1363
1364

Remember when Laurie Penny said that SJWs were winning the "culture war"? (imgur.com)

Jasperkr672 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]ev1lb1t 106ポイント107ポイント  (119子コメント)

Oh really? This is why every major business is saving us from the "racist evil" that is the right to purchase anything sporting a confederate flag?

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the SJW threat. They're barely being beaten back, and are still exploiting holes in the lines to slash and burn every bit of personal autonomy of thought and action they can as they're hounded from public legitimacy.

[–]Inuma 31ポイント32ポイント  (55子コメント)

This is why I hate the "culture" aspect of Gamergate with a passion...

SJWs are merely liberal useful idiots. They're uneducated cultists who are going to treat their politics as a religion and try to force everyone else into the cult of liberalism. They pride themselves on identity politics and don't see the contradictions put forth by that.

The thing is that useful idiots come and go. What needs to be stabilized is who reports what and how people can have diverse opinions without blatant attacks on their character from people who are supposed to be journalists.

Yet people get caught up in fighting SJWs and ignore other aspects to their detriment. sigh

[–]DerberAuner 15ポイント16ポイント  (51子コメント)

ive got a question as someone not from america:

why are sjws bunched together with liberals?

i see this frequently here, and im always wondering how exactly this came about, mostly cause the two ideologies seem inconsoleable to me, and cause frankly id say given that im from germany im a LOT more left wing than most americans here (or in general), and i find sjws "disturbing" to say the least.

i would appreciate any response.

[–]Niwjere 15ポイント16ポイント  (13子コメント)

No one's actually answered this to my own satisfaction yet, so here goes.

The word "liberal" has taken on an entirely different meaning in the USA. It's synonymous with "politically left-wing" here. What you likely understand as "liberal" -- classical Western values such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. -- is no longer represented by the word "liberal" in the United States political system.

The entirety of US politics is squarely on the political right, when considered globally. When we say "politically left", what we really mean is "politically less on the right than the other guys". This, combined with the twisted definition of "liberal", means that the use of "liberal" boils down to "those guys aren't as far over to the right as we are" (it's slung around as a pejorative quite a bit by the US political party further to the right).

I hate that the word "liberal" is so massively misunderstood and misused by the general public, and I hate that I have to constantly preface "liberal" with "classical" so half the population of this country doesn't immediately assume I'm some kind of evil super-communist.

[–]DerberAuner 5ポイント6ポイント  (12子コメント)

thanks, i think i get the picture now.

its a mixture of "SJWs sont identify with the (more) right wing, so they are (more) left by default", "liberal means 'left' in the american political system", and "america is so far right, it doesnt even know what 'real' left is".

would you say this is apt?

[–]BoiseNTheHood 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, it's more that SJWs have taken the planks of the mainstream American leftist platform to an extreme. They're not just considered left-wing because they're not right-wing. They are firmly on the far left of the spectrum.

[–]Niwjere 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This too. I should've mentioned this.

[–]Niwjere 7ポイント8ポイント  (9子コメント)

You pretty much nailed it. American politics is DISGUSTINGLY black-and-white in nature. Either you're "American left" or you're "American right", and since SJWs aren't "right", they are automatically "left" (aka "liberal" in the idiotic American lexicon). No nuance whatsoever.

[–]DerberAuner 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

i hate that this is leaking into gaming now...

[–]Inuma 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Yeah, someone had to save the world from SJWs.

Shut in nerds who geek out on stats for WH40K decided to get off their asses and face an opponent that had special privileges...

We can see how that turned out.

[–]DerberAuner 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

i honestly cant say which direction youre going in.

[–]Niwjere 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

We stood up to the social justice bullies and told them to take a fucking hike. Gamers are the second group in history to do this successfully (the atheists did it first when they left Atheism+ to shrivel and die under the harsh sunlight of truth) and the first group in history to do this in the face of a full frontal mainstream media barrage and come out virtually unscathed. Our superpower is not giving a fuck what people think -- it's like kryptonite to narcissists.

[–]Inuma 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Basically saying that gamers are trying to save the world.

[–]AspsVeryDangerous 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

They are left, they are just FAR LEFT. They are the left counterpart to the religious right. Not the libertarian or even true-blue republican right, but the crazy-ass religious moralising right.

[–]Fucking_That_Chicken 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, they're the equivalent of people that stereotypically run HOAs. Busybody douchebags who can't relax until everyone's paying attention to them and no one's having fun.

Calling them "left" or "right" is honestly just a red herring. If they knew they could get better results by tagging along with the crazy-ass religious moralizing right, pointing fingers and calling people Satanists, I don't think they'd hesitate for an instant.

The actual far, far left is more likely to start burning people alive for "richcraft" than it is to do any of that shit.

[–]Kunkunington 23ポイント24ポイント  (4子コメント)

Given that the majority of them try to demonize right wingers and conservatives any chance they get and mislabel anyone who disagrees with them as such, the odds are that they are in fact self identifying at the same time as leftist liberals themselves. This doesn't mean all liberals are sjw and vice versa but all the journos who write such hitpieces seem to take that political position.

[–]DerberAuner 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

well, when you have a choice between one side representing "no abortions for women!"/"no gay marriage" and another side that actually does represent those issues, i think its clear where SJWs would identify;

but i honestly dont see them as "liberal" in any sense of the word. theyre extremely intrusive and controlling. the nomenclature is just plain wrong here.

[–]FukRPolitics 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's because the word means something else entirely in America. These people fit in perfectly with the American sense of liberalism.

[–]DerberAuner 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

i honestly dont think they fit in there. but its certainly a better fit than to actual liberalism.

[–]VicisSubsisto 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The American definition of liberalism is more in line with SJWs (SJW being the more extreme example of liberalism.

The free-speech style liberal is separately referred to as classical liberal, or libertarian, here. (Although to complicate matters further, classical liberals, anti-statists and anarchists are conflated together as libertarians.)

[–]DzhusyDzhuus 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

What constitutes Liberalism in Europe is not the same as the US.

In the US Liberalism is Left-Wing rather than Right, which is consequently referred to as Conservatism more often than not.

EDIT: The reason you see SJWs bunched with Liberals is for a multitude of reasons. They generally want, or at least proclaim to want, the same thing. Equality. A more inclusive democracy. An economic system that benefits the lower classes as much as the upper ones.

The problem is in perceiving how to achieve those things and somewhere along the way some elements of the Left took it upon themselves to force their own particular methods without debate or decided those lofty goals were simply not going to be enough for whatever reason.

There are a lot of people fighting against this trend here, a large part from the Left that feels alienated and abandoned and another part from the Right who are here because they share a mutual goal in discrediting those more extreme elements. Only there are a few extremists from the Right here too who are only interested in using those extremists as a weapon against the entire Left itself.

Though it should be noted tempers flare a lot in this place and that leaves little room for carefully thinking through every response before hitting Save.

[–]DerberAuner 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

but they dont even share any of the core liberal values.

they dont want more freedom, they want control.

at best they are associatable to the "left" because they are not conservatives. so they would be "liberal by default". does that makes any sense? cause thats the only way i could justify calling SJWs "liberal".

[–]DzhusyDzhuus 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

What you're bringing up here is one of the main reasons this happened. Liberals (American Leftists) are seeing this rising trend of extremists in their own wing twisting once held ideals to their definable breaking point to achieve political gains that are often either only to their benefit or their own subjective version of goals shared with moderates.

[–]BoiseNTheHood 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Again, the desire for control is not partisan. In fact, libertarianism and anarchism are probably the only ideologies that aren't defined by authoritarian impulses.

[–]Iconochasm 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Eh, if you've ever been to the anarchy subs you can cross off half that list.

[–]FukRPolitics -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Again, you're just not listening. In America, the word 'liberal' is a blanket term used to describe anyone and everyone on the left.

They are on the left, not simply because they are not conservative, but because of their extremist social views -- all of which are generally considered 'leftist'.

Again, in America, all leftists are considered 'liberal' in much the same way as everything on the right is considered 'conservative' (an idea you tellingly don't seem to have a difficult time understanding).

[–]DerberAuner 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

this comment came rather early. look at the post time.

i get it (now), "in america, these people are called liberal, cause theyre not on the right". but even by american standards, i dont think its justifyable to call them "liberal". they may be (relatively) left leaning on some issues, but overall they seem more right than left to me, even by american standards.

[–]FukRPolitics 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

All SJWs are liberals, at least in the American sense (and you're better off using google to find a better explanation of the differences between American liberalism and classical liberalism). But not all liberals are SJWs -- though often it seems like a lot of liberals are more interested in not getting blamed for SJWism (while kind of rooting for it on the margins) than they are with combating SJWism.

[–]DerberAuner 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

i hate that american politics of this sort are leaking into a) gaming and b) the internet as a whole like that.

these people are not liberals by any stretch of the imagination, if you ask me. theyre controlfreaks with a "holier than though" attitude and a victim complex. the closest thing politically would be a fascist (if you ask me).

[–]HatredsBlazingGun 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Marxist/communist more than fascist.

[–]DerberAuner 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

stalinist maybe?

i get the idea youre trying to convey, but i dont think communist or marxist adequately portray the authoritarian nature of these people. i think stalinist sounds closer to the truth.

[–]BoiseNTheHood 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

You can be authoritarian and left-wing, those are not mutually exclusive.

[–]DerberAuner 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

true, but id say in this case the amount of authoritarianism is disqualifying them from "being left", simply because its so antithetical to general left wing ideology in america. theyre centrists (by american standards). the worst of both worlds...

[–]BoiseNTheHood -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not antithetical to left-wing ideology in America. The left is firmly in support of a bloated, all-consuming federal government. That's not to say that the right hasn't been just as complicit in increasing the power of the state when in control, but the left openly embraces it. American left-wing ideology also heavily relies on identity politics (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) in order to attract those voting blocs. And they tend to have an anti-capitalist bent except for when capitalism benefits them. SJW-ism is simply mainstream American leftism taken to its logical extreme.

[–]I_pity_the_fool 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

When you think of liberals in Germany, you probably think of parties like the FDP. These people would probably be called libertarians in the US, even though the basic ideology/idea-set is some variant of classical liberalism.

In the 20th Century in the US and the UK, liberalism changed a little. As well as supporting freedom of speech and freedom to practice one's religion (among other rights), many liberals came to believe that many of these rights were meaningless without the financial means to pursue this freedom. So liberals began to support, say, universal healthcare or unemployment insurance because they felt that these measures increased the total amount of freedom for people in society, and not (like social democrats in the UK and Germany) because they believed that redistribution of wealth was a stepping-stone to a classless society or a necessary move to begin to implement socialism democratically.

In time in the US, liberal simply began to mean 'left winger'.

[–]Inuma 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

Socialism got decimated in America after the 40s because of the backlash against the New Deal. It got hit even harder by Reagan's neoliberalism which eliminated working class interests or at least misguided them to corporate interests.

The propaganda against left wing movements (anarchism, socialism, Marxism, etc) kept them out of politics and concentrated efforts into the neoclassical economic viewpoints. From left to right is liberalism, libertarianism, and conservatism. Those are the main three neoclassical views that got a lot of notice and concentration while socialism was pushed out on a number of levels. Academically, it wasn't taught. Based on who owns corporations, it wasn't told what class struggle means except a liberal view that says rich versus poor. That's certainly one notion of class, but it doesn't get to the heart of the issue.

For Socialists, they've been conflated with liberals through social democracies which aren't exactly Socialist countries. They're a step in the right direction, but everyone is fighting for different permutations just as other neoclassicals fight for the One True Capitalism.

Getting back on topic, liberals and conservatives have had a monopoly on political economy for the last 100 years. The ways that SJWs have come up is through the 40 year hussle known as capitalism. It's not a coincidence that SJWs are mainly trust fund babies. They are the recipients of wealth earned by the working class and concentrated into the rich. You look at Anita Sarkeesian, Mcintosh, Lipshitz, Quinn, and any others and you'll see that they have a wealth privilege in being able to live in San Francisco, which is pushing out poor minorities while being one of the wealthiest areas on the planet.

Now think about what occurs as you have wealth... You spend less money, you have few connections to the majority of people and the things you focus on are vastly outside the norm. You don't have that connection to others when the few people you know are just as rich as you are and the community you come from is very sparse. Liberalism is still upper middle class interests and fits that description far more than Socialist or the whole "Cultural Marxist" misnomer that right wingers use to smear everyone that isn't them. I could go on, but this is long enough to give you a sense that American politics are FUBAR and unfucking it takes far more education than some people are willing to give.

[–]DerberAuner 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

i appreciate the response, though i think my question was already answered to a good degree by other people.

[–]denshi 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Socialism got decimated in America after the 40s because of the backlash against the New Deal.

I think you're way off-base there. Socialism was savagely attacked and repressed in the US in the early decades of the 20th century. Remember that the Socialist Party of America's nominee for President ran on the 1920 ballot while in prison. Anti-socialist action was probably more effective in the US than in Europe in the 1910's-20's because the US didn't suffer WW1 on its own soil and thus had a more stable society and stronger state.

Socialism largely ended in the US not due to a backlash, but instead due directly because of the New Deal. FDR, a capitalist, convinced most of the capitalist leaders of the US that if they didn't establish some programs for the general welfare of the people, then the people would rise up and destroy the existing American system. The New Deal took the wind out of socialism's sails because it delivered the economic benefits that socialism promised without the expected violent upheaval.

The anti-Red scares of the 1950's crushed any chance of resurgence, but I do think socialism was decimated by the New Deal's successes.

[–]Inuma 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

My basis was to start with WWII.

If I started with Woodrow Wilson and his decimation of Socialism after the Civil War, I'd have to do an even longer argument about Eugene Debs, WEB Dubois, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King and lord knows I can get verbose about politics enough as is...

I mean hell, if I told people mostly black people were a part of the Communist Party, their heads would explode. Then you tell them that the Black Panthers were targets of mass surveillance before people realized the CIA controls mass media? Yeah... The NSA spying on most Americans has nothing on what our history doesn't tell us in academia or schools.

Also, you have to remember who was pushing for the New Deal and where the bread was getting buttered. The Socialists had a particular knife to twist. They basically told FDR "If you don't do this, we can look at Russia and do this for the mass of people" and that scared the everloving shit out of at least half the rich to allow liberalism (Keynesian specifically) to be done.

But the counterrevolution occurred in 1946 with the launching of the Taft-Hartley Act that helped begin the downward spiral as the mass of people were wrought by fear and propaganda from the right wingers and slowly losing their democracy.

Eventually, the 70s came around and the capitalists realized where to go to get more money and profits by decimating America and moving production to Brazil, Russia, India, China.

Now the US has to deal with the effects of the white working class getting screwed out of their jobs for 50 years by Republicans and Democrats, a black community that they feel is surpassing them, a "Communist" country passing America with rising wages, and no jobs for themselves. And this isn't even getting into the gays they discriminated against since the 1950s getting marriage rights which means they lost on another front as you see the Race War possibly heating up.

I could go into this stuff for hours. But the point is that there's a lot going on and people explaining it are few and far between.

[–]denshi 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sounds like we could drink more than a few beers going over this stuff.

[–]Inuma 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not enough old Scotch to go through it all...

[–]Roast_A_Botch 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Couldn't tell you. As a liberal it pisses me off though, and has stopped me from actively supporting this movement. I don't support the "censor everything for feels side" either, but GG seems to have become a conservatives only movement.

[–]DerberAuner 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

dont do that.

dont let yourself be split apart from an issue you care about, just because the people youre fighting happen to be on the same "political side" as you are.

dont let it be "conservatives only" (i certainly am not conservative by any means, and i still care about the movement). let it be "gamers only". let it be "people who care about ethics".

if someone sais shit about liberals, set them straight (or try to).

remember this: people in europe ar FAR more left leaning than any american you will find, and they are not on the side of SJWs by any means. and people from europe still do support the movement.

if anyone is trying to divide the movement, or remove left wing support from it, you can bet that its the people who this movement is against, the people who try to spin a narrative. dont let a political divide enter this issue, if you really care about it.

[–]Kingoficecream 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

why are sjws bunched together with liberals?

There is a distinction but it's because some "liberals" have become social justice advocates with unparalleled stupidity. Some people might tell you that it's because "the left wing is more prone to it" or something, but either economic leaning has it's share of idiots. A great deal of the "liberals" that don't become raging advocates still use tired or debunked arguments (see: gender wage gap myth). They aren't "liberal" in a classical liberal or socially libertarian sense, they are liberals because they are the counter to American conservatism but in their own ways they are still authoritarian and the majority are still relatively right wing.

Their extremist left leaning ideals feed into their "social equality" beliefs in exceptionally bizarre and extreme ways such as advocating gender and race quotas that are anti-capitalist and discriminatory. I've seen quite a good deal of people in this sub state that they are left leaning, but most people here are by no means 'anti-capitalist'.

[–]TheCid 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"liberal" in Europe is more closely mapped to what Americans call "libertarian" than what Americans call "liberal". Our "liberal" Democrats are a big tent due to the nature of the two-party system; they're basically everyone who's opposed to the stuff pushed by conservatives (and our conservative Republicans are similar to UK/Canada/Australian Conservatives ideologically, except with more Jesus). The SJWs are obviously in opposition to the Republicans, so they're under the Democratic tent, which means we have to deal with them making liberals look bad.

[–]GragasInRealLife 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

In america, neither liberal, nor Libertarian (capital L) actually means libertarian. Liberal means left wing and can be authoritarian or libertarian. Libertarian means right wing and libertarian. Conservative means right wing and authoritarian.

But since America tends to align with authoritarianism more than libertarianism, liberal has come to mean left wing authoritarian meanwhile there is no left wing libertarian.

[–]raohthekenoh 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because sjws are the faaaar end of the liberal spectrum taken to its ridiculous end conclusion. It's liberalism without any thought or awareness.

[–]forbiddenone -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

Keep in mind that our "right" is so far right that it is off your scale. Hell, our "left" is right of your "right.

[–]DerberAuner 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

thats kind of what i mean, though. calling those people "liberal" doesnt make sense to me, if youve got countries like germany to compare yourself by.

also, the ideology of SJWs is extremely intrusive and restrictive, not to mention controlling; the exact opposite of being "liberal". theyre essentially fascists, or am i completely wrong here?

[–]forbiddenone 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

calling those people "liberal" doesnt make sense to me, if youve got countries like germany to compare yourself by.

I'm taking that out of context for the lulz.

[–]DerberAuner 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

i wanna take this in a "fun" kind of spirit, but im not sure, because this is the internet and i dont know you.

do you mind calrifying that for me? :)

[–]forbiddenone 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, humor doesn't translate very well :P.

It was a bad joke.

[–]Lugash 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

"SJW"s have been around since at least the mid 80's. Don't tell me they come and go. They come and infest.

[–]Inuma 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

They weren't a group with force until two other groups lost power: Evangelicals and conservatives. The point of that is when one group fades, another one replaces until you get to the core of the problem. You can't just claim one group is here to infest until you look at why they came here in the last decade to infest in the first place.

[–]Fucking_That_Chicken 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

They're uneducated cultists who are going to treat their politics as a religion

Yes.

and try to force everyone else into the cult of liberalism.

No.

If "the SJWs" actually had specific goals in mind there wouldn't be this constant dance between them and content creators, where content creators keep trying to find things that would please them and "SJWs" keep finding flaws that they never talked about before and would never have regarded as flaws the first time through. They would just be forthright with what they want. Fucking ISIS is forthright with what they want even though what they want is horrifying to a reasonable person, because as actual true believers they know their goals, believe in them, and work hard to achieve them.

Instead, much like television preachers, "SJWs" don't want things to "get better." TV preachers want the world to be living in sin, and the more apparent it is the the faithful, the better. Because then they can point to the sex shop and the Hindu temple and the gay car wash and the mixed-fabrics clothing store, and say that we're a fallen society and please send God money.

"SJWs" would be tickled pink if there actually was a sophisticated racist conspiracy in the police force. They'd have material for decades. Instead, incidents where a white cop shoots a black suspect are automatically assumed to be acts of racial terror, and we sometimes find out after the fact that they actually were racially motivated.

"SJWs" would be tickled pink if there actually was a sophisticated sexist conspiracy in gaming or amongst gamers. They'd have material for decades. Instead, they just rant about how there's obviously one hiding in the shadows because Lara Croft's boobs are too big, and point to the fact that they have detractors as just more evidence of sin.

"SJWs" would be tickled the color of their stupid hairdos if the federal government announced tomorrow that it really was dominated by The Patriarchy and was going to start oppressing the women. That's great material; their sermons write themselves.

The only clear difference between them and the people on TBN is that they're going for attention first, money second. Televangelists are all about that green.

[–]BlockPuppet 8ポイント9ポイント  (60子コメント)

Do you think they were making tons of money from the flag? Not selling it is just good PR for almost no loss of sale.

It's always about money. Just make it in a business' financial interest to act the way you want them to, and they'll do it (this is the reason why companies go 'green': cheap PR + efficiency).

[–]Gazareth 15ポイント16ポイント  (11子コメント)

And what about Google's insidious role in all this? People aren't going to assume that Google has done anything (that would garner respect), they are going to assume that there are simply no shops selling the flag.

[–]BlockPuppet -2ポイント-1ポイント  (10子コメント)

Interesting, I didn't know that. Just playing devils advocate here: Google could be preempting a legal ban (state or federal), to avoid the bad press. Not saying I like what they're doing, but there could be a reason.

[–]ev1lb1t 7ポイント8ポイント  (8子コメント)

The first amendment precludes a legal ban, with extreme prejudice in the case of political symbols like a flag.

[–]BlockPuppet 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

2nd amendment (plus SCOTUS) says people have the right to own guns, but they're trying to limit this too.

[–]ev1lb1t 9ポイント10ポイント  (6子コメント)

Not very successfully. While certain left-leaning state and circuit court systems uphold token controls like microstamping or bans for people with histories of violent criminal offense, the actual blanket bans of handguns, when challenged, are universally struck down by the time they're reviewed by the supreme court.

If anything, I believe the second amendment should be expanded to all tools, not just tools of defense. The banning of tools because they can be misused should not be permitted in a free society. Punish those who actually do harm without restricting the freedom of law-obiding citizens to pick their own locks when they forget their keys or to back up their blu-ray discs.

[–]BlockPuppet 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Completely agree. "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

My point was more that there are people working to remove people's rights.

[–]I_AM_INTERFACED 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Microstamping pretty much is effectively a ban on a large number of people (poor) and many firearms for not complying. It's just an end-run around Heller, nothing more.

That doesn't mean its a token control, its actually ridiculously stupid and effective at doing what they actually intend to do, cost prohibitive firearms. It just so happens to be a happy side effect that its also entirely useless at what they claim it will do.

[–]ev1lb1t 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

chips in netbooks which cost almost nothing are engineered at around 20nm.

Are you really claiming microstamping a weapon is more expensive than a 40 dollar netbook processor?

None of this prevents private-party sale in the second-hand market, which is definitely not cost prohibitive.

[–]I_AM_INTERFACED 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You... Really don't understand the difference between that and a programmable microscopic metal etching machine as an added step in the manufacturing process, in a wholly mechanical assembly line?

That aside, it is a completely unnecessary process defeated by sandpaper and/or firing like 10 rounds. It is retarded.

[–]ThisIsFrigglishThe 0.0065% 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Just to kind of devil's advocate here,

Of course I have a legitimate, non-homicide reason for buying all these castor beans.

You don't know for sure what I'm planning to do with this enriched uranium, let me have it.

Look, I'm actually very concerned about UFOs, and this refurbished flak cannon is my right as an American in this suburban neighborhood.

There is nothing inherently illegal with my stockpiling CN gas in my basement.

There is an argument to be made that some tools are simply unnecessary for private ownership.

[–]Niwjere 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nobody should have the right to tell me what I can and cannot purchase with my own money. If I want to waste countless paychecks on a fully-functional howitzer, I should be allowed to do so. The concept of "my rights end where yours begin" still applies, though -- I can't roll my new howitzer down Main Street and fire off several volleys (unless my town is actually under attack), because I'd be unnecessarily endangering other people (and probably also myself).

One of law's primary functions is protecting citizens from being harmed by the actions of other citizens. You should be allowed to own that stockpile of CN gas, but you probably shouldn't be allowed to store it in your basement, as that would unnecessarily endanger other people (not to mention yourself).

To use probably the most poignant example -- you're allowed to own a car (a powerful machine capable of killing people very easily), but you're not allowed to drive it in any manner you please, because driving that doesn't follow set rules is an unnecessary danger to pedestrians, property, and other drivers. You're also not allowed to drive said car (legally) until you've proven that you understand the rules you're expected to follow.

[–]Gazareth 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You might be right. For some reason that scenario is less scary to me.

[–]ev1lb1t 9ポイント10ポイント  (47子コメント)

The point stands, people with real power are silencing and denying personal autonomy of choice to individuals who disagree with extremist SJW rhetoric.

The profitability of this is irrelevant. They're doing it, and denying people individual agency at the request of SJWs.

[–]henk636 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The worst part about the flag is, is that it isn't even the confederate flag!

It was their battleflag and not the flag of their state.

CGPGrey has a great video about it explaining the difference: Link.

[–]Ireyon12 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Likely for the same reason the sale (and display) of the nazi flag is banned in germany. Well, it is allowed to be shown in any historical context. What SJWs want to do is sanitize history and pretend that it never happened. They're trying to overcompensate for some kind of guilt complex.