this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
508 points (96.4% liked)
Technology
59605 readers
3410 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good thing everyone can have guns. /s
That way we can simply do nothing because only one political party is encouraging its constituents to arm up while the other wants everyone to disarm. Guess which side will win?
I'm genuinely uncertain what your actual position is here, but yes, liberals and leftists do need to arm up. /m/LiberalGunOwners seems relevant here.
I don't know what their position is either, but "arming up" isn't going to do anything against a modern, relatively competent military. Back in the time the second amendment was written (as an example) there wasn't that big a disparity in the resources the military could use and normal people. The citizens were less organized but had numbers on their side.
Today, there is absolutely nothing you can do with a gun vs drones, bombs, planes, etc. The only way you really prevail is if the government isn't willing to slaughter its own citizens and guns aren't helping there at all. In fact, the opposite may be true since it makes it easy for the government to label the people shooting at their officials as terrorists.
So, all of this is wrong, but also beside the point. The main point of arming up is so that we don't all get murdered by fascists. I don't mean that in the sense that fascists will take over the government, and then use the state apparatus to exterminate us. The murdering happens before and during their seizure of political power.
You're more likely to kill yourself or a loved one than a home invader.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/apr/07/guns-handguns-safety-homicide-killing-study
[snip]
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/magazine_article/guns-suicide/
Also wrong, and not really relevant to my point? I'm not talking about the value proposition of having a gun for dealing with run of the mill crime.
We're (Americans) in a situation where we're faced with an active and armed fascist movement, and those who would oppose that movement have systematically disarmed themselves because "guns bad". What's your plan for when they decide to remind us that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"?
Don't bother consulting your canned talking points, you actually have to think about this one for yourself.
Not wrong, in that the studies are valid, and completely relevant to your point.
Guns kill their owners far more often than they kill home invaders and other intruders.
You're far more likely to drown if you own a pool in your backyard. Population level statistic applied to your individual lifestyle choices are meaningless and patronizing.
They're completely meaningful and not at all patronizing. (Do you even know what that word means?)
Yup
"You're wrong" does not constitute a counterargument.
So the scenario is fascists are just roaming around murdering liberals at a point before they seize political power? What are the police doing? If the police are looking the other way, the fascists already have political power. So what you're talking about doesn't seem at all realistic.
Even if we look to one of the most extreme examples in history -Nazi Germany - it still didn't happen remotely like what you're apparently concerned about.
I'll go ahead and respond to your other post as well:
This makes the value proposition look even worse. At least run of the mill crime has a semi-realistic chance of happening. Doing something that has negative value in normal times and only pays off if something very extreme like civilization breaking down occurs is kind of irrational.
You'll get further in life if you don't make a straw man out of positions you don't agree with. Although, admittedly, you can get pretty far on straw men and Gish gallops.
Anyway:
If we basically have to worry about warlords wandering around killing people at will then civilization already is done.
I don't plan my life around everyone being raptured away, aliens landing or civilization completely breaking down. It's irrational to make real sacrifices or do things that require a meaningful tradeoff/risk to avoid such unlikely events.
I'm pretty sure Mao didn't mean "If you have a gun, you have political power" with that quote. The original quote was “以后要非常注意军事，须知政权是由枪杆子中取得的”. It's not talking about random citizens with guns, it's from the perspective of leading/governing countries.
Rather than get locked in a "someone is wrong on the internet" cycle, let's put a pin in this. We've both read each others points, and found them unconvincing. Whatever audience we might hope to sway has thinned out. On reddit I would have just silently walked away at this point, but the threadiverse is small and we're likely to encounter each other again.
I'm guessing that our disagreement just comes down to a liberal vs leftist divide, and possibly also American vs European. We're not likely to bridge those as random internet commenters. So, TTFN.
Participation in the conversation is completely voluntary so it's completely up to you if you want to respond.
You didn't really argue your point though. You said "You're wrong" and "... But what if bad stuff happens?" It's not like we had an actual debate here. Maybe you didn't find the points I made compelling, but at least I tried to explain my reasoning for reaching that position.
Any negative perception I have toward you personally really doesn't have anything to do with the actuall disagreement, but your approach to "discussing" it. "Because guns bad", "don't bother consulting your canned talking points", etc is not a good-faith approach to debate. If you actually care about fostering good relations in a fairly small community where you may run into people again, I'd suggest reexamining your methods.
I don't think so. My position and what I'm arguing (although possibly incorrect) is purely based on what I see as the reality of the situation. A belief about whether guns are effective for preserving freedom against the government/fascists/whatever doesn't have anything really to do with politics.
Which one of us is supposed to be the American and which one is supposed to be the European?
Alright, I'm down for a bit of meta discussion.
I have very little patience for online debate at this stage of my life. It's not sufficient to really change the minds of people who have an established position, generally speaking. Unless I find the discussion inherently enjoyable, or I feel that I can sway some undecided people, I tend to just peace out. Not worth my time.
My goal here was to plug /m/LiberalGunOwners, in response to someone worrying about fascism and mentioning guns. Mainly trying to find "my people" and get them organized after the Great Reddit Diaspora.
In this context, you and weirdwallace75 come in with the talking points. Yes, talking points. They're flawed, they're patronizing, they're uncompelling, and I've heard them many, many times before. They really are irrelevant to my concerns. "What about this fascist movement" is not addressed by "but you might hurt yourself".
Once you did address my concern, it just revealed what I'm referring to as the "liberal vs leftist" divide. This divide reflects a difference in worldview. If you had my worldview, you'd be an anarchist. As a (presumably) liberal, you're relatively less concerned about fascist movements, and your prescription for dealing with them is going to rely (relatively) more on institutions and less on direct action.
There isn't really anything to be done about this divide. We're just going to disagree.
That's fine, of course. Don't debate/discuss anything you don't feel like debating, but you shouldn't make a straw man out of the position of people you disagree with or be uncivil.
It's not clear what exactly you're accusing me of. Mindlessly parroting other peoples' views?
If what I said is so weak and easily refuted it's a little strange that the best rebuttal you can come up with is "you're wrong".
There's a grain of truth here, but it's kind of beside the point and you're making some odd assumptions. Why do you think you know what I'm concerned about?
Once again, while I don't doubt we also have fundamental philosophical differences, the current disagreement (from my side anyway) is about practical ways to deal with the issue. From a purely practical standpoint, I don't think individual citizens owning guns is going to be effective or worth the tradeoff to prevent the kinds of risks you mentioned. I could be far left, I could be liberal, I could be far right, I could be a centrist: none of that would have any bearing on something that comes down to the question of "is this an effective tool for the task".
I'm not an anarchist, so guessed correctly there. It's not because I love governments, institutions, central authority or because I'm opposed to anarchy (or any philosophy/approach that isn't hurting others). My personal philosophy is do whatever you want as long as it's not harming other people/animals (I'm a Utilitiarian). So I'm pro whatever method leads to the most happiness/least suffering.
I was hoping to avoid getting deep enough into this that I have to break out the block quotes myself, but oh well. Here we are.
I don't think I've been any less charitable than you and weirdwallace75, though. It's not like any of us are steel-manning each others points. And why would we? There's no benefit in this context. It'd just be a longer route to the conclusion that I jumped to early, that we fundamentally disagree and that an internet comments argument with strangers is not going to be sufficient to change any minds. If we were all friends, and frequently spent time discussing things in person, and trusted each other, then sure, maybe we could make some progress. But we're not, and we don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sort of? See the definition of talking points. Not necessarily mindless, but certainly low-effort and static. Like, I've seen all of them before. Literally every single anti-gun talking point. They didn't get me to change my mind the first dozen times, so why would they now? They simply do not address the reasons that I am in favor of a well-armed society. As an anarchist, I care about how power is allocated. I want power to be widely distributed, not concentrated. And guns are tools of power.
I didn't say that they were easily refuted. Just as I don't find the talking points convincing, I don't expect you to find the usual responses to them convincing either. We'd just get bogged down in side arguments. However, I also wasn't inclined to concede the point. Which leaves us at "you're wrong".
Because you said it yourself? You likened planning for fascist violence to planning for the rapture.
You're not. I'm certain enough of it to bet money. Unless this has all been a very weird acting exercise.
It does, though. Your worldview affects your perception of the problem, and your perception of the potential tools for dealing with it. It affects what you pay attention to, what you learn, and what you dismiss. We disagree both on the level of severity and on the effectiveness of each tool, due to our differences in worldview.
I'm not really talking about utilitarianism vs egoism or whatever else, though that could play a small part. I'm more referring to the totality of our worldviews, our mental models of how everything works.
I was hoping to avoid getting deep enough into this that I have to break out the block quotes myself, but oh well. Here we are.
I don't think I've been any less charitable than you and weirdwallace75, though. It's not like any of us are steel-manning each others points. And why would we? There's no benefit in this context. It'd just be a longer route to the conclusion that I jumped to early, that we fundamentally disagree and that an internet comments argument with strangers is not going to be sufficient to change any minds. If we were all friends, and frequently spent time discussing things in person, and trusted each other, then sure, maybe we could make some progress. But we're not, and we don't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sort of? See the definition of talking points. Not necessarily mindless, but certainly low-effort and static. Like, I've seen all of them before. Literally every single anti-gun talking point. They didn't get me to change my mind the first dozen times, so why would they now? They simply do not address the reasons that I am in favor of a well-armed society. As an anarchist, I care about how power is allocated. I want power to be widely distributed, not concentrated. And guns are tools of power.
I didn't say that they were easily refuted. Just as I don't find the talking points convincing, I don't expect you to find the usual responses to them convincing either. We'd just get bogged down in side arguments. However, I also wasn't inclined to concede the point. Which leaves us at "you're wrong".
Because you said it yourself? You likened planning for fascist violence to planning for the rapture.
You're not. I'm certain enough of it to bet money. Unless this has all been a very weird acting exercise.
It does, though. Your worldview affects your perception of the problem, and your perception of the potential tools for dealing with it. It affects what you pay attention to, what you learn, and what you dismiss. We disagree both on the level of severity and on the effectiveness of each tool, due to our differences in worldview.
I'm not really talking about utilitarianism vs egoism or whatever else, though that could play a small part. I'm more referring to the totality of our worldviews, our mental models of how everything works.
Like I said, no one's twisting your arm here.
I can't speak for anyone but myself but if you look at my posts and your posts, I think we can easily see this really isn't true at all.
You made a caricature of your opponents position - they don't like guns because "guns bad" when obviously there's a lot more nuance than that. I challenge you to link a case where I did anything similar. Just as an example. You've also made a bunch of quite uncharitable assumptions with little evidence, like the "talking points" thing.
By the definition you linked, your accusation is just plain factually wrong. Nothing was prepared in advance, I'm (obviously) not following a script.
Also, this looks like a contradiction:
So they're low effort, static, you (and presumably others that agree with your position) have heard/seen them all before and yet they aren't easily refuted? That really doesn't make sense. I have my own pet cause and there are very common responses I've seen before too: as a result, I can crush them with almost no effort because I know exactly where the conversation is going.
If you're so familiar with the subject, have seen all the arguments before but can't muster strong counter arguments, link reputable neutral sources to support your position, etc then maybe you should reevaluate whether the ground you're on is actually solid. Lest you be tempted to turn that line of argument around on me: don't forget, I never claimed to be super well-informed and familiar with it.
I likened a scenario where individual fascists are apparently wandering around randomly killing other citizens while the government/police don't do anything to the rapture, because this pretty much implies a complete breakdown of civilization or a situation where having a gun isn't going to help you anyway because the fascists have the might of the military on their side.
I didn't say something like fascists gaining political power was that level of implausible. Unfortunately, it actually seems all too plausible: although the killing random lefties/liberals en masse is very improbable. Like I already said, even if you look at one of the most extreme examples in history such as Nazi Germany it still didn't happen like that.
The point is that my position on this is completely independent of any politics. It's like if the question was "Is the best tool for slicing bread a spoon or a knife": would it matter if I'm politically left or right? No: there's a fact of the matter about what tool is effective for slicing bread, there's enough evidence to show knives are clearly more effective there and if my politics affect me accepting that and I argue the spoon side then I'm being irrational.
There are lots of subjects where politics do have an influence and philosophical points where there's a less clear answer but here we're talking about practical effects from taking a certain approach. Politics should have little bearing there.
Huh? I don't get your response. Perhaps you're not familiar with Utilitarianism? It's a moral philosophy based on maximizing utility which is usually defined as maximizing pleasure and/or minimizing suffering. This is in contrast to other moral philosophies that might say something like "lying to people is wrong", the Utilitarian would only look at it in terms of the actual effects and would have no problem accepting that lying was good if you could show that overall lying maximized utility.
So assuming the facts are on your side here, this actually makes convincing Utilitarians of stuff very easy. You just have to show taking a certain approach results in higher utility and the Utilitarian will be on your side and won't say anything like "It's just wrong to do that". So if you could show me evidence that arming citizens actually results in less suffering/more happiness overall (and we can safely assume fascists taking over and roaming around slaughtering liberals/left leaning people is going to increase suffering/decrease happiness) then I'll not only be able to accept it. I'll be in your pro-gun camp.
I always resent this braindead argument. There's a huge difference between a country waging a foreign war and a country waging a war against its own cities and citizens. Insurgencies work and has been proven time and time again. See: Iraq
Indeed, in that the country isn't generally going to have the will to massacre its own citizens. So it's not that the citizens have a gun that is staying its hand, it's the lack of desire to just go ahead and slaughter them. Part of that is going to come from the fact that the country's military is made up of people who have these citizens as their friends, neighbors, etc.
So having a gun isn't helping you at all in that situation.
So these insurgents control Iraq now? They "won"?
Also, it's not really a comparable situation: dealing with insurgents halfway across the world is harder than dealing with them in your backyard. The US was also not really trying to take over and just rule the country, they were at least half-heartedly trying to set up a government that could manage stuff. In addition, the middle east and oil is strategically important to the US but insurgents in Iraq are obviously much less of a pressing concern than insurgents in the US. Naturally the US isn't going to invest the same level of resources and go to the same lengths to deal with those problems in Iraq compared to what it would do if that was happening in its own backyard. Finally, a lot of the insurgents were religious extremists. Even if every liberal in the US was armed, do you think we/they would really go to those lengths? I think we're just too used to living comfortably and don't really believe anything with that level of fanaticism to be running around with an AK waging a guerrilla war even if we had the AK.
The insurgents lost in Iraq. I know you stopped paying attention when FOX News moved on, but the Iraqi government won.
Why would you think I watch Fox news? My bad, mixed up Afghanistan and Iraq. But I'm sure Iraq isn't far behind.