/baw/ General Discussion Archived Board plus4chan home [baw] [co/cog/jam/mtv] [coc/draw/diy] [pco/coq/cod] [a/mspa/op/pkmn] [Burichan/Futaba/Greygren]
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 374509)
Message
File
Password  (for post and file deletion)

Currently 0 unique user posts.

News
  • 08/21/12 - Poll ended; /cod/ split off as a new board from /pco/.

File 136013255786.jpg - (52.75KB , 341x450 , army.jpg )
374509 No. 374509
Last thread: >>372500
355 posts omitted. Last 50 shown. Expand all images
>> No. 377294
>>377292
We don't need civil disobedience, we just need to egg on the Religious Right and the Tea Party to split from the Republicans the way they've been claiming they were going to. Once they're out, the Republicans will actually be able to take part in sane politics again, and those democrats who are only in the party because they're only moderate conservatives and feel like they would get eaten alive in Republican Primaries while the insane wing of the party holds sway, will be able to go across the aisle. The parties will actually be able to both have real, live platforms again.
>> No. 377297
>>377292
>The military is on the side of the state.
That really depends how high you go in ranks. A lot of lower ranked soldiers are more loyal to their families or even gangs and would desert to protect and teach their own.
>> No. 377304
>What we need is massive civil disobedience. Just like the civil disobedience shown in the rise of the women's movement, the civil rights movement, and LGBT movement, we the people need a movement against the corporate state.

Am I supposed not to burst into laugher at this sort of argument? Your examples are like saying 2 kids kicking a garbage can is a revolution.
>> No. 377307
>>377294
>we just need to egg on the Religious Right and the Tea Party to split from the Republicans the way they've been claiming they were going to. Once they're out, the Republicans will actually be able to take part in sane politics again, and those democrats who are only in the party because they're only moderate conservatives and feel like they would get eaten alive in Republican Primaries while the insane wing of the party holds sway, will be able to go across the aisle. The parties will actually be able to both have real, live platforms again.

Expect you aren't taking into account the corporate control over both political parties.

>>377304
MLK Jr. was the most powerful US president this country ever had. When he said he would go somewhere thousands of people followed. LBJ was scared the shit out of him.

We need our own MLK Jr. to lead our revolution against greed, against corporations.
>> No. 377309
>>377307
I nominate George Takei.

In fact, let's just abolish the whole thing and rebuild under the glorious reign of Emperor Takei I.
>> No. 377312
>>377307
The enthusiasm is right on, but might I say that outright revolution will only lead to schism, not true understanding?

The issue of the Tea Party and of Fox News is of limited media exposure. People buy the hype because the hype is all they know they can buy. Being exposed to different media and different ideas is difficult for people because it changes their worldview, changes their knowledge base. Since the Internet has existed, since it has surpassed the whole of human written knowledge up to the point of its' creation, I would say in every interaction, when you try to force your point upon someone, they are likely not to accept it.

Revolution in the streets is not what is needed anymore. It only annoys the neighbors. What really changes hearts and minds is spreading ideas that question pre-seated notions. We can't really muster in the streets anymore; everyone has a day job. But we can engage in very public dialogues about what it means to be human and actually try to reach a better understanding between everyone.
>> No. 377313
>>377312
Information is all well and good, and in the internet age we have access to unlimited volumes of it. But when you get a person that is ignorant but wants to know the truth, but does not know how to tell truth from falsehood, and you have one nutritionist/scientist/actual chef in a room full of catty, henpecking old women with SOME experience cooking and a LOT of old wives tales about how the world actually works, you get a lot of infighting about what the truth actually is. It leaves the ignorant person not knowing which source is credible and with more volumes of opinion than the VA has backlogged benefits claims.

And to make matters worse, people like the Kochs and very fundamentalist sorts trying to undermine public schools for being too "left wing biased" try to replace the curriculum entirely with their own biased, worldview approved textbooks. Replacing such things as the civil war with "the war of northern aggression," overturning secular separation of church and state and enabling the teaching of creationism in the classroom, and using the public space to spread misinformation. We don't even have a legitimately infallible system of factchecking and science anymore. Private schools that are just there to give legitimacy to corporate and regional culture interests.

Our newspapers are being bought up by the Kochs. This isn't hyperbole, they are actually trying to buy six of the largest publications in the states and run them the way Rupert Murdoch ran Fox and more. They're trying to buy and steer the science, now. We need a reputable, impartial, science based throne from which we can get reviewed, assessed and widely accessible source for uncompromised fact. We need something that no matter how much money or misinformation the wrong people with the right amount of money have, so long as the public knows they're telling lies, they'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people speaking the truth are speaking truth.

But there's a disconnect between the public and where to FIND these uncompromising, uncorrupted sources of impartial, secular facts. College? College used to be where the people-power went. Then college tuition started skyrocketing up to where the layman couldn't afford to not be ignorant and access to the college culture started drying up. We need people who know better and can explain why something isn't the way ignorant people believe it is, and we need people who can explain why things are the way the ignorant people think it isn't. And at the same time, these people who believe something because it fits their worldview are being conditioned by the other side to believe nonsense, and that doing so is perfectly fine. The absolute worst thing that can happen is the layman is left not knowing who to trust, because so long as the wrong people can claim they're just as valid an opinion as the truth, and spreads the opinion that neither side are anything but ideologues, the public will be both too stressed and too frustrated to engage.

I have no idea how this can be fixed.
>> No. 377318
>>377309
imokwiththis.gif
>> No. 377355
==Rep. Steve Palazzo Claims Boy Scouts are 'Bullied, Extorted' for Banning Gays (Video)==

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/rep-steve-palazzo-claims-boy-scouts-are-bullied-extorted-banning-gays-video

>mfw when homophobes are now claiming to be a persecuted minority

Oh that's rich.

Ok so Mr. Jackass...-errr I mean congressman Steve Palazzo from Mississippi claims the Boy Scouts are being "bullied" for their bigoted hatefilled views towards gays. I guess you could also say that Nazis and the Klu Klux Klan are being "builled" as well for their racist, sexist, and homophobic views. Oh wait he's a white guy from Mississippi, so he's probably a card carrying member of the KKK.
>> No. 377356
>>377355
>Oh wait he's a white guy from Mississippi, so he's probably a card carrying member of the KKK.
:(
>> No. 377371
>>377313
Do you know what I think is actually the best fix? Social Media and scientific progress.

One of the biggest issues of the party right now is that their media sources are horribly restricted. This is probably what will ultimately hurt the party the most; religion exists regardless of politics, but technological and scientific advancement are the tools by which the U.S. is employed right now. And that will be the killer thing; their kids can't get jobs because the jobs increasingly require you to be smarter and smarter.

Assailing people with ideas telling them "YOU R BAD" never actually works in changing hearts and minds. But one of the things about scientific progress is, now, we have this network of stuff, and we post articles about cutting edge technologies, and new ideas concerning health, medicine, and so on. And if you put this in your newsfeed on Facebook, say, you're not directly attacking anyone's point of view, and people may not really read the articles, but they still skim the headlines. And that's what's damaging to a narrow world view; being exposed to ideas that ever so subtly not the party line, but still something that happens. And now that we have everyone getting online, more or less, we have these outrageous communication networks where it's almost impossible to keep a narrow worldview together.

It's a bit idealistic, I admit.
>> No. 377372
>>377355
>Boy Scouts
>bigoted hatefilled views towards gays.
Exclusion is not inherently hate fueled.
The boy scouts are a private club. They can let whomever they want in, that's their prerogative. Unless they start actively campaigning against my existence, I don't have an issue with them.
>Oh wait he's a white guy from Mississippi, so he's probably a card carrying member of the KKK.
Fuck you, hypocrite.
>> No. 377373
>>377372
>Exclusion is not inherently hate fueled.

So what if the Boy Scouts replaced excluding gays, with excluding blacks. You being a gay guy doesn't mean shit to mean because I'm bi myself.

>The boy scouts are a private club.

So what? The KKK is a private club too. Does that make them right?

>They can let whomever they want in,

Sure they can do that, but at the same time they have excluded from being allowed on government grounds for their exclusionary policy. Just because you can let in whoever you want, don't expect people not to say anything or call you a bigot for it.

>Unless they start actively campaigning against my existence,

Gay boy scouts and scout leaders can't come out of the closet. Do you understand how evil that is? Why shouldn't we be allowed in the boyscouts?

>Fuck you, hypocrite.

So much butthurt. I take it you are a Southerner?
>> No. 377374
>>377372
hate gets thrown around a lot. so does phobia.

forget those words.

the problem isn't if someone is feeling angry or fearful.

the problem is the judgment that someone isn't good enough because of something that has nothing to do with the group they want to be involved with. that someone isn't considered a full person in someone else's eyes.
>> No. 377379
>>377355
>Claims Boy Scouts are 'Bullied, Extorted' for Banning Gays

Hehe, this reminds me of before the civil war when slave-owners were complaining about the govt. trying to take away their "right" to own slaves. The logic behind the hypocrisy is just similar, I guess.

>>377313
Yeah, the thing about the internet is that while it's easier than ever to distribute information, it's also easier than ever to make and distribute propaganda. Used to be propaganda worked because there were no other available streams of information. Nowadays we're drowning in the stuff, and following the often gigantic trail of citations from every argument to their original source takes an exhausting amount of time. Plus, like you said, not every authority can be trusted, and the ones that can are usually corrupt after a while.

I believe we're heading into an Oversaturation Age. Opposite a Dark Age where there is a lack of information, in the Oversaturation Age there will be so much data out there that fact and fiction, outside of personal experience and technical knowledge, will be completely indistinguishable. We're kind of in it already, I just think it will become magnified to a much greater extent. The result will be something kind of like the Ministry of Truth in 1984, only nowhere near as organized, one-sided or intentional; not the result of some grand scheme but of many accumulated individual instances where someone benefits from misinforming people, or just makes shit up so their side is "right", all being spread over the same system.

Making up a term like "Oversaturation Age" makes me feel kind of pompous.
>> No. 377380
>>377372
>The boy scouts are a private club. They can let whomever they want in, that's their prerogative.
Agreed, which is why I would never support efforts by the government to make them change. But if public opinion turns against them for their decision, or if their decisions to change make them no longer eligible for government benefits because the violate federal anti-discrimination laws, that's a different story. The fact that it's a private club doesn't mean that they get a free pass from being judged harshly or that they get to ignore the law.

It's just like the whole Rush Limbaugh thing: yes, he has the right to say what he wants. But he does not have the right to be listened to, nor does he have the right to escape judgement when the things he says makes people pissed off enough to not want to support him anymore. That's not censorship. It's simply being expected to face the consequences of your actions.
>> No. 377382
I'm kind of surprised that nobody has tried to start some sort of organization that usurps the role of the Boy Scouts, minus the Christian agenda.
>> No. 377384
>>377382
>I'm kind of surprised that nobody has tried to start some sort of organization that usurps the role of the Boy Scouts,

But there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigators_USA

>Gay-Friendly Alternative to Boy Scouts Doubles in Size in a Year

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=143609
>> No. 377388
>>377379
I think you're ignoring a couple of things in your assessment. We may live in an over-saturation of information but this actually has 2 benefits.

1. While there's more crap coming out than ever, there's more "good stuff" coming out than ever. The saturation of information means that we are experiencing a renaissance of knowledge. Even pointless knowledge, we're learning more about dumb shit now than we ever have in human history. And the deceptive thing is, that dumb shit is often where the most profound discoveries come from.

2. There's more people connected than ever, who have a voice, who have a knowledge-base, and who can throw their expertise in at the drop of a hat than ever before. And, you'd think that everybody sounding off would be a bad thing, but actually, it produces trends amongst the people claiming to be knowledgeable.

The effect is, instead of a single source of knowledge only vetted by one organization, like a Book, you have multiple anecdotal accounts verifying a kind of bottom line, which can then be backed up by more information from researching or passing it to a Knowledge-Source you trust, who can at least tell you whether it looks genuine or not.

In a way, the hope is that, because many of our jobs here in America focus more and more on specialized positions requiring high levels of knowledge, eventually people won't really be able to ignore scientific advancement, and hopefully rely less on their traditional, narrow minded media. Which has come to dominate everything television and radio, desperately grasping at the only people left who get their information through those means alone. And that can't survive on its' own, as ubiquitous as being connected is becoming.

Tbf this won't completely revolutionize things. But then, we're not after a complete revolution. Well, maybe a bit of an educational Revolution. The thing is, in order to have a better functioning Democratic Republic, we need a baseline level of informed that people should be. Not necessarily useless tidbits, but how to think critically, and how to really question their own notions. The thing is, without the internet, it's entirely possible that the U.S. would be entirely a fascist state with absolutely no avenue for public outcry. As it stands, this is probably the most free anyone has been to voice their dissent in human history, up to and including people spouting opinions based on nothing more than pure hatred.
>> No. 377389
>>377388
>The effect is, instead of a single source of knowledge only vetted by one organization, like a Book, you have multiple anecdotal accounts verifying a kind of bottom line, which can then be backed up by more information from researching or passing it to a Knowledge-Source you trust, who can at least tell you whether it looks genuine or not.

It's sort of always been that way though. Back then you could have multiple papers or books saying different things, and you'd have to do some research to see which one was accurate. I recognize that this makes what I was saying moot. The internet just speeds up a process that's been around since data could be stored, I guess. Definitely a good thing.

>As it stands, this is probably the most free anyone has been to voice their dissent in human history, up to and including people spouting opinions based on nothing more than pure hatred.

A very good point.
>> No. 377391
>>377389
This is all change on a continuum, yes. As with 100 years ago, we are always slowly trying to build a better way of living with everyone. The difference between then and now is that sources of information like books really weren't questioned. You read a book, yeah, but very rarely was that book actually well vetted, and if the information changed in your lifetime, you might not care or even have heard of the follow up book.

Now, we get everything in little bits of info, boiled down chunks and facts. The downside of this is that we don't have the most complete understanding like we might have from a book, but the upside is that we can pass these around and ruminate on them more easily, and we can get corrections to this stuff more easily. Twitter worries news organizations not because it dispels news faster; it dispels news and corrections to erroneous news faster and with something like an 80% saturation rate for the followup info.This means that if you saw the original news bite, there is a better than halfway chance that you will see the follow up, corrected info.

But even beyond that, the simple fact is that when I have a problem, instead of consulting 1 book, and only ever 1 book, I can look online and get 10 proclaimed experts telling me about my problem or parts of my problem. And the usefulness is actually in that diversity; true, I now have 10 viewpoints to consider, but skimming around half of these viewpoints should give me enough passing understanding to have an idea when one source or another is full of shit. And if I find a nugget of wisdom that I can't tell it's full of shit, I just refractor my search.

None of this will ever achieve anything like a "perfect" result. This is a complex world, and even if we could lead every horse to water, we can't make them all drink. But peer pressure is a powerful thing; we don't have to get everybody thinking but if we can get enough people thinking then we might actually be able to stand up to the challenges we face as a nation. And that would be incredible, because the tone of America sets a very deep-seated example for the rest of the world.

We're the Experimental State. Our whole thing (supposedly) is "you can come here, you can live here, you can practice any religion you want, do anything you want (within reason), and hey, you can even have a say in our government, no matter who you are!"

At least, that's the dream. Obviously we've gone sideways a lot on the vast majority of things. But the overwhelming hope is that this is a workable system; this is so close to a system we can make work for almost everybody, so close to actually being something like that possible American Dream. And one of the biggest things holding us back are the people who will not give up on this static fantasy of America. But they're going to have to, otherwise we become the new North Korea.
>> No. 377392
Remember when Republican had their "autopsy" and it said they need to stop alienate women, minorities, gays, etc. Well they didn't read it.

Rick Perry is almost as bad of a governor as Tom Corbett. Well almost as bad.

>Rick Perry compares rejecting LGBT people to fighting slavery

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/06/rick-perry-compares-rejecting-lgbt-people-to-fighting-slavery/

>Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) said Sunday that he believes rejecting LGBT people is similar to fighting slavery during the pre-Civil War era.
>> No. 377426
>>377373
>So what if the Boy Scouts replaced excluding gays, with excluding blacks. You being a gay guy doesn't mean shit to mean because I'm bi myself.
They exclude women. You know what they did? Made their own club.

As for pointing out I'm gay. It puts us on more or less equal ground. Neither of us can use it as an excuse. We can't say. "Oh you don't know. You're not X like me. You don't know the bluh, the bluh bluh, and bluh we have to bluh thruh"

>So what? The KKK is a private club too. Does that make them right?

1. The KKK is actively trying to harm gays, the Scouts are just exclusionary. You may as well complain that they exclude girls.
2. The KKK are protected by freedom of speech just as well as any other group. Just not when they're actively threatening someones well being.
You have to take the good with the bad.
>Sure they can do that, but at the same time they have excluded from being allowed on government grounds for their exclusionary policy. Just because you can let in whoever you want, don't expect people not to say anything or call you a bigot for it.

You can call them whatever you like, but you can't demand they change. That's totally up for them to decide.

>Gay boy scouts and scout leaders can't come out of the closet. Do you understand how evil that is? Why shouldn't we be allowed in the boyscouts?

I was in the Boy scouts as a child. Before I knew I was gay. Honestly, you're not missing out on much. It's already super religious as it is so you probably don't want that anyway (I could be wrong, gay Christians are not an impossibility.) And most of what's done could just be done with friends.
You want reform? You make your own all inclusive club like the Navigators. Don't belittle a group for children and young teens just because they go out of their way to remove sexual tension as best they can (yes to the point of paranoia and the adults really should get background checks but that's another issue.) Get some perspective on this. What do homo/bisexuals like us lose from not being in the boyscouts that we can't get from an alternative group?

>So much butthurt. I take it you are a Southerner?

And if I am? That doesn't change your bigoted regionist stance.
>> No. 377431
>>377426
>1. The KKK is actively trying to harm gays, the Scouts are just exclusionary.

How are scouts not harming gays by banning them? The same thing with the Republican party, expect Republicans to to pretend they aren't anti-gay, where as the Boy Scouts are openly anti-gay.

>You can call them whatever you like, but you can't demand they change. That's totally up for them to decide.

I can demand change, and if they don't I can take my business somewhere else.

>You want reform?

I want bans on gay boy scouts and scout leaders to end. Until than I will not have anything to do with boy-scouts. That's why if they better remove the bans on gay scouting on May 23.

> It's already super religious as it is so you probably don't want that anyway

So wait I can't stereotype stupid Southerners but for religious people you can stereotype them all you want? My parents are Christians and very gay friendly.

>I was in the Boy scouts as a child.

So was I buddy. Welcome to the club.

>What do homo/bisexuals like us lose from not being in the boyscouts that we can't get from an alternative group?

What did Don't ask don't tell lose from not being allowed to openly serve in the military? Any kind of anti-gay stigma in society needs to be crushed.

>And if I am?

Are you?
>> No. 377436
>>377426
>The KKK are protected by freedom of speech just as well as any other group. Just not when they're actively threatening someones well being.

It is really gross that you let hate speech go under the pretense that it is protected by freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has limits, and overtly poisonous ideas like the KKK and Westboro should not be tolerated by the law or by anyone. "It isn't bad enough to punish unless they are physically attacking people" is horseshit.
>> No. 377437
>>377436
I'm afraid I can't agree with stifling any opinion that, by itself, would need to go underground if it couldn't get a legitimate expression. I don't agree with their perspective, but it's not illegal just because you don't like it.
I also abhor obscenity laws and designating little pig pens for free speech.
>> No. 377442
>>377437
You think protesting funerals and telling the grieving family and friends that God wanted this person to die because they were gay is just something I "don't like" and should be allowed to happen? That perpetuating the idea that black people are subhuman scum who deserve no rights at all is okay, because as long as they are just saying things it's okay to do because it's their right to harass people? Because harassing people is protected by the law if it's only verbal?

There is a difference between contrary opinions and toxic ones that hurt people and damage communities. The fact that the KKK is still allowed to continue practicing in broad daylight and spreading their filth in America and are PROTECTED by claiming that hate speech is free speech is pig disgusting.

Canada has banned Westboro members from even coming into the country and yet the vast majority of Canadians--ones that aren't part of organised hate groups--still enjoy free speech to the same degree as Americans. It is not a slippery slope. To criminalize preaching overtly hateful discrimination and forming hate groups based around it isn't the same thing as criminalising any contrary or ignorant opinions.
>> No. 377445
>>377431
>>377436
Again, being non inclusive isn't being against it. It's being dismissive.
I already said that gay Christians are entirely possible so I'm not sure what you mean by stereotyping. Nor do I understand your vendetta against an entire people based on something mostly out of their control. You're bisexual, you should understand that blind hate like that does nothing good for anyone.

As for the military, it is a government institution. The scouts are a private club mostly governed by the World Organization of the Scout Movement. If the straight people want to have their club, let them, they're totally allowed to have it. If people don't want it, they won't take part in it. Democracy.

>>377436
I'm sorry that the First amendment is sometimes unsavory, allowing some toxic concepts to thrive (KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, Escaping Islam, New Black Panther Party, and even crappy annoyances like TMZ, FOX, and NBC), but with freedom you need to take the good with the bad. Freedom of knowledge and the ability to share it is one of the most valuable assets we have. Instead of demanding one mouth close, open another.
>> No. 377450
>>377442
We have laws against defamatory speech, and we have laws against verbal assault, and we have laws against harassment. Are the westboro baptists disgusting? Yes. Are the KKK disgusting? Yes. Do you think those rallies attract sympathizers and disseminate their opinions so much as just highlight that those opinions exist? They don't. They're expression.
But guess what? Somewhere, somebody finds what you say disgusting and wants you to stop saying it. It doesn't matter what you're saying, it matters what you do about it. And if you penalize somebody for saying things you don't like, whatever it is, you get oppression for speech. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not. If we set precedent that you can be silenced and imprisoned for the things you say, there is very little stopping the community for twisting it around to apply it to anybody saying things that a large group of people with representation wants you to stop saying.

It's convenient in this era to say, "Well that couldn't happen to homosexual rights advocates. Civil rights aren't against the law." Except it can. It all depends on who is adjudicating and interpreting what constitutes unacceptable speech, and if they like what you have to say. And it is cultural, just as much as it's law.
>> No. 377451
>>377445
I like you, gay guy.
I don't believe in institutionalizing discrimination in a public sphere, be it a state or federal organization, but I find it a massive overreach if somebody wants to walk into a private organization and say, "You need to accept and believe a certain thing, or you will be jailed, fined or restrictions will be placed on your rights."
If it receives public funds, by all means, legislate away. If it's a business, legislate away. If it's a private club of consenting private individuals doing their own thing, let them be private. There's absolutely nothing stopping people from forming competing brands but society, and if it's not what society wants, that's too bad. Something like a new, improved, more relevant version of the Scouts that focuses more on the education, discipline and self-improvement aspects of Scoutdom and either puts no emphasis on the spirituality or religion, or at least the prejudice interpretation of that religion, should be perfectly legal, perfectly viable and perfectly acceptable.

And the people turned off by the exclusion whom suddenly have a nice alternative can take their little grubs and attend something much better and wholesome for them. And the people who believe such insularity is proper can certainly believe so, in their own little corners. As is their freedom. Isolating yourself from society is seldom good for your social life, your financial life or your success.
>> No. 377453
>>377445
>Again, being non inclusive isn't being against it.

So you are saying the Boy Scouts aren't anti-gay? WTF? They ban atheists as well. Does that make them friendly towards atheists?

>Nor do I understand your vendetta against an entire people based on something mostly out of their control.

Tell me if a joined a group that said black people where subhuman do you think that should be called our for my racist bigotry? Oh course. So why do the Boy Scouts get special privilege?

>If the straight people want to have their club, let them, they're totally allowed to have it. If people don't want it, they won't take part in it. Democracy.

Doesn't mean it isn't bigoted or wrong. Doesn't mean I can't protest and boycott the organization. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be pressured by society to change their position.

If this is a democracy than what about the majority that oppose Boy scouts discriminatory policy?

>Elon Poll: North Carolina Citizens Oppose Several State Legislative Proposals, View Results Spanning Various Issues

http://www.hcpress.com/news/elon-poll-nc-citizens-oppose-several-state-legislative-proposals-view-results-spanning-various-issues.html

>North Carolina respondents were also asked about whether the Boy Scouts of America should continue its ban on openly gay members or end its ban. Although a plurality of those surveyed opposed gay marriage, most respondents felt the Boy Scouts of America should end it ban on gay members (49 percent). Forty percent thought the ban should continue and 11 percent indicated the “didn’t know” how they felt on it.

>>377445
>but with freedom you need to take the good with the bad.
I never said I didn't support their freedom to be bigoted assholes. Doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean I can't call the Boy Scouts the Hitler Youth. Doesn't mean they shouldn't change their policy.

Even the Mormon church says it support open gay Boy Scouts.
>> No. 377458
I don't think the boy scouts should have to open their doors if the leadership doesn't want to. I think it'd be the right thing to DO but I don't think they should have to.

I DO think they should get their government funding cut if they don't drop the bible stuff though since it violates separation of church and state.

And no you can't ban the KKK or any of that. And if you won't listen to me or Rame explaining why, maybe you'll listen to Neil Gaiman.
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html
>> No. 377461
>>377451

It's not all that often (but not as rare as you'd think), but I agree with everything you said there Ram.
>> No. 377473
Lately I've been searching for the actual laws regarding firearms and firearm ownership in the United States and trying to get to the bottom of what legally can be done and what legally can't, actually understand and comprehend how the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms works and locate the primary strongholds and variations on the perspective of gun control- from the "ban all guns and repeal the second amendment" individuals, to the ones that would prefer a more visible and accessible gun registry. What I'm discovering is this topic is like trying to walk into the cast of Jersey Shore and get a straight answer after an obvious fight. Seldom in my life have I tried to get a straight answer out of people so steeped on using dirty disgusting tricks, double talk and indirect cultural warfare to get what they want, assert their will over other people and feel a smug sense of superiority and victory over who they disagree with. We have the people that would just as soon challenge the right of the second amendment to exist at all and put proponents in a position where they need to justify guns not being illegal or accessible only to law enforcement and active duty military personnel, if anybody at all.

I got a very rude wake up call when I tried to have a cordial conversation with somebody in the opposition to civilian owned and operated firearms. I was in favor of perhaps modifying background checks and re-evaluating the ways in which a person might legally obtain a gun, and seeing what could be done to curb illegal sales. The other person confessed to believing ultimately that nobody needed or should have guns, and in their opinion, constricting who could access them, how much they could cost, how much they could justify having in a magazine or clip or drum, what caliber they could justify possessing, was just a way to incrementally eliminate the public's access to them. They weren't just happy to impose more stringent controls and some slightly more comprehensive background checks, they wanted to remove legal civilian access to them whatsoever.

That filled me with rage. Aren't these dinosaurs dead yet? Or supposed to be the ignorant knowlier-than-thou lib-rals you only hear about in the diseased ramblings of Nugenteers? The same kind of rage that bubbles up whenever I see "Pro-Life"rs find some backdoor and convoluted technical way to make accessing a legal abortion less and less possible, depending on the region in which they can get away with their shit. It's no wonder pro-gun people are so hesitant to even explain the difference between a military sniper and a civilian isn't the caliber of bullet or the barrel of the gun, it's the capacity to put the bullet where they want it to go. There are already very stringent laws on the books on having or possessing guns to go full or semi auto. If these assholes knew the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle is who's aiming it, what caliber they're using and what they're shooting at, it'd be a push to ban everything but spud guns.

I've been told that in order to acquire guns legally over the internet, in the states, your order goes to a local gun dealer. You have to show up, go through the rigamaroll of a background check, and you have to legally check out. In the case of the theater shooter, it was a case of his college neglecting (not just failing) to report his compromised mental state to his background. If his background were properly updated, as it should have been, he would not have been able to check out. That's not a failure of the second amendment, that's a failure of somebody acquiring things illegally for malevolent purposes. In theory this makes his school and his psych entirely accountable for the failure to communicate.

Currently I'm communicating with a person representing a licensed gun dealership. I've heard some things that, if true, would make me distrust the BATFE as an agency myself. Things that I haven't yet been able to substantiate or confirm to be false, or propaganda, but I have reason to trust the source. And they kind of corroborate what I've heard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives#History_of_controversy

The problem is that if these things said about the BATF are true, and it's starting to look as if they may be (until I find contradicting anecdote and fact to argue) it's only a happy coincidence the very same people that are supposed to be advocating for the legitimate, responsible possession of guns and their legitimacy in North American life, are the exact same sort of idiots that think they're above having to explain themselves and choose instead to flex a bicep and go "HURRR. LIBRAL" at dissent. It's this exact attitude that makes it difficult for people with no strong disposition for or against the competing schools of thought regarding guns, and gives them every reason to believe maybe the people that want us to be more like Australia, the UK and Japan are on to something. The same way the war on drugs and prohibition were on to something.
>> No. 377474
>Exclusive interview with Noam Chomsky on Pakistan elections

http://dawn.com/2013/05/07/exclusive-interview-with-noam-chomsky/
>> No. 377489
>>377473

That's actually pretty much it, Ram. Hardcore "pro-lifers" want abortion banned in all cases because in their minds, terminating a pregnancy is morally indistinguishable from premeditated murder, so in their minds they're obligated to get it completely outlawed. Until then, they restrict access However they can: waiting periods, spousal vetoes, parental notification, requiring clinic hallways be x feet wide, mandatory trasnvaginal ultrasounds, etc. if you're convinced you may be saving a life, you can justify it, regardless of the invasions of privacy and suffering you create.

Likewise, if you accept it as axiomatic that civilians don't have the right or need for guns, and that their ownership of guns inevitably leads to deaths, you can justify any end-run around the 2nd Amendment/district of Columbia v. Heller/McDonald v Chicago, regardless of the burden it imposes on law abiding gun owners, its broader civil rights implications, or its actual effect on violent crime.

We need gun regulation, we do. theyre dangerous tools, and we need to hold owners responsilbe for their negligent use and storage and prevent those likely to use them negligently or intentionally to harm others (children, the mentally ill, convicted felons) from owning them. but our regulations need to make sense. Does a pistol grip make a rifle more accurate, or the bullet it fires more damaging? Of course not, but combine removable magazine with pistol grip and woops! Now that hunting rifle is an evil assault rifle. Does a gun become more likely to be used in a crime if it holds 11 rounds rather than 10 or seven? Of course not, but arbitrary magazine limits abound. Why are post-86 automatic weapons banned for civilians but not pre-86 ones? No reason! Its not that we've decided that full-auto is too dangerous for civilians, its just that congressman hughes tacked it on to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and we've been stuck with a dwindling, aging, and increasingly stock of civilian automatics ever since. are open bolt semi-autos fully autpmatic? of course not, they fire one bullet per trigger pull, but the ATF has decided that open-bolt = full auto, so they are, legally! Why are short-barreled rifles NFA items even though pistols, which are smaller, easier to conceal, and can come in rifle calibers, and regular length rifles, which are more powerful and accurate, are not? Because a bunch of idiots back in the prohibition era thought they were gangster weapons! Likewise, silencers are non-transferrae (or repairable!) NFA items and are banned in many states, whip in Europe they practically force you to buy a suppressor for your gun (because hearing protection, noise pollution laws, mostly indoor ranges, and dense population). And why are drivers licenses, marriages (minus gay ones), and all contracts and debts binding across state lines, but ccw permits may or may not be honored? No good reason.

In any state in the union, you can safely assume full freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and travel. but state by state, and even county by county, your right to keep and bear arms varies wildly; in CA, there are counties where anyone can get a ccw, and some where theyre completely unaivalable, and its all at the unreviewed discretion of the sheriff. We need laws on guns, but they need to make sense, have uniformity, and should be able to stand up to strict scrutiny, like other restrictions imposed on the rights in the bill of rights. But, like most political issues in the country, discussion is impossible, facts are irrelevant.
>> No. 377512
>>377489
Allegedly, some of the first gun control measures were steeped in racism. Similar to the way drug laws were. I haven't researched this, and I dread having to sift and filter through the propaganda (because this sounds like a ridiculous fabricated talking point), but according to my contact, the ACLU and original Black Panthers will corroborate that the laws were designed to make a person applying for gun registry had to come down to the guy that verified you, and, not unlike states or regions where the voting registration filtered you by race, would check to see if you were black or not. And this sort of makes sense.
Now one could say the Obscenity Test is regionally contextually specific, but that doesn't make it any better.

Also, I can't read the legalese, and I don't have the conspiracy theorist "it's proof them li-bur-alls is after our guns!" engine to default to the right-side of the debate. But, allegedly the well meaning background check bill and legislation attempted to be passed recently would've introduced complication to inheritance of a person's guns. Since you'd need them registered in your name, or whatever, even being married to a person wouldn't guarantee them to be considered legal objects in the event the owner died. I don't know if whether that possession would be considered a felony by the ATF's definition, or if the judge or whoever would dictate the legal ownership falls to whomever inherited them, or what. I don't know. It's just as possible that it's true as it is false and a product of redneck hysteria.
That's what I hate the most about this issue, but I don't think it can stay up to either side anymore.
>> No. 377531
>>377512

Don'tet the stupidity on both sides lead to apathy. That's the worst thing. If you'd honestly don't know where you stand, then seek the truth passionately. If you know where you stand, keep searching.

Yes, gun control has racist elements to it. The (loaded) open carry ban in California was Ronnie Reagan's fault; he did it because white folks were freaked out by the Black Panthers demonstrating on the state Capitol while carrying loaded rifles. Earlier than that, the Southern states' "Black Codes" banned blacks from owning guns (and assembling after dark, etc); those were repealed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment, so the South was forced to use facially neutral, but discriminatory in intent and application, statutes and regulations to deny blacks gun ownership. Prior to the Civil War, in the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney listed the possibility of armed blacks as one of the reasons the court was determining that men of Scott's race could not be citizens: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union ... the full liberty ... to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Historically, it must be seen in the context of the two revolutions: the American one, and the Haitian one. The Haitian revolution and subsequent race war scandalized the slave-owning south. They knew that it was entirely a possibility in the US, as abortive attempts like Turner's rebellion demonstrated. This page has a good article, with citations.

In the end, the racial angle of gun control, like the class angle (got 15,000 bucks plus 200 for the tax stamp? Congrats, you can own a full-auto! Don't got that much scratch? Tough shit) is just part of the overarching theme of arms, and information, control: those with power want to maintain, solidify, and expand upon it. If you're the white majority and you see blacks taking up arms, you want to nip that in the bud; if you're the bourgeoisie and you see the workers start buying guns and organizing, you want to cut that shit out; ditto if you're part of the modern bureaucratic-corporate oligarchy.


http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html

“A man’s rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.”-- Frederick Douglas
>> No. 377547
>>377531
>If you're the white majority and you see blacks taking up arms, you want to nip that in the bud; if you're the bourgeoisie and you see the workers start buying guns and organizing, you want to cut that shit out; ditto if you're part of the modern bureaucratic-corporate oligarchy.
Also, if you're sane and see crazy people taking up arms, you want to nip that in the bud, too. It's such a travesty the way people try to step on psychopath's right to carry tools that make their killing quicker and harder to trace. What's the second amendment for if not to make sure those who commit gun crimes or who are just irresponsible with their deadly weapons can't be caught?
>> No. 377567
>>377547
The second amendment allows you to legally and privately own (not lease) firearms. We have laws that mitigate and stipulate just what counts as a firearm, where you can legally acquire one, etc.
The second amendment does not give you a license to kill, or to inflict crime on people. It does not decriminalize criminal actions, it permits you to have an object which could, if misused, be used for a crime. Crime is still crime, whether it's committed by a hit and run or a gun.

What you're afraid of is gun culture. You aren't unjustified in your fear, but there's a difference between being afraid of something and passing legislation and social policy to get rid of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
^ Shit like this is not helping.

>>377531
I'm not giving up. But I spend more time trying to scrutinize which side is trying to blow smoke up my ass than making any progress.
>> No. 377570
>>377567
>The second amendment allows you to legally and privately own (not lease) firearms. We have laws that mitigate and stipulate just what counts as a firearm, where you can legally acquire one, etc.
The second amendment does not give you a license to kill, or to inflict crime on people. It does not decriminalize criminal actions, it permits you to have an object which could, if misused, be used for a crime. Crime is still crime, whether it's committed by a hit and run or a gun.

>What you're afraid of is gun culture. You aren't unjustified in your fear, but there's a difference between being afraid of something and passing legislation and social policy to get rid of it.

The thing is, any attempt to at all make gun crime more enforceable is met with scorn by the NRA and their droves of gun nuts, because it's all "The first step on the slippery slope toward the government taking our guns!" Fuck that noise. It's alarmist bullshit that is pushed solely to reduce the economic impact on gun manufacturers, using fear to convince gun owners that it's in their best interests to look out for the people who are preying on them. There would be no harm in a national gun registry that makes tracking guns used in crimes to their place of purchase and maybe even their owners even when they cross state lines, but it would make gun salesmen have to fill out more forms, which is enough to get the NRA shouting "Second amendment violation!"

Very few people have talked about actually rounding up the guns and getting rid of them. But that is the first fucking thing any gun nut starts shouting about whenever someone says "Hey, you guys are being a bit irresponsible with your deadly toys."
>> No. 377571
>>377570
But it's not responsible gun owners who are misusing their tools. And a lot of the policy that gets crafted, one could argue, does little to nothing to actually make the guns any safer or prevent crime. It just tries to solve the problem by limiting access, under the assumption the only way to reduce the crime is to limit the access.
Given how many crimes are committed in detroit by guns recovered that have been illegally sold through irreputable salespeople, the vast majority, what the ATF should be doing is cracking down on the people actually selling them. Gun advocates point out the FBI could probably do this rather easily, so why can't the ATF? The ATF seem to be able to locate historical pieces and collection pieces for taking and dismantling. With the hubub of the ATF sending guns over the Mexican border illegally, those guns going up missing and the operation getting bungled, there are now guns sold being used against the body armor of border patrol agents. Ones expensive and powerful enough to penetrate it.

What the NRA is and has become is trash, I agree. But it is disingenuous and terrible and toxic to say just because a terrible group of people are championing something or using underhanded techniques or tactics to prevent what they see is wrong, that the thing they're championing is illegitimate. I really need to know more concrete facts about the ATF.
>> No. 377578
>>377571
>make guns any safer
You need to abandon this line of thinking. Guns are not safe. Their purpose is not to be safe. There is nothing you can do to make them safer. Training makes you safe, steady trigger fingers make you safe. There is nothing you can simply attach to a gun to make it safe; that's not what it's designed for. Even bean-bag rounds can kill at the right range in the right spot.

Also if they have to use underhand tactics to justify something, then that makes it illegitimate. If their point is legit, they don't have to be shady to make it. And that's all they're being is shady. The majority of Gun Owners might have actual rational concerns about such things that should be addressed. The majority of Gun Owners in the U.S. are not members of the NRA, and the NRA should not be listened to as a barometer of anything other than the gun lobby.

Also, the ATF is goddamn useless because it has no real teeth to it:
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
>> No. 377584
>>377578
>Also if they have to use underhand tactics to justify something, then that makes it illegitimate.
This applies to both sides.

So. What exactly is substantially stopping the ATF from monitoring and intercepting illegally bought guns in Arizona? They know where a bunch of the people are, they know the straw purchasers are a veritable bonanza there. Sidestepping the necessity of a gun registry for the moment (I don't have enough information to know the necessity or unnecessity of such a thing), what is stopping the ATF from investigating known and alleged straw purchasers?
>> No. 377609
>>377584
Read the article. In addition to infighting, the laws surrounding guns and trafficking do not invest sufficient power in agents to act upon information they have. To say that the ATF "allowed" this gun walking scandal is misleading; the guns move whether the ATF allows it or not.

When they proceed with these weapon "stings", most of the people they want to role on, they can't do so because there is no concrete evidence, no probable cause. If someone with no prior record, no money, and no house buys a $40,000 gun, that purchase is completely legal, and even though there is no possible way they could afford that weapon without being handed money by criminal elements, the ATF cannot arrest them, cannot hold them, cannot really charge them with anything because the law (and the higher-ups) says that the evidence we have is entirely circumstantial, and not enough to charge the person with even a misdemeanor. It's a weird Al Capone situation; we could probably nab them if we sic'd the IRS on these people but conventional enforcement has no leg to stand on. It isn't illegal to "gift" someone a gun behind closed doors, just like it isn't illegal to hand them $40,000. It isn't even reckless endangerment.

You can buy a car without a drivers' license, but you can't legally drive it unless you are registered and insured, and if you are caught driving uninsured you can face jail time. This isn't quite the same for guns, but there is no penalty for handing over a gun from someone who is trusted by the system to someone who isn't trusted. If someone purchases a gun from you and you see that they are legit, and they go off the reservation and shoot up a public space (and likely kill themselves/get shot by police/get captured), there is no way you can be technically liable because to every source you had, you had no idea that they would do that.

But when they pass it off illegitimately, there are no laws that really deal with that. We are not allowed to try and track every gun; if a rifle purchased in an American shop shows up in gang shoot out with police, we are not allowed to go back to the seller or the dupe buyer and say "look, based on the the gun being found at a crime scene and your status as the last official buyer, we are charging you with conspiracy to distribute firearms to criminal organizations/terrorist forces/crazy people". Can't do that; they'll say they lost it or it was stolen. And there is no penalty for "losing" a gun, even though that is the very definition of reckless endangerment.

Handing guns to people behind closed doors is not necessarily the problem; the problem is we have no legal recourse for saying "why were you giving firearms to to an ex-con with multiple tattoos denoting "kills"?".
>> No. 377631
>>377609
So much to research.
>> No. 377685
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/12/shooting-new-orleans/2154071/

FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS EVERYWHERE FUCK

Obama really isn't going to let up until he gets our guns.
>> No. 377699
>>377685
>FALSE FLAG

No the only false flag operations is the one the Israeli and Turkish governments is trying to push on the Americans people into going to war in Syria.
>> No. 377730
>>377699
There's a possibility that guy was being sarcastic.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason