Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Asgore Adopts Noelle
Then people will just end up suing Reddit and ruining the website in the process.
That sounds like using carpet bombing to fight a bunch of moths...
...Conspiracy Theory is one of those fallacies that cuts both ways. Right-wing conspiracy theories preceded left-wing ones historically but the left has had its own fringes. The Who Shot JFK? is the best example, which is still something that otherwise perfectly rational and normal individuals like say Joseph Mcbride and others fully buy into, even if there is not a shred of evidence. Oliver Stone made a movie that glorified a psychopath like Jim Garrison and demonized the innocent Clay Shaw, and made an essentially homophobic film in the process. Nobody has a good answer to the fact that if the Warren Commission was some government coverup and the government is hostile to counter-claims, how is it that nearly every movie and book tackling JFK presumes and depicts the conspiracy, and why is it that there's not a single work showing the Warren Commission's findings.
Don't get me started on the 9/11 truth commission.
And in the case of the Pizzagate scandal...the focus should be on gun-laws. Because people will find fringe ideas all the time but acting on it with guns shouldn't be an option. Fake news and other stuff is a problem and there might be a legislative way to counter it, but it has to be done by people who know how to make it work under the First Amendment.
Doesn't work, you'd have to prove that the Reddit engineer wrote the post, reasonable doubt would just mean you couldn't win against either. As for suing Reddit for allowing such conspiracy theories on the site, you'd be hard pressed to do something like that, especially as once they get out of control they get kicked off the site (like the pizzagate conspiracy has been).
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran"I doubt gun laws will change much of anything regarding Pizzagate. If you outlaw guns..."
...there would be fewer ways for Trump's freikorps to arm themselves.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."When we say outlaw guns, we don't mean categorically in the sense of ending all weapons forever...we're not idiots ignorant of the concept of state monopoly on violence.
We mean simply do the basic things, make it harder for civilians to get guns, make it harder for them to get military-grade weapons. That is a sane, moderate, view and there's no need to ignore the tenor of that statement.
Also make it harder for police to use guns...so that they don't stop perpetuating their weird ethnic cleansing of the black community.
Last page's video was supposed to be a reproduction of Cabinet Battle 3, as featured in the Hamilton Mixtape. Here are the annotated lyrics.
I swear to God, Ben Franklin was the real MVP of the US Independence process.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Also, mass shooters often commit their crimes with weapons that were purchased legally. We don't need to ban all firearms, but regulating the type of gun, and ammunition in general, is simply good sense. Background checks don't get to the heart of the matter — that we're a volatile society awash in readily available firearms, and it's good for no one when an "honest gun owner" flips his lid because he read some conspiracy theory online.
My person preference, to be honest, is to strictly regulate ammunition purchases — I'm not sure how it could be done, since ammo can always be stockpiled surreptitiously.
edited 6th Dec '16 1:37:00 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."And by the way what's with this weird use of the word Outlaw. This ain't the Wild West. I think you mean criminals. Criminals are not outlaws in the legal sense of the world. To be an outlaw is to be literally stripped of all legal rights, all rights to an attorney, habeas corpus and to be denied any protection from popular justice.
If we want to be technical, the people who qualify as outlaws are the ones in Guantanamo Bay, and in these Rendition bases across the world. In the homeland, the fact that African-Americans find it harder to get justice than white folks, are victimized by redlining and by police shootings, makes them closer to outlaws in the classic definition.
If by outlaws you mean these shooters and others...well the guy who shot up the Batman Aurora theater is alive and in jail, so he's not an outlaw. I guess the fact he is white helped him.
Trump threatens to cancel Government Contract with Boeing due to "outrageous" price tag
. All I can say is, this looks terrible to me.
![]()
"Outlaw" has taken on a colloquial meaning of "criminal." It's not the same thing, I know, but who cares? We all know what's being spoken of.
Trump needs to make sure he keeps up with causing meaningless, venal controversy, and not just international crises.
edited 6th Dec '16 1:41:57 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Still, the point remains. Target identification is a big issue in today's law enforcement environment. There's no simple way to tell a "good guy with a gun" from a "bad guy with a gun" until one of them starts shooting. Most ways that police attempt usually involve skin color and apparent economic status, which causes some minor issues. The problem becomes infinitely easier to solve if you know in advance that anyone with a gun (other than a cop) is a bad guy.
The argument can be made that the proliferation of guns in the public's hands exacerbates police paranoia, since there is a very real expectation that anyone they try to apprehend might be armed.
edited 6th Dec '16 2:05:00 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Hey guys, you know how the American justice system is stereotyped as an revolving door for chronic drug/alcohol offenders? Well San Diego is about to start an program that helps them get into rehab.
Answer no master, never the slave Carry your dreams down into the grave Every heart, like every soul, equal to breakMy personal pet peeve with the phrase "military-grade" firearms is that it's another one of those enraging soundbites which is a dangerously ambiguous term masked as a specifying label. Firearms, be it a World War II-era bolt-action rifle or a Brown Bess musket, were originally designed for use by militaries in an armed conflict. What makes a firearm "military-grade" in the subconscious of the public is simply a matter of imagery and age: a steely black M16 is clearly a "military-grade" firearm for being the standard arm of US troops, yet the brown Springfield 1903 that preceded it is deemed not being "military-grade" or "style" because it's from World War II and has wood on it.
When I say military grade, I mean automatic rifles/submachine guns/snifer rifles and ammunition rounds that have no place and room in the hands of civilian use. I get that the word is abused but I don't know a lot about military hardware. I am a civilian after all. To me fundamentally all guns are about killing people...that tiny essential detail tends to get lost when we indulge in the techno-porn of going over the gun hardware, but all guns, no matter the craftsmanship and appendages it affixes are about killing people.
I think the dangerous guns should be off the market, dangerous rounds too...and whatever's left should be strictly regulated. A moderate approach should be possible.
edited 6th Dec '16 3:02:48 PM by JulianLapostat
We've been down this road before. It's the same problem that occurred back in the 90s, with the Assault Weapon Ban. An AR-15 (which only fires semi-automatic) is not a military-issue weapon, while a full-auto M-16 is. But you can't tell them apart just by looking at them.
However, most legislators and anti-gunners have no technical knowledge of firearms, and don't want to educate themselves. It's like that spurious comment about pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." That attempted ban didn't fly, either.
What it all boils down to, is that you simply can't write a law (which requires very precise terminology) for what is basically an emotional decision (i.e., "guns are evil.")
edited 6th Dec '16 3:13:38 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.
