This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Ok so... i'm often seriously confused about what safety people actually care about.
I understand fear of handguns a handgun is an easy to procure object in a hurry that allows someone to commit a crime suddenly and violently.
But it seems any type of premediatated or planned operation is just super legal and easy to get? (except of course using it to commit a crime is obviously very illegal)
Nitromethane is freely available for purchase, which can be easily made into very dangerous chemicals using stuff you can buy in the hardware store. From there we have other things, while you have to either break the law or DIY it for a lot of parts you can make your own drone (or just use a kids RC helicopter toy, seriously it may not work for heavy payloads but you'd be shocked at how far you can go with mediocre toys these days.) and drop an explosive on anyone. You can also make actual war crimes in your basement by mixing iron powder, and sulfur then heating it, sealing it in a glass bottle with water as it builds up H2S. Alternatively if you want to make cyanide gas, buying sodium cyanide (i'd be willing to post links but I don't want this forum to actually get in trouble with the FBI, I already got searched once) and mixing it with sulfiric acid is doable (and ok like hyper dangerous beyond belief and you would have to basically get rid of it the moment you make it but....)
Again the delivery mechanisms for this stuff isn't complicated and the main limiting factor of these does not appear to be that obtaining the means of violence is hard it's that anyone smart enough to do this is also smart enough to realize that violence is a bad idea.
It's less about the people who are plotting to do evil, and know they are in the wrong (terrorist, school shooter, pre-meditated murderer). It's more about the people who think they are in the right ("I feared for my life!"), maybe even are technically within their rights, but morally should not kill a person in the situation. It's more about the people having a bad day, pushed past their limits (fired, cheating spouse), etc, and might do something they can't take back.
A gun being in play (in the glovebox, open or concealed carry) adds an option to the dialogue tree. "so anyway, I start blasting"
plus, the second-order effects of this. If you think someone else might start blasting, how are you going to prepare?
The gun being in the dialogue tree means the whole escalation path of society is way messier and more violent
Proponents will say that's good. It acts as a deterrent. Personally, I don't want the gun in the dialogue tree because I don't trust the average person to be in control of themselves at all times. Gun proponents will answer back that's exactly why they want the gun, and round we go.
But either way, it's a totally different thing than dangerous chemicals. No one is going to accidentally fly into a rage and manufacture explosives - at least not quickly
Exactly. To me the negatives of other people having guns far outweigh the positive of being personally armed
More options
Context Copy link
It's more of an acknowledgement of the reality in the US. You can't remove guns from the dialogue tree of those most likely to be a problem - criminals who ignore gun laws. Making it legally harder to carry only impacts the law-abiding segment of the population, who very rarely instigate incidents.
Yes you can. It would likely trample on civil rights at least a little bit- and I'm very skeptical that you can have effective gun control without at least a continental-European level of laxity in civil rights regimes- but randomly searching ne'erdowells and charging them with a serious crime if they have a weapon works at controlling armed crime. But stop and frisk isn't allowed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link