/2(2+2)=?

Spacing: single spaces between each letter/symbol; therefore, work left to right
Parenthesis: 8/2(4)
Working left to right: 8/2 = 4; 4(4) = 16.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.12409

File: 1691394286900.jpg (179.28 KB, 1080x2400, 9:20, Screenshot_20230807-034332….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>12397
Seems easy enough to me.

More seriously, I'd agree with the result due to always doing left first, as with reading.
Parentheses of course being a separate matter that is universally done first.

For those as I who wish to read the article without the bothersome popups;
https://web.archive.org/web/20230120014127/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/02/science/math-equation-pedmas-bemdas-bedmas.html

Fundamentally, I think this is an issue of phonetics.
Too many people refuse to read out the problem.
When you do so, it finds itself very simple.
"Eight times four divided by two" is equivalent to 8x4/2. But it's clear how you'd solve the problem by the verbiage.

 No.12261[Reply]

File: 1690610689879.png (1.7 KB, 100x100, 1:1, icon.png) ImgOps Google

An internet celebrity recently posted an edited image from a larger piece of child pornography on Twitter accompanied by a statement that was condemning the action and warning others not to look at the broader work. This celebrity was banned from Twitter. He was then, promptly, brought back. Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter, personally intervened to make this decision.

Personally, I viewed this as terrible, and it was a 'last straw' that made me decide to leave the platform. I don't want to be a part of an online community where I have to go through child pornography based social debates when I simply don't have the mental and physical health ability to discuss that issue. It's too much for me. Twitter just is.

I do wonder about the three key points in this controversy, though:

>Is it generally acceptable to share explicit media that shows something that you're opposing as a matter of education, or does this simply function as an excuse to post highly immoral media as long as one throws in a 'Don't do this!' at the end?

>The general rule aside, what specifically should happen with media relating to child sexual abuse shared on Twitter or elsewhere online?

>Is it fundamentally damaging to you to witness this media in any context, which means that it should never be shared ever?

>Do you relate to people like me that just find it all too much to debate about, specifically maybe agreeing with me leaving Twitter?

I apologize for bringing up an issue that maybe is too fundamentally contentious to even have talked about here. I understand if this conversation has to be shut down before it really begins. I really do.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
8 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12300

>>12298
Who said you aren't?
I do not believe a single person has suggested otherwise.
I'm afraid you're jumping at ghosts, here.

 No.12373

>>12298
Huh?  If a pedophile is asked to label body types with his sexual attraction to them, you would condemn him for answering truthfully (and presumably not condemn him for lying)?

 No.12374

>>12278
I for one also feel entirely uncomfortable with people perusing child porn, even if it's "fictional".

 No.12020[Reply]

File: 1682555310371.png (410.19 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, large.png) ImgOps Google

This is maybe a dumb thought process, but anyway.

I see a growing concern about contact between LGBT people and minors.  (Wikipedia calls this the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory).

So let's say, LGBT people said, "fine, we'll stay away from kids."  All LGBT identity parents give up their kids.  All LGBT people whose job involve minors (teachers, daycare, etc.) quit.  Maybe even, any space where an LGBT person might work or live becomes designated "adults only" by law.  Obviously children themselves are prevented from having LGBT identities.

Is everyone happy, then?  Do adult LGBT people cease to be hated?  Do they get to be secure in their human rights going forward?

Or does it become: "Now we're concerned with impressionable young adults, adults with disabilities, and the elderly."  Or maybe it would be better for society if all LGBT people were in prison or [euphemism for dead].
56 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12369

>>12367
I see.  My thinking is that if Christians had been more homogeneous, America would have had a better chance of being founded as a Christian nation.

>correct type of Christians
>theocratic ethnostate
I'm not sure I  can argue Christians as a whole have a better sense of which is the correct type of Christian than they did in the founding generation.

>The government de facto declares war on white Christians

That's probably the outcome.  I have to reword it as a war on "white Christian nationalism," but to the degree America has moved in a progressive direction, fast or slow, it will be considered a war by some.  There will be backsliding, and we seem to be in a time for that now, but white Christian nationalism is probably not sustainable.  Although maybe I fall too much into thinking the moral arc of justice is an inevitably, on the scale of decades anyway.

 No.12370

>>12369
I'm not going to pretend that terms such as "the correct type of Christian" and "the correct type of white person" have any objective meaning as they're emotional constructs with absolutely no relationship to facts, reason, logic, and reality.

Why are American Christian pacifists viewed by most American Christians as evil, for one? Didn't the actual Jesus of Nazareth talk about "turning the other cheek" and how "blessed are the peacekeepers"? So, how can those believers who hold to that moral tradition from millennia ago be viewed in the broader Christian community as dangerously terrible heretics to be wiped out for the good of the whole? As well, why can't Christians who feel neither antisemitism nor homophobia be accepted? Their argument similarly states that any sort of militant coercion on behalf of a savior who proclaimed the inherent dignity of peace and all human lives is contradictory. Yet that is, according to most Christians in the U.S., an evil sect. That's that. I suppose.

What is "the correct type of white person"? Is a man who's 25% genetically African and 75% genetically Irish "white"? What if those numbers were reversed? What if they were some other 'X' and 'Y' values? And what of other mixtures covering other ethnicities and nationalities? What scientific value is there in any of this? None. Oh, well.

I can't pretend that "correct Christian" and "correct white person" have any validity as inherent intellectual concepts, but according to the American people these things are paramount. And, thus, this is largely how we organize our society. And our politics. Such is life.

 No.12371

>>12370
Right, they are not objective or scientific terms, but to matter politically, people in power must agree on an operationalization.

I guess your perception is that most Christians are trying to limit peaceful and inclusive interpretations of Christianity, generally moving towards a more....right wing Christianity, I guess.

 No.11757[Reply]

File: 1671924068242.png (2.06 MB, 802x1779, 802:1779, Screenshot_20221224-171601.png) ImgOps Google

Debate assertion: You can get more human rights if you don't interact with children.

This is an idea I've been developing.  I think it can keep people safe sometimes.
12 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12363

>>12361
I suppose the premise is believing that whenever can be practically applied children have the same essential ethical rights as adults. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as bedrock principles. And this goes on to expand to freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and so on. This naturally has a common sense group of limits since, for example, a five-year-old can't really be expected to understand how the voting process of Congress works. It's a general set of guidelines.

While I wouldn't view post-birth-abortion as necessarily something that's a part of the conversation, I would say that the possible ability of an adult to have a de facto post-birth-abortion by giving up their child and severing all legal obligations such that they become wards of the government or somebody else is a key matter here. Especially since American parents generally would rather have a dead heterosexual child than a live homosexual child, a dead sighted child than a live blind child, a dead Christian child then a live atheist child, and so on.

 No.12366

>>12363
>the possible ability of an adult to have a de facto post-birth-abortion by giving up their child and severing all legal obligations such that they become wards of the government or somebody else is a key matter here

I see.  I think this happens in cases where a guardian becomes or is judged incapable of caring for a child, or sometimes voluntarily in adoption for a wide range of reasons.

Are you saying, perhaps, there should be a no questions asked at will system in the event a guardian simply prefers not to care for a child?

 No.12368

>>12366
>Are you saying, perhaps, there should be a no questions asked at will system in the event a guardian simply prefers not to care for a child?

It's important. It's still not everything. That's not good enough for parents in the U.S. You need to have the ability to cause constant physical and psychological harm to children in order to possibly stop them from becoming inferior through perceived improvement measures, such as attempting to cure their autism, their homosexuality, their atheism, et al with various acts on their bodies and minds. It's not enough to be able to just discard your children if they're defective same as a broken toaster oven. You have to be able to bang into them angrily in order to nudge them into the correct shape, just as you would with whacking a mallet into a toaster oven as well.

There's also the fundamental fact in addition that as an American parent in order to prevent your children from becoming defective you've got to segregate and separate them from children that've already been corrupted. This means making sure that races that you don't like, ethnicities that you don't like, religions that you don't like, and so on can't be around your children. You need to make sure that not just their schools and libraries but other institutions around them are cleansed from degeneration.

 No.9601[Reply]

File: 1629315310008.jpg (5.67 KB, 204x204, 1:1, 18697964_10155357246269108….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

View-harm, I will define, is the psychological harm done to another when they view a body or a photograph of a body.  Some parts of the body are especially potent, therefore laws require covering those parts in public and standards forbid showing those parts on many websites.  But people may be offended by any part of any body (eyes, nose, teeth, hair), or offended by the fashion of bodily display (hair style, make-up).  I don't believe in objective beauty or ugliness, so there is no, I suppose, defense against view-harm there.  A good person must not use their power to hurt those around them.

I think, though, fursonas or pony-sonas help defend against view-harm.  Perhaps we can share other ideas for keeping those around us safe.
4 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9687

File: 1629892053004.png (359.8 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google

>>9683
Yes, when inferences are made from accidental patterns that don't do well at predicting what's being modeled.

That's bad, I guess, but I'm not sure it's psychologically damaging.

>>9684
Interesting.  View-harm might be a class of information hazard.  I suppose you could say it's really information gained in a view that does the mental damage, although exactly what information is hard to say.

 No.12345

>>9684
>Data hazards: A piece of data that can be used to harm others, such as the DNA sequence of a lethal pathogen.

Fun fact!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_001611.1

 No.12348

>>12347
The individual genes of the virus that causes smallpox. It's full genome is at the bottom of the page.

 No.9610[Reply]

File: 1629404467481.jpg (85.7 KB, 1120x630, 16:9, Two-Jobs-Cartoon.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In a surprise move, the Biden administration's Department of Education seeks to forgive something like $6 billion dollars in student loan debt for individuals in a specific working situation.

Story: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/student-loan-forgiveness-disabled-borrowers-150036471.html

The U.S. student loan crisis is an interesting problem. While I've got more opinions on different issues than I can manage, really, I'm on the fence when it comes to this. Should the government keep going through situations piecemeal? Should all student debt just be ended? If so, what about the economic consequences... isn't there a kind of ethical dilemma when it comes to those who did pay things off?
17 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.9692

>>9691
They can make that argument if they want to but don't pretend it's for my sake.

 No.9695

>>9686
This.

College, in general, is worthless.  Yet every institution insists, if you do not go, you will be a failure.

It's not as hard to pay your debts as some make it out, but it's also not necessarily hard to pay a con artist.

Given the state itself is the one pushing you into this debt more often than not, it's on them as much as the colleges themselves.

 No.9696

>>9695
>Yet every institution insists, if you do not go, you will be a failure.
Not every, but things nominally taught at state-accredited college or university will be skills, other abilities will not be.  [Possibly some trade schools may teach a few skills as well.]

 No.12246[Reply]

File: 1690013044577.jpg (75.88 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I don't really follow politics super closely although I am addicted to Facebook, but I feel I ought to generate threads at some frequency and this is trending on Facebook now.

Context:

Jason Aldean produced a song called "Try that in a small town" that talks about how violent action such as armed robbery or rioting, unpatriotic behavior such as flag burning, and disrespectful behavior such as using profane language toward a cop will not be tolerated in a small town.

According to CBS news, Alderan "performs in front of the Maury County Courthouse in Columbia, Tennessee. This is the site of the 1946 Columbia race riot and the 1927 mob lynching of an 18-year-old Black teenager named Henry Choate."  I gather, however, these are not major historical events.

The song's lyrics, which you might find at any site that has the appropriate permissions from the publisher to copy them, does not mention race.

My question: is this song political, problematic, or even dog-whistle support for lynching, as some say?  Or are people too quick to judge, or perhaps inappropriately associating rural American solidarity and or small-town culture with racism?
17 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12303

>>12295
>I mean it's not the least bit nebulous, in a white supremacist social order, white people are supreme, that is on the top of the social hierarchy. In that social order, all other races are expected to be subordinate to white people.
Right, if that's the framework we're operating from, I would say flatly that it is not the case here, and I've seen nothing whatsoever to suggest it is in my many, many years of living in the south.

I can't speak to your personal experiences, but I can tell you that the black folk I've worked with have gotten the same paycheck as any other white folk, they aren't obligated to stay on any particular "side" of town, and they most certainly are not expected to "act as subservient as possible", either.

To be quite frank, I find the claim extremely unlikely. But I grant it is possible you've come from a particularly uncommon and uniquely horrible location. Nonetheless, I would certainly say it does not represent any experience I've had with the south.

>Seriously this willful ignorance is seriously spineless.
Only if we presume your claims of what is occurring is accurate.

As I most certainly have no cause to believe such, doubly as it runs directly contrary to my observed reality in my daily life living in the region, I most certainly would not consider it "spineless".
I would however regard such accusations as exceptionally hostile, and doubly so when made on such faulty presumptions.

I would hope that wasn't your intent, but I am sure you can understand that such insulting rhetoric rather strikes so, nonetheless.

 No.12304

>>12299
>I wish I didn't have to coexist in the same country as you since if my corpse was lying bleeding on the ground you'd just walk right past it because your politics would tell you to do so.
I, too, wish so many people who would make such hostile presumptions over disagreements weren't so common in this country.

Alas, the kind of folk as you who'd assume someone a monster because they disagree with them are a dime a dozen these days.
It gives me worry for the future, as it seems such disregard for their own fellow man is liable to only escalate political division.

 No.12312

File: 1690757055214.jpg (53.19 KB, 720x516, 60:43, IMG_20230729_162041.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>My question: is this song political, problematic, or even dog-whistle support for lynching, as some say?  Or are people too quick to judge, or perhaps inappropriately associating rural American solidarity and or small-town culture with racism?

The song is a statement and perhaps a message, but also it's largely grandstanding and posturing, delivering threats you can't back up to strawmen that don't exist.  An empty calories feel good song for the "good ol' boys".  If it actually gets people to stop carjacking, that would be great, but more likely is it makes people want to stop carjackings, only to never encounter one, and at worst they may go on some perverse patrol to find someone they declare dangerous after a night of heavy drinking.

 No.12151[Reply]

File: 1687560617551.png (1.24 MB, 1280x853, 1280:853, large.png) ImgOps Google

Sometimes I wonder if the left, generally, could be more tolerant and kinder to the right.

I keep going back to LGBT+ issues, but they are a main issue right now in politics, I think.  Some Christians prefer to not be part of the LGBT+ agenda, and the left might say that's transphobic or homophobic, but perhaps we should just accept that excluding these kinds of gender or sexual expressions is what some need to practice their religion.

And in the same way some people have negative opinions about races and/or ethnicities, and rather than attacking, we should just let people have opinions.  Maybe we can respectfully disagree, but nobody should be called "racist" if they don't prefer.

I guess maybe much of the political anger is caused by left-leaning people getting upset and calling people names, and if things cool down maybe stuff will get better.
39 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12294

>>12284
>In what astonishing alternative reality are you living in which expressions of public bigotry are widely condemned or even "universally hated"?
I would ask the same to you.
Did you miss the many years now where such accusations would get you ousted from your employment?
Condemned by those around you, and functionally a leper as far as society is concerned?

>To pick just one example, former President Donald Trump publicly declared that the Prime Minister of Israel should go "f**k" himself and declared him and his fellow Israeli Jews as well as American Jews of immoral disloyalty to his administration, acting in the most antisemitic way possible in his accusations.
I would require the actual citation, then, because I find the claim suspect, especially given you start with a critique of an individual, a political figure, and leader of a nation.

It shouldn't need be said, but not supporting the Prime Minister of Israel is not antisemitism.
There's plenty of cause, after all, to do so. I can certainly understand the perspective, even assuming "should go fuck himself" was an actual quote.

> particularly him crusading against the evil campaign by LGBT people and other minorities to supposedly "groom" children
That would hold more water were it not for the mountain of evidence that unfortunately gives leeway to that perspective.
I can agree that the LGBT community as a whole is not to blame for the actions of a few particularly insane radicals, especially as they ultimately seem to just use LGBT as a shield without any actual concern for the real people it harms.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.12296

>>12294
Since you actually buy seriously into the notion of evil Jews and evil gay people among others hunting down children, well, I guess you'd probably be operating from such an insanely biased far right worldview that I suppose you've no connection to reality in the first place, and any attempt by me and everybody else get through the extremist brainwashing putting the ideological bubble around your head is futile.

My mistake for attempting to engage with you in the first place, then. See you later.

 No.12301

>>12296
You've clearly not bothered to read a single thing I've said, have you?

I've said nothing to suggest I "buy" "f evil Jews and evil gay people among others hunting down children".
You've made that dishonest and hostile presumption off of, quite frankly, fuck all.

If you've not the decency nor the intellectual honesty to engage in the absolute bear minimum of responding to what others've actually said, instead of a complete fabricated fantasy in your own mind, I would implore you, hold your tongue.
You don't convince anyone by declaring them all to be evil monsters no matter what they say.
You only reveal your own demonstrable lack of personal character.

 No.12129[Reply]

File: 1686869819894.png (393.74 KB, 739x1024, 739:1024, large.png) ImgOps Google

This is a peaceful thread for those without political opinions.

Perhaps for those who don't have opinions about the LGBT agenda and pedophiles or groomers.  Or climate change.  Or which drugs should be allowed.  Or about the Jewish ethnicity.  Or Christian freedom and family values.  For those who have nothing to say about the poor or systems of economy. For those with don't comment on feminism or whether someone's appearance is valid.  For ponies who are not woke, but also don't need to have wokeness banned.

When you don't have political opinions, you can think critically and evaluate with reason and rationality.  You can be respectful of all the various opinions that exist without offending others.  It is a very nice goal, I think.
14 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.12149

>>12147

Ah, yes. That is never fun when others want you to have a response that you don't really have at the moment.

>>12148

Hm... maybe the institution just does the best that it can, like everyone else?

One way or another, people appear to attain what is perceived by at least some others as power. But I wonder about the perception of an insitution having power - maybe therein lies the apparent problem, if there is one. What is it about a person, organization, or institution that makes a person say about it that it has authority (and then form opinions about them/it based around that perception)?

Interesting discussion.

 No.12150

>>12149
>What is it about a person, organization, or institution that makes a person say about it that it has authority (and then form opinions about them/it based around that perception)?

Authoritarianism is the necessary condition.  This is the knowledge that at least one institution should not be resisted in their use of force, and should have their orders obeyed.  With authoritarianism you can have a legitimate way to replace anarchy.

Although, much like some have said of God: I can have perfect faith in God but still, if I am not to experience God directly, question the mediation that allows me to know God.  I suppose that's part of your question.

 No.12281

I'd like to say that most opinions aren't political opinions. And most opinions are frequently things that don't involve thinking critically. It depends.

People can scream their lungs out about what band is their favorite musical group ever and what band they passionately hate to where they want to punch the nearby wall, after all.

[]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Next
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]