Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help


T___A

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Legiondude said:

Which is why startup minded types are trying to head east of the Rockies and start up a "Blue Collar tech" version in various points out in the heartland

 

Sadly, they are just spreading a terminal disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

The right political establishment's support (along with some left support) for the drug war, which is the cause of most gun crimes, is, in my opinion, to blame for most of the violence we see. Crazed gunmen, wether politically active or not, are a statistical anomaly.  Maybe getting stoned would help a lot of those freaks out too? 

 

Sounds like there are structural problems in the capitalist-controlled silicon valley that is rewarding left-wing views in order to pander to a certain market over another. 

 

The only president that probably never got death threats was Old Tippecanoe because he had the sense to give himself pneumonia and die immediately after winning his election. 

 

I will agree that the war on drugs, like the war on poverty, has done at best nothing to solve the problem, and realistically has exacerbated it.

 

Most problems in society can be tied directly to the existence of prol scum. We have multiple wars against the symptoms of the problem, but nothing that addresses the problem itself.

 

The a fair number of lefties like to point out how the war on drugs and banning certain substances only creates an unsafe environment for it's consumption and a black market for it's trade, but somehow they think that banning guns isn't going to have the same outcome?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ulric said:

 

Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles, you know?

 

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but quite a bit of terrorism is perpetrated by radical Islamists.

 

Not all lefties are crazed gunmen, but a fair number of crazed gunmen happen to be on the left side of the spectrum. The shootings are usually not politically motivated, either. The issue that comes into play here is that every time there is a shooting, the vast majority of main stream media comes out with conjecture and misinformation as to the perpetrators political alignment and affiliations. After the theater shooting in Aurora, the media went digging through Tea Party records and found someone with a similar name to the shooter, picked it up and ran with it. Turns out, it was some fucked up college kid who went off his meds (which is a trait that shows up more than once, by the way). Then they play the blame game and go on parade pointing fingers at every conservative and pro gun organization that they can find. The left leaning media paints anyone who disagrees with them on gun control with the broad brush of things such being complicit with or even guilty by association of murdering children on national TV. If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty and blanket discrimination, start there.

 

PS, more examples.

 Ebay, Google, and other major players on the online world harassing, banning, blocking, demonetizing, censoring or in other ways suppressing opinions that dissent from their left leaning world view. I know of businesses that have had their Ebay account frozen because there we selling slings that could be used on AR-15s. That was the day that I learned that, according to Ebay's customer service department, it is AGAINST THE LAW!!!! to sell slings for "Assault Rifle 15s" on Ebay. Dating sites have shadow banned people who have pictures of firearms in their profile. Google suppresses search results that are against their ideology. Twitter is confirmed to be shadow banning conservatives based on certain algorithms. YouTube constantly goes after conservatives, and they have started shutting down channels that feature firearms. These are companies that have no business bringing up politics, but it seems to be at the very core of their modus operandi. Do you need more examples? The right has some bad apples for sure, but the left has orders of magnitude more, and they hold influential positions in society.

 

Also, do we know how many death threats Trump and his family have received?

 

If the shootings are not politically motivated, then how does it even matter if the gunman is a "leftie", and how do you even know there political viewpoint?  Do you have their voting records?  Anyhow, I suspect your definition of a "leftie" is probably so broad as to encompass everyone to the left of Steve Bannon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It demonstrates a pattern of thought and behavior that is, for the lack of a better term, comorbid with other patterns. It doesn't always have to exist with them, but it is more likely to. Similarly, it can exist without them, but it is less likely to occur in the scenarios.

 

The point that I'm trying to make is that the media will automatically and incorrectly assume the political affiliations of a shooter, and will try to associate the shooter with their political enemies as a way to gain leverage in the court of public opinion to help push an agenda. But, just like trying to villify the AR-15, the numbers don't add up. The initial coverage of the YouTube shooter was wall to wall. They interrupted scheduled programming for well over an hour for uninterrupted news coverage of the situation. As soon as they found out who the shooter was, that story was dropped like a potato fresh out of Chernobyl reactor core 4. The church shooting in Texas was also forgotten rather quickly, but because there was someone there with a rifle who stopped the shooter.

 

So, you assume that I paint people with a broad brush, and by the your point of reference you assume that I'm on the whackjob right side of the spectrum? I will tell you what I assume. I assume that people who are more susceptible to being driven by their emotions tend to have poorer impulse control that those who are not. I assume that emotionally driven people are more likely do things that make themselves feel good, even if it is not actually beneficial or possibly even detrimental. I also assume that people who are more heavily influence by their emotions also have the mentally of "if it feels good, do it" and tend to be on the left side of the spectrum. This last one might be stretching it a little too much, but I assume that people with poor impulse control who react to their emotions are more likely to do things like go on a shooting spree.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ulric said:

It demonstrates a pattern of thought and behavior that is, for the lack of a better term, comorbid with other patterns. It doesn't always have to exist with them, but it is more likely to. Similarly, it can exist without them, but it is less likely to occur in the scenarios.

 

The point that I'm trying to make is that the media will automatically and incorrectly assume the political affiliations of a shooter, and will try to associate the shooter with their political enemies as a way to gain leverage in the court of public opinion to help push an agenda. But, just like trying to villify the AR-15, the numbers don't add up. The initial coverage of the YouTube shooter was wall to wall. They interrupted scheduled programming for well over an hour for uninterrupted news coverage of the situation. As soon as they found out who the shooter was, that story was dropped like a potato fresh out of Chernobyl reactor core 4. The church shooting in Texas was also forgotten rather quickly, but because there was someone there with a rifle who stopped the shooter.

 

So, you assume that I paint people with a broad brush, and by the your point of reference you assume that I'm on the whackjob right side of the spectrum? I will tell you what I assume. I assume that people who are more susceptible to being driven by their emotions tend to have poorer impulse control that those who are not. I assume that emotionally driven people are more likely do things that make themselves feel good, even if it is not actually beneficial or possibly even detrimental. I also assume that people who are more heavily influence by their emotions also have the mentally of "if it feels good, do it" and tend to be on the left side of the spectrum. This last one might be stretching it a little too much, but I assume that people with poor impulse control who react to their emotions are more likely to do things like go on a shooting spree.

 

 

 

I didn't assume anything.  Based on every comment you have made here, it seems to me that you are a rather conservative guy in terms of your political outlook.  That said, I probably should not have compared you to Steve Bannon, that was unfair.   

 

As to who is more likely to commit mass murder with a firearm, the only really consistent pattern I have seen is that it's almost always males.  Most have been white males, but since they also make up the majority of the male population, that doesn't really tell us much.  Quite a few seem to fit into the "young misfit with mental health issues" catagory.  Anger against women seems to be a pretty common pattern, but there is also angry, incoherent political beliefs, or in the Charleston situation, racial prejudice as a motive.  The Vegas shooting is perhaps the most frustrating since it caused the most damage and the motivations of the shooter are so unclear.  The weirdest is the recent shooting at the Youtube headquarters carried out by an Iranian woman upset about online video monetization!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

 

Two things spring to mind on reading this:

 

1)  There is a cogent and internally coherent argument to be made that a falling unemployment rate isn't necessarily a good thing.  Low unemployment rates per se are not always an indicator of optimal economic health.  They might indicate that a lot of people are stuck in jobs that aren't the most productive ones possible, and future businesses might have a harder time getting going because there is no pool of available workers to draw on.  That's assuming things are on the up and up; the numbers could be gamed in a number of ways, like adjusting the number of people who are considered to be "looking" for jobs, or by placing people in economically meaningless make-work jobs.  However, this does need to be balanced against the fact that employment has substantial pro-social externalities.  The optimal employment rate for keeping everyone sane and happy is probably a lot higher than the optimal employment rate for best economic growth.

2)  I don't fucking care lol.  The economics spokesman under Obama tried to claim that the recession wasn't as bad as it looked by trying to pass off the first derivative of the unemployment rate vs. time as the unemployment rate.  Trump drumming up buzz based on ambiguous economic indicators that are at least actually true is peanuts compared to the bullshit that Obama would spout that everyone was supposed to just accept.  The establishment is a pack of murderous liars and thieves, and they've proven their incompetence over decades.  If they're bitching and moaning that Trump is going to burn everything to the ground, then fucking good.  They're in closer proximity to Trump than I am, they'll catch on fire first.

 

3zV1BpP.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

The economics spokesman under Obama tried to claim that the recession wasn't as bad as it looked by trying to pass off the first derivative of the unemployment rate vs. time as the unemployment rate. 

 

It was the second derivative IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Two things spring to mind on reading this:

 

1)  There is a cogent and internally coherent argument to be made that a falling unemployment rate isn't necessarily a good thing.  Low unemployment rates per se are not always an indicator of optimal economic health.  They might indicate that a lot of people are stuck in jobs that aren't the most productive ones possible, and future businesses might have a harder time getting going because there is no pool of available workers to draw on.  That's assuming things are on the up and up; the numbers could be gamed in a number of ways, like adjusting the number of people who are considered to be "looking" for jobs, or by placing people in economically meaningless make-work jobs.  However, this does need to be balanced against the fact that employment has substantial pro-social externalities.  The optimal employment rate for keeping everyone sane and happy is probably a lot higher than the optimal employment rate for best economic growth.

2)  I don't fucking care lol.  The economics spokesman under Obama tried to claim that the recession wasn't as bad as it looked by trying to pass off the first derivative of the unemployment rate vs. time as the unemployment rate.  Trump drumming up buzz based on ambiguous economic indicators that are at least actually true is peanuts compared to the bullshit that Obama would spout that everyone was supposed to just accept.  The establishment is a pack of murderous liars and thieves, and they've proven their incompetence over decades.  If they're bitching and moaning that Trump is going to burn everything to the ground, then fucking good.  They're in closer proximity to Trump than I am, they'll catch on fire first.

 

3zV1BpP.png

 

 

Let us not forget that the Obama administration also tried to call unemployment a good thing. It was an opportunity to spend time with the family, or pursue hobbies that you had let slip by without all the stress of having to work all the time. I believe they used the term "funemployment". Also, in that article they finally point out the bullshit numbers manipulation that was happening under Obama, but claim that it's happening under Trump (and it might be, too, who the fuck knows). I'm not surprised by any of this, though, considering how much the left accuses everyone else of exactly what they themselves are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ulric said:

 

 

Let us not forget that the Obama administration also tried to call unemployment a good thing. It was an opportunity to spend time with the family, or pursue hobbies that you had let slip by without all the stress of having to work all the time. I believe they used the term "funemployment". Also, in that article they finally point out the bullshit numbers manipulation that was happening under Obama, but claim that it's happening under Trump (and it might be, too, who the fuck knows). I'm not surprised by any of this, though, considering how much the left accuses everyone else of exactly what they themselves are doing.

 

If you can find a credible source for an Obama administration official using the term "funemployment", I'd very much like to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2018 at 11:39 PM, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

I didn't assume anything.  Based on every comment you have made here, it seems to me that you are a rather conservative guy in terms of your political outlook.  That said, I probably should not have compared you to Steve Bannon, that was unfair.   

 

As to who is more likely to commit mass murder with a firearm, the only really consistent pattern I have seen is that it's almost always males.  Most have been white males, but since they also make up the majority of the male population, that doesn't really tell us much.  Quite a few seem to fit into the "young misfit with mental health issues" catagory.  Anger against women seems to be a pretty common pattern, but there is also angry, incoherent political beliefs, or in the Charleston situation, racial prejudice as a motive.  The Vegas shooting is perhaps the most frustrating since it caused the most damage and the motivations of the shooter are so unclear.  The weirdest is the recent shooting at the Youtube headquarters carried out by an Iranian woman upset about online video monetization!  

The 3 most common reasons tend to be:
-Sexual frustration.
-Sadism

-Inability to climb the dominance ladder, or put in a easier term, inability to leave a mark in the world.

 

This easily explains why young males make up the largest group. 

 

If you need a source, I might see if I can find the article, been a long time however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

If you can find a credible source for an Obama administration official using the term "funemployment", I'd very much like to see it.

 

My mistake, it was just the left wing media that was using that term en masse. I could be forgiven for mistaking them with administration officials, though, since they were practically part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2018 is wild. Also Arizona, elect better people

 

http://www.horse-news.net/2018/05/gop-rep-from-arizona-asks-about-furries.html

Quote

GOP Rep from Arizona asks about furries on Twitter; becomes one hours later thanks to Brony artist UPDATED

A Republican State Representative from Arizona may have set an internet record; going from total obliviousness to full blown furry in under 24 hours.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Oliver North is now the new President of the National Rifle Association.

 

Well, if there's anyone experienced in making sure weapons get into the hands of undesirables over the express wishes of Congress and the Federal government, it's Oliver North!

 

...

 

...

 

What?

 

Too soon?

 

...

 

And of course, Wayne LaPierre is continuing in his lucrative job as Vice Grand Vizier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Trump really wants to do something different in the AfPak region.....I reckon (discreetly, or you'll discredit him) throwing some weight behind this guy would be a bloody good idea (and please FFS protect him this time, do not lose him like we lost Massoud):

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43827660

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Trump pulling the US out of the Iran nuke deal (against the advise of all of our allies and his own Secretary of Defense) puts him in a very good position heading into negotiations with North Korea.  If I'm Lil' Rocketman Kim, I might be suspicious of any deal made with USA under Trump considering his willingness to arbitrarily pull the US out of the Iraq deal for reasons that seem to be based solely on his own domestic political goals and not on anything that Iran had done to violate the agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a bit too busy the past week or two with the hours I've been putting in. And in that short time I feel woefully behind the times with how fast politics continues to move in the Trump era; like a spider monkey speedballing meth and heroin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...