This is a bad idea wrt gun control, and it's telling that this is one of the few issues that the left has lost ground on in the past ~20 years. Shouting at, mocking, and shaming people into supporting more gun control will not change hearts and minds. It will just radicalize them more.

I'm for it.

It might be complete aids, but at least it will take away aids discussions from this thread which would be a net politics.

Should ban ikes from it for the lols.

I want to be able to have some faith that American politicians -- who are of course NRA-funded and gun lobby funded -- who feel really bad when legal and legally-obtained assault rifles kill Americans will actually ponder whether it might be that allowing legal assault rifles to be legally obtained so easily IS PROBLEM? Rather than washing their hands of it by praying on Twitter while investing resources in making sure no regulation of any kind might affect what I term the "PROBLEM."

I also want it to be OKAY to come at them, when they are vulnerable, when they espouse great sympathy for gun violence victims. Your position basically states that I should have patience and political sympathy for those who enable gun violence through policy because WHEN THAT POLICY RESULTS IN DEATHS, there isn't much they can say.

THAT'S THE POINT. It's to some degree -- a degree far lesser than the shooters -- on them, and the NRA, etc. I don't have to be tolerant of their tough political spot whenever Americans with legally obtained weapons slaughter Americans. That's a situation of their political creation which they seek to enforce because lobbyists and voters and media narratives. The downside of their policy preferences is held in stark relief, literally every day, in this country. It cannot be that those who oppose those policies are muzzled by PROPRIETY, or by a need to MAINTAIN FAIRNESS IN DEBATE while people continually get shot.

Do you think it's possible to radicalize the NRA more?

And, just to come full circle, that "muzzling" is exactly the work that the term "prayer shaming" is supposed to do. It's supposed to make it impolite and taboo to come at pro gun rights people / politicians after shootings. Because it's anti-Christian. I know you get this.

You just view your narrative to be superior, and whether that is true or not, it's still a narrative. People who are angry and wish to cause harm will do so, even in CALIFORNIA, home of GUN CONTROL. I don't think disarming Wiper and chastising people for clay shooting changes anything other than makes people more radical and more scared.

Hoaya styling and profiling on the thread right now. Keep up the good fight

Absolutely?

Perhaps this is a good opportunity to highlight one of my major beefs with the left, which is that it is terrible at this game, while the right is genius.

"Prayer shaming" won the day almost instantly. Here is what it does in America:

Gun violence -> right offers prayers -> left attacks right for hollow prayers -> right cries anti-Christian rhetoric -> political points are scored on the right -> left is now stuck in a losing semantic battle

Next time there is gun violence:

gun violence -> right offers prayers -> left hesitates to attack right for hollow prayers, resorts to argle bargle policy statements (this happened yesterday from Clinton and Sanders; O'Malley went kinda hard) -> no one cares because it's not interesting

game over

I mean, "we" on the left just systematically get OWNED in these debates because we just fail entirely to even provide the audience - American voters - something PALATABLE. Meanwhile the right has like 5 trump cards to pull in every situation, all of which revolve around victimhood. They get the people GOIN, we don't even communicate in a way that translates. It's very, very frustrating.

Nice use of italics and CAPITALIZED words. Other than that, very forgettable.

Nah, this is a good thing in the long run.

Since we're apparently in ****ty disingenuous mode, here's my response:

Like John Locke, author of The Reasonableness of Christianity?

Hoya maybe you get systematically owned in those debates because you're making bad arguments.

Whatever you label it, coming after someone for expressing sympathy is distasteful, and more to the point, helps fuel the victimhood narrative you're trying to avoid. You're opposed to their policies. Come at them for that. Trying to play the gotcha game of "LOL YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY SYMPATHETIC" allows them to gain the high ground. You're General Ewell refusing to take Cemetery Hill at the Battle of Gettysburg.

Hilarious how ikes feels proud of himself all the time. No matter how many times you think you're pointing out someone's bad argumen, it's not gonna make up for daddy not saying good job on your A- dude

https://twitter.com/YoungBLKRepub/st...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

i would advise going through all the replies in this tweet. it is breathtaking

Thought about that, don't think that's the problem. The audience is the "problem." Making good arguments to an audience ill-equipped to consider the arguments is a losing battle, obviously, and it's worse when your arguments are being made to contradict or counter closely-held beliefs that aren't "arguments" or "positions" at all, but rather ingrained world views.

Communicating like superior *******s to the audience is also a problem for the left. I am guilty of this all the time, but I'm trying not to be, but I mean . . . I'm not succeeding. For example, kinda wish I didn't call most of America stupid a few posts back, but then that IS what I actually think, making me both an ******* and ill-fit to communicate any better than the left does. Pretty sure that's the stock view of like, the entire college-educated left, though, which as I say, is problem.

lol I guess that's it man. Feel free to make up whatever other psychological defects you want for me so you can feel superior without having a substantive response. I honestly don't care.

So Hoya is crushing it in arguments? Thanks for the cliffs.

Hoya,

What is your exact position on gun control and how do you think it would apply to yesterday? Your posts just scream appeal to emotions, ASSAULT RIFLE, SLAUGHTER, etc.


If you can agree there would be a lot less mass murders/terrorism if minorities were deported then you can't argue the right aren't trying to do anything to help these problems

counterpoint:



the hollow sympathies on a tragedy and inaction from an imbecile who thinks a ****ing machine gun is a toy is not something that benefits anyone

Hoya,

This is what happens when you argue with fools.

Ikes made two points in regards to my post.

1. Was typical lol semantikes in which he nitpicked my choice of words in the idea that I was expressing.

2. Was an intellectually dishonest argument regarding the healthcare not falling under private control in the context of the discussion. This was intellectually dishonest for the fact that the input of government money for 50% of the spending on healthcare doesn't in and of itself dispute the point of my post, and that that 50% of spending is completely neutered by the fact that Medicare in its current form isn't allowed to exert price control on pharmaceuticals in the market the way the universal single payer systems in other developed nations are that are the model for what I was arguing for. This is part of the reason why the US has higher drug costs than other developed nations. The history of why this is the case is due to the huge political divide in this country. Democrats wanted Medicare expanded to also cover prescription drugs. Not having the power to get that put into place the bargain they were able to broker with the Republicans to get it passed was that they are by law not allowed to use Medicare to exert price controls on the prescription drug market the way a single payer system would.

sadly, this was only 2 months ago

THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS THO