LWDT 7: The Earth and Heavens Tremble.

[Liriena]

so were a bunch of conservatives circulating a never-ending avalanche of memes and hilariously self-serious arguments as to why Obama was literally Hitler and screaming "feminazi" at a deafening pitch.

the right: "stop calling everyone you disagree with a nazi. you're making it meaningless and everyone is going to think you're a crazy sjw who can't argue rationally"

also the right:

[Nakena]

I am glad that this kind of "conservatism" is deader than disco by now.

[Proctopeo]

I think he’s trying to say that some countries have been reluctant to integrate Muslims and other migrant groups, which isn’t an unreasonable thing to say.

I mean, there have been other migrant groups which have not integrated all that well either. It seems like Muslims are being singled out.

Yes. When people are marginalized (or othered) by the dominant population, associating with them will not be a priority.

Which then perpetuates the cycle.

(Image)

the right: "stop calling everyone you disagree with a nazi. you're making it meaningless and everyone is going to think you're a crazy sjw who can't argue rationally"

also the right:

There is something to be said that cracking down on gun ownership is often a step towards hardline authoritarianism. In the Western democracies of the present, it does take a lot longer to set in than elsewhere, but the compound effect of authoritarian policies not limited to gun control is being felt in much of the West.

[Liriena]

I am glad that this kind of "conservatism" is deader than disco by now.

It died from its own poisons. Unfortunately, we now have to deal with the waste.

[Liriena]

the right: "stop calling everyone you disagree with a nazi. you're making it meaningless and everyone is going to think you're a crazy sjw who can't argue rationally"

also the right:

There is something to be said that cracking down on gun ownership is often a step towards hardline authoritarianism.

"Often a step"

Ah-huh. How often, exactly? Because in the particular case of the German nazis, they didn't crack down on gun ownership in general. They specifically cracked down on Jewish gun ownership, along with pretty much every other human right Jewish people had.

[Proctopeo]

There is something to be said that cracking down on gun ownership is often a step towards hardline authoritarianism.

"Often a step"

Ah-huh. How often, exactly? Because in the particular case of the German nazis, they didn't crack down on gun ownership in general. They specifically cracked down on Jewish gun ownership, along with pretty much every other human right Jewish people had.

Not only does that not really disprove my point, but that image didn't just throw pictures of Hitler, but also Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and two people I fail to recognize from appearance alone. For sake of covering all the known bases, Mao Zedong, pretty much as soon as the People's Republic of China was formally established, began setting heavy restrictions on gun ownership (especially for private citizens). The Soviet Union under Lenin already had strict gun ownership laws, but Stalin's reign only served to make them stricter.

Though I suppose that "restricting firearms is often a tool used to perpetuate the power of dictators" is more accurate, it does go hand in hand with other authoritarian policies, which was my point. If the people cannot arm themselves against the government, the government is much more free to crack down on other liberties without risking a dangerous revolt.

[Hanafuridake]

There is something to be said that cracking down on gun ownership is often a step towards hardline authoritarianism.

"Often a step"

Ah-huh. How often, exactly? Because in the particular case of the German nazis, they didn't crack down on gun ownership in general. They specifically cracked down on Jewish gun ownership, along with pretty much every other human right Jewish people had.

Jewish people weren't even allowed to own pets, iirc.

[Nova Cyberia]

"Often a step"

Ah-huh. How often, exactly? Because in the particular case of the German nazis, they didn't crack down on gun ownership in general. They specifically cracked down on Jewish gun ownership, along with pretty much every other human right Jewish people had.

Jewish people weren't even allowed to own pets, iirc.

Pets were treated better than the Jews.

Hitler, ironically enough, was very big on animal rights. It was illegal to even boil lobsters alive in Nazi Germany, iirc.

[Torrocca]

"Often a step"

Ah-huh. How often, exactly? Because in the particular case of the German nazis, they didn't crack down on gun ownership in general. They specifically cracked down on Jewish gun ownership, along with pretty much every other human right Jewish people had.

Not only does that not really disprove my point, but that image didn't just throw pictures of Hitler, but also Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and two people I fail to recognize from appearance alone. For sake of covering all the known bases, Mao Zedong, pretty much as soon as the People's Republic of China was formally established, began setting heavy restrictions on gun ownership (especially for private citizens). The Soviet Union under Lenin already had strict gun ownership laws, but Stalin's reign only served to make them stricter.

Though I suppose that "restricting firearms is often a tool used to perpetuate the power of dictators" is more accurate, it does go hand in hand with other authoritarian policies, which was my point. If the people cannot arm themselves against the government, the government is much more free to crack down on other liberties without risking a dangerous revolt.

It sure is weird how you ignore the part where the Nazi regime held practically uncontested power and control over Germany despite the vast majority of Germans still retaining all the gun rights they had before the Nazis came to power, but okay.

[Kowani]

"Often a step"

Ah-huh. How often, exactly? Because in the particular case of the German nazis, they didn't crack down on gun ownership in general. They specifically cracked down on Jewish gun ownership, along with pretty much every other human right Jewish people had.

Not only does that not really disprove my point, but that image didn't just throw pictures of Hitler, but also Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and two people I fail to recognize from appearance alone. For sake of covering all the known bases, Mao Zedong, pretty much as soon as the People's Republic of China was formally established, began setting heavy restrictions on gun ownership (especially for private citizens). The Soviet Union under Lenin already had strict gun ownership laws, but Stalin's reign only served to make them stricter.

Though I suppose that "restricting firearms is often a tool used to perpetuate the power of dictators" is more accurate, it does go hand in hand with other authoritarian policies, which was my point. If the people cannot arm themselves against the government, the government is much more free to crack down on other liberties without risking a dangerous revolt.

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. They tried, they failed

[Proctopeo]

Not only does that not really disprove my point, but that image didn't just throw pictures of Hitler, but also Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and two people I fail to recognize from appearance alone. For sake of covering all the known bases, Mao Zedong, pretty much as soon as the People's Republic of China was formally established, began setting heavy restrictions on gun ownership (especially for private citizens). The Soviet Union under Lenin already had strict gun ownership laws, but Stalin's reign only served to make them stricter.

Though I suppose that "restricting firearms is often a tool used to perpetuate the power of dictators" is more accurate, it does go hand in hand with other authoritarian policies, which was my point. If the people cannot arm themselves against the government, the government is much more free to crack down on other liberties without risking a dangerous revolt.

It sure is weird how you ignore the part where the Nazi regime held practically uncontested power and control over Germany despite the vast majority of Germans still retaining all the gun rights they had before the Nazis came to power, but okay.

It sure is weird how you ignored the part where I also mentioned the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but okay

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. They tried, they failed

The point here is... what, exactly?


I have to wonder how many of y'all are coming out in support of strict gun control and how many are simply wanting to go "ummm achschully Procto the notsees...".

[Torrocca]

It sure is weird how you ignore the part where the Nazi regime held practically uncontested power and control over Germany despite the vast majority of Germans still retaining all the gun rights they had before the Nazis came to power, but okay.

It sure is weird how you ignored the part where I also mentioned the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but okay

When your criteria for perpetuating the power of dictators is "restricting firearms", you sure do make a good case for disproving your own theory by bringing up Nazi "our gun policies were even more deregulated than America's are today!" Germany as an example of that.

[Proctopeo]

It sure is weird how you ignored the part where I also mentioned the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but okay

When your criteria for perpetuating the power of dictators is "restricting firearms", you sure do make a good case for disproving your own theory by bringing up Nazi "our gun policies were even more deregulated than America's are today!" Germany as an example of that.

If you read my posts it's pretty obviously not my only criteria, but one among many. Especially, but not exclusively, for modern Western democracies, where the right to own and bare firearms is often just the canary, or a sign of a larger problem in the background.

[Kowani]

It sure is weird how you ignore the part where the Nazi regime held practically uncontested power and control over Germany despite the vast majority of Germans still retaining all the gun rights they had before the Nazis came to power, but okay.

It sure is weird how you ignored the part where I also mentioned the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but okay

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. They tried, they failed

The point here is... what, exactly?


I have to wonder how many of y'all are coming out in support of strict gun control and how many are simply wanting to go "ummm achschully Procto the notsees...".

The point is that if a government begins to oppress a minority, without support from the majority, any attempt at uprising to protect themselves is not going to work. Guns alone aren’t enough, as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising shows.

[Proctopeo]

It sure is weird how you ignored the part where I also mentioned the People's Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but okay


The point here is... what, exactly?


I have to wonder how many of y'all are coming out in support of strict gun control and how many are simply wanting to go "ummm achschully Procto the notsees...".

The point is that if a government begins to oppress a minority, without support from the majority, any attempt at uprising to protect themselves is not going to work. Guns alone aren’t enough, as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising shows.

That's not a very good example, though, since the government had been oppressing the minority for a long time, they were just coming to finish what they started.

[Cekoviu]

so were a bunch of conservatives circulating a never-ending avalanche of memes and hilariously self-serious arguments as to why Obama was literally Hitler and screaming "feminazi" at a deafening pitch.

Honestly, that fake Russian text pisses me off way more than the rest of this. That reads "sndi[G]e", and the G there isn't even a letter used in Russian. Whoever made that couldn't even put in the effort to Google Translate "change".

[Kowani]

The point is that if a government begins to oppress a minority, without support from the majority, any attempt at uprising to protect themselves is not going to work. Guns alone aren’t enough, as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising shows.

That's not a very good example, though, since the government had been oppressing the minority for a long time, they were just coming to finish what they started.

But I thought we needed guns to protect Liberty? If that’s true, then they should’ve risen up a while ago, but that didn’t happen, because it’s not just weapons that defend people.

[First American Empire]

The Second Amendment failed to stop slavery. The Second Amendment failed to stop Jim Crow. The Second Amendment failed to stop Japanese Internment. The Second Amendment failed to stop any of the five* presidents who stole their election in plain sight. The Second Amendment has never succeeded in allowing an armed rebellion against any act of tyranny that the US government has committed. The Second Amendment has utterly failed in its purpose, and should be repealed before more lives are pointlessly lost to gun violence.

*John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, George W. Bush (first term), and Donald Trump.

[North German Realm]

The Second Amendment failed to stop slavery. The Second Amendment failed to stop Jim Crow. The Second Amendment failed to stop Japanese Internment. The Second Amendment failed to stop any of the five* presidents who stole their election in plain sight. The Second Amendment has never succeeded in allowing an armed rebellion against any act of tyranny that the US government has committed. The Second Amendment has utterly failed in its purpose, and should be repealed before more lives are pointlessly lost to gun violence.

*John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, George W. Bush (first term), and Donald Trump.

It failed to stop the former two because the people who're supposed to take up arms against tyranny didn't oppose the either (and those who did did take up arms against it, and did result in reforms eventually ending one of them), and it didn't stop the latter five because it was not a blatant theft of election, but misuse of a law that should have been repealed, like all other laws compromising with slavers, in 1861.

[Kowani]

The Second Amendment failed to stop slavery. The Second Amendment failed to stop Jim Crow. The Second Amendment failed to stop Japanese Internment. The Second Amendment failed to stop any of the five* presidents who stole their election in plain sight. The Second Amendment has never succeeded in allowing an armed rebellion against any act of tyranny that the US government has committed. The Second Amendment has utterly failed in its purpose, and should be repealed before more lives are pointlessly lost to gun violence.

*John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, George W. Bush (first term), and Donald Trump.

In the 60’s and 70’s, there were rebellious groups throughout all of America. Black Panthers, Weatherman, FALN, etc. Bombings, arming themselves, attacking police: And look how that turned out.

[Proctopeo]

That's not a very good example, though, since the government had been oppressing the minority for a long time, they were just coming to finish what they started.

But I thought we needed guns to protect Liberty? If that’s true, then they should’ve risen up a while ago, but that didn’t happen, because it’s not just weapons that defend people.

Weapons are a vital instrument to defend people with; the fact that it sometimes doesn't work doesn't make it no longer true.

[Kowani]

But I thought we needed guns to protect Liberty? If that’s true, then they should’ve risen up a while ago, but that didn’t happen, because it’s not just weapons that defend people.

Weapons are a vital instrument to defend people with; the fact that it sometimes doesn't work doesn't make it no longer true.

More rebellions have been lost then won. It’s not that it sometimes doesn’t work, it’s that it mostly doesn’t work.

[Hanafuridake]

I loved Red Dawn as much as anyone. But let's be real, some salty boi's with guns aren't going to be able to beat one of the largest standing armies on the planet.

[Northern Davincia]

Weapons are a vital instrument to defend people with; the fact that it sometimes doesn't work doesn't make it no longer true.

More rebellions have been lost then won. It’s not that it sometimes doesn’t work, it’s that it mostly doesn’t work.

Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

The Second Amendment failed to stop slavery. The Second Amendment failed to stop Jim Crow. The Second Amendment failed to stop Japanese Internment. The Second Amendment failed to stop any of the five* presidents who stole their election in plain sight. The Second Amendment has never succeeded in allowing an armed rebellion against any act of tyranny that the US government has committed. The Second Amendment has utterly failed in its purpose, and should be repealed before more lives are pointlessly lost to gun violence.

*John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes, George W. Bush (first term), and Donald Trump.

Guns make people safer in the long run, and if you bemoan state tyranny, it would be curious to make it easier for the government to oppress you.

[Torrocca]

More rebellions have been lost then won. It’s not that it sometimes doesn’t work, it’s that it mostly doesn’t work.

Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees.

So when, exactly, do you intend to fight against the increasing tyranny of the US government? Certainly, if you truly believe this sentiment, you'll've already begun to fight against it, just like 69-year-old Will Van Spronson did recently to try and liberate children from the concentration camps on the border.