Flash Flash Revolution

Flash Flash Revolution (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Chit Chat (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC) (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=151138)

DaBackpack 08-6-2019 06:03 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by the sun fan (Post 4691177)
I miss you IRL
come visit sometime

I'll be in atlanta in October for a wedding, I'll let you know

(fuck georgia)

choof 08-6-2019 06:15 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
scapegoating mental illness is incredibly dangerous, not only does it increase the stigma of mental illness and decrease understanding and acceptance, but it paints a target on people with mental health issues and possibly incentivizes government agencies to start stripping rights away from them to try and keep normal people safe


Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBackpack (Post 4691170)
1) Prevent political leaders with tiny hands and shitty toupees from tacitly supporting white nationalist rhetoric

comedic dead horse aside, perhaps we should prevent all political leaders from tacitly supporting white nationalist rhetoric

Quote:

2) Make it harder for white supremacists to congregate online (that is, disrupt their communication channels)
this is one of the few things that the average internet nerd can actually play a direct role in
find the white supremacist hiding grounds and put em on blast

Quote:

3) Increase the visibility of minority voices in the public discourse, in film, television. Normalizing the presence and experiences of minorities at least helps prevent radicalization in the child-development phase.
but "muh forced diversity"


Quote:

Originally Posted by the sun fan (Post 4691171)
ah well, there's nothing we can do, no possible way to change an existing document

touching or even implying that the second amendment should be changed is a shitshow just waiting to happen and I legitimately believe that if the second amendment was changed america would be thrown dangerously close to civil war

the sun fan 08-6-2019 06:21 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by choof (Post 4691179)
touching or even implying that the second amendment should be changed is a shitshow just waiting to happen and I legitimately believe that if the second amendment was changed america would be thrown dangerously close to civil war

I was actually talking about part of the first amendment that guarantees all organizations the right to exist even if they're expressly racist/homophobic/etc

I don't disagree, I think that there would be huge riots if the 2nd amendment had any attempt to change it in the current time

maybe someday though

definitely not anytime soon

choof 08-6-2019 06:24 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by the sun fan (Post 4691181)
I was actually talking about part of the first amendment that guarantees all organizations the right to exist even if they're expressly racist/homophobic/etc

obviously this is a massive over simplification but couldn't you just reinterpret it in such a way that denies the right of shit like that to exist

devonin 08-6-2019 06:28 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by choof (Post 4691179)
touching or even implying that the second amendment should be changed is a shitshow just waiting to happen and I legitimately believe that if the second amendment was changed america would be thrown dangerously close to civil war

Which should be, to all right thinking people, FUCKING TERRIFYING. Even a straight repeal of the 2nd amendment wouldn't actually DO ANYTHING. Taking away just the fact that the rights are not to be infringed upon does not actually infringe upon them.

Basically no country outside the USA has a constitutionally mandated right to bear arms, and yet in all of them you can bear arms. Canada has almost as many guns per person as the USA has, without a constitutional guarantee against any infringement. Our infringements are quite small.

Here's Canadian gun law in a nutshell:

1. You need a license. Getting one involves a background check and some interviews. you have to renew it every five years.

2. You need safety training.

3. If you want to own a firearm in the 'restricted' or 'prohibited' class of firearms, you have to go through a more robust step 1, and you have to register it.

That's basically it. There's more stuff around transporting/selling/moving restricted and prohibited guns, but for the primary purposes people need guns (hunting, sport shooting, farm defense) most kinds of rifle and shotgun are just "Get a license, get safety training, congratz you are a gun owner"

the sun fan 08-6-2019 06:28 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by choof (Post 4691182)
obviously this is a massive over simplification but couldn't you just reinterpret it in such a way that denies the right of shit like that to exist

Ideally, yes, but its not going to happen
its impossible for a US court system to make that kind of ruling because its expressly worded in such a way that the very ruling would make no sense
and no legislature will change it anytime soon

so its stuck because of really stupid persistence

mellonxcollie 08-6-2019 07:43 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by the sun fan (Post 4691184)
Ideally, yes, but its not going to happen
its impossible for a US court system to make that kind of ruling because its expressly worded in such a way that the very ruling would make no sense
and no legislature will change it anytime soon

so its stuck because of really stupid persistence

There have already been amendments to the constitution

It might not make any sense based on the current laws, but if you're making an amendment then you're already abandoning the precedent

Prohibition was added and then tossed away with just amendments

devonin 08-6-2019 07:45 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Yes and if you ask most Americans they will say that was good because the government took something away and then gave it back, as opposed to giving them something and then taking it away.

mellonxcollie 08-6-2019 07:51 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4691191)
Yes and if you ask most Americans they will say that was good because the government took something away and then gave it back, as opposed to giving them something and then taking it away.

That was still something given via an amendment... a long time ago, but still

Funnygurl555 08-6-2019 08:17 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBackpack (Post 4691170)
2) Make it harder for white supremacists to congregate online (that is, disrupt their communication channels)

so i'm fine with choof's suggestion of fucking w/ them by putting them on blast, but i wouldn't want any form of assembly-- even white supremacist ones-- to become illegal or disrupted through govt intervention

bad rabbit hole

inDheart 08-6-2019 08:29 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
privately held firms can (de)platform whoever they want

flashflash account 08-6-2019 08:36 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
I think devonins stoicism terrorism or whatever is right
And I have a pretty good idea of why the alt right is like gaining traction I just don't understand why you go to killing people
That's the part that baffles me, that isn't normal

Funnygurl555 08-6-2019 08:40 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by inDheart (Post 4691195)
privately held firms can (de)platform whoever they want

i mean, i agree but i already voiced my personal disapproval of those decisions before :P

as in, its problematic that privately held firms have a big stake in platforming + modern day communication streams, to the point that speech is virtually thwarted without the services that these firms provide.

they do, and /should/ exercise their own individual rights to speech, but the issue i have is systematic

the sun fan 08-6-2019 08:40 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mellonxcollie (Post 4691190)
There have already been amendments to the constitution

It might not make any sense based on the current laws, but if you're making an amendment then you're already abandoning the precedent

Prohibition was added and then tossed away with just amendments

ya but we Americans don't think that way, as sensible as it sounds

choof 08-6-2019 08:49 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555 (Post 4691194)
but i wouldn't want any form of assembly-- even white supremacist ones-- to become illegal or disrupted through govt intervention

bad rabbit hole

bad rabbit hole? to what? less discriminatory groups meeting up or, at the very least, them doing it in private? name three groups of people who would wrongfully be "disrupted" through government intervention if the government started cracking down on white supremacists or I'm posting a screenshot of this on r/enlightenedcentrism

choof 08-6-2019 08:53 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by flashflash account (Post 4691197)
And I have a pretty good idea of why the alt right is like gaining traction I just don't understand why you go to killing people
That's the part that baffles me, that isn't normal

eliminating perceived threats

devonin 08-6-2019 08:53 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555 (Post 4691199)
i mean, i agree but i already voiced my personal disapproval of those decisions before :P

as in, its problematic that privately held firms have a big stake in platforming + modern day communication streams, to the point that speech is virtually thwarted without the services that these firms provide.

they do, and /should/ exercise their own individual rights to speech, but the issue i have is systematic

This is basically the discussion of when a new thing turns from "a new thing" to some kind of guaranteed human right that it is oppressive to not have.

20 years ago, social media functionally didn't exist. Then it did. At what point do you declare free access to social media a "right" that is oppressive to take away? 19 years ago? 18 years ago? Does the fact that many people over a certain age have no social media presence change this?

Does everybody have the right to the internet? If you don't think internet access is a universal human right, you absolutely can't argue that access to some subset of the internet is a human right.

If you think that a private group saying "We don't want your kind of speech in our private space, get out" is oppressive of free speech, do you also think that a business shouldn't be able to throw you out if you're causing a disturbance via speech or non-violent actions?

Is the only difference between "You can't talk like that in my store, get out" and "You can't talk like that on my service, get out" the fact that the service has a lot of people on it? Do the rules for when I can throw you out of my house change if you're there alone, versus a small group, versus a large party?

Funnygurl555 08-6-2019 08:57 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by choof (Post 4691204)
bad rabbit hole? to what? less discriminatory groups meeting up or, at the very least, them doing it in private? name three groups of people who would wrongfully be "disrupted" through government intervention if the government started cracking down on white supremacists or I'm posting a screenshot of this on r/enlightenedcentrism

in this case, if the system were to change the way you were suggesting, itd benefit us. but you also have to think of when government intervention in communication and assembly can harm us

civil rights, lgbtq rights, womens rights-- all of these movements needed free assembly and communication to effect change in a society that wasnt on their side

im looking at the future implications, not the impact govt intervention would have /now/

choof 08-6-2019 09:08 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Funnygurl555 (Post 4691207)
in this case, if the system were to change the way you were suggesting, itd benefit us. but you also have to think of when government intervention in communication and assembly can harm us

I'm not arguing for anything other than change in the way I suggested lol

Quote:

civil rights, lgbtq rights, womens rights-- all of these movements needed free assembly and communication to effect change in a society that wasnt on their side
free assembly and communication is great, as long as you're not, you know, espousing white supremacist rhetoric

Quote:

im looking at the future implications, not the impact govt intervention would have /now/
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
edit: the future implications of banning white supremacist speech would be continued ban of white supremacist speech w0w!

Funnygurl555 08-6-2019 09:13 PM

Re: El Paso and Dayton Shootings (SERIOUS TOPIC)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by devonin (Post 4691206)
20 years ago, social media functionally didn't exist. Then it did. At what point do you declare free access to social media a "right" that is oppressive to take away? 19 years ago? 18 years ago? Does the fact that many people over a certain age have no social media presence change this?
Does everybody have the right to the internet? If you don't think internet access is a universal human right, you absolutely can't argue that access to some subset of the internet is a human right.

i wouldn't know exactly when, but the fact that social media for example is an integral form of modern communication streams and therefore should be publicly accessible

/i/ think that access to the internet + basic digital literacy should be a right.


Quote:

If you think that a private group saying "We don't want your kind of speech in our private space, get out" is oppressive of free speech, do you also think that a business shouldn't be able to throw you out if you're causing a disturbance via speech or non-violent actions?
i already said that businesses should be able to do that though

Quote:

Is the only difference between "You can't talk like that in my store, get out" and "You can't talk like that on my service, get out" the fact that the service has a lot of people on it? Do the rules for when I can throw you out of my house change if you're there alone, versus a small group, versus a large party?
i have an issue when lack of access to services comes to a point that the effectiveness of one's communication relative to modern standards is significantly thwarted.

if a cake shop denies baking you a cake for whatever reason, well fuck the cake shop but you have the ability to go to another shop and get the same kinda cake. what happens when every social media + video streaming company bans you?

again, under this system it's legal and businesses aren't doing wrong. i just wish most communication streams weren't privately held.

i don't mean to derail this thread, so i could stop if you guys would like


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution