▲ 1624 ▼ New record set for world's hottest day - as scientist warns milestone is a 'death sentence' (au.news.yahoo.com) submitted 3 years ago by nulluser@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 475 comments fedilink hide all child comments The world has experienced its hottest day on record, according to meteorologists. The average global temperature reached 17.01C (62.62F) on Monday, according to the US National Centres for Environmental Prediction. The figure surpasses the previous record of 16.92C (62.46F) - set back in August 2016.
[–] theblueredditrefugee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 3 years ago (3 children) The idea that nonviolent protest works has been the most harmful idea in history permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 59 points 3 years ago (1 child) I mean nonviolent protests DO work. Non-disruptive DOES NOT work though. MLK Jr didn't peacefully sit in a park. They ran boycotts, sit ins, shut down streets, trespassed into white only areas, and drove businesses insane. If MLK Jr was your enemy you were going to have a miserable time when he rolled into town. Ghandi had people illegally burn documents and basically smuggled salt against all regulations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 34 points 3 years ago (2 children) MLK had the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as looming threats. Gandhi is also the one who said "pacifism without violence is not pacifism, it is helplessness." A violent counterpart to a non-violent movement helps by being the stick to the non-violent carrot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago That's fair, but either way we gotta give up on this nondisruptive nonsense. Gathering on the park outside of the white house at a time they agreed to doesn't do anything and why it's encouraged. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) See US Constitution, Amendment 2 for another example of backing peace with capability of violence to earn respect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (2 children) I can assure you the US Government is not quaking in their boots at the thought of Billy Bob's basement arsenal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (2 children) Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it. Surely they teach this distinction in military training? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself. I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops. It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (4 children) Yup, the only real revolution is a violent revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 years ago (1 child) Violence is a sometimes (even often) unavoidable byproduct of revolution, not an essential characteristic. Don't confuse the two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) George Jackson would disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago And Michael Jackson would disagree-hee-hee. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zoot@reddthat.com 10 points 3 years ago You know, now that a good portion of people are on Lemmy, it just might be the perfect place to start organizing, whatever you feel that may be... permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution would suggest otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Okay, when a government has completely collapsed, after the total collapse of the larger global leading entity; a peaceful revolution that results in something completely new, should be the top option. But I don’t think we have that much time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) How much time do you think we have? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal" Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago Sounds like history as usual then. The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening. Personally I’m most worried about starting a family. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) And how the heck do we know that it have any reasonable chance of working out well and that it won't be brutally suppressed or co-opted by reactionaries? And how would anyone even organize such a thing? ~Strawberry permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) We don't have any idea if it will work out or if it'll be snuffed out. However, the lack of purposeful revolution will result in an aimless one, carried on not with thought and intent, but instead as a reaction to the immseration of the world's people as we bake in and are flooded from our homes and cities. The only option is to try as the current hegemony will not solve the problems we face for the problems are a direct result of their desired politics in action. As for organizing one, that's way too long of a conversation to occur here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago So we have no idea if it's even remotely a good idea or if it's likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry permalink fedilink source parent [–] mordred@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Oh yeah? Tell that to Gandhi permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ilir@lemmygrad.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You are aware that besides Gandhi there was a lot of violent protest? Only violent protest makes the demands of the nonviolent acceptable to the ruling class. Without a violent part of a movement, the demands of the nonviolent are always ignored. Which is perfectly logical, because why accept the demands of someone you can ignore without consequences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mordred@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Disruption can be non violent permalink fedilink source parent [–] theblueredditrefugee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gandhi was a UK agent and delayed Indian independence by decades. Also he was a pedophile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mordred@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Thanks for those insights even if they're not really relevant to what was being discussed permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 59 points 3 years ago (1 child) I mean nonviolent protests DO work. Non-disruptive DOES NOT work though. MLK Jr didn't peacefully sit in a park. They ran boycotts, sit ins, shut down streets, trespassed into white only areas, and drove businesses insane. If MLK Jr was your enemy you were going to have a miserable time when he rolled into town. Ghandi had people illegally burn documents and basically smuggled salt against all regulations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 34 points 3 years ago (2 children) MLK had the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as looming threats. Gandhi is also the one who said "pacifism without violence is not pacifism, it is helplessness." A violent counterpart to a non-violent movement helps by being the stick to the non-violent carrot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago That's fair, but either way we gotta give up on this nondisruptive nonsense. Gathering on the park outside of the white house at a time they agreed to doesn't do anything and why it's encouraged. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) See US Constitution, Amendment 2 for another example of backing peace with capability of violence to earn respect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (2 children) I can assure you the US Government is not quaking in their boots at the thought of Billy Bob's basement arsenal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (2 children) Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it. Surely they teach this distinction in military training? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself. I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops. It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 34 points 3 years ago (2 children) MLK had the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam as looming threats. Gandhi is also the one who said "pacifism without violence is not pacifism, it is helplessness." A violent counterpart to a non-violent movement helps by being the stick to the non-violent carrot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago That's fair, but either way we gotta give up on this nondisruptive nonsense. Gathering on the park outside of the white house at a time they agreed to doesn't do anything and why it's encouraged. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) See US Constitution, Amendment 2 for another example of backing peace with capability of violence to earn respect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (2 children) I can assure you the US Government is not quaking in their boots at the thought of Billy Bob's basement arsenal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (2 children) Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it. Surely they teach this distinction in military training? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself. I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops. It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ericbomb@lemmy.world 8 points 3 years ago That's fair, but either way we gotta give up on this nondisruptive nonsense. Gathering on the park outside of the white house at a time they agreed to doesn't do anything and why it's encouraged. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) See US Constitution, Amendment 2 for another example of backing peace with capability of violence to earn respect. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (2 children) I can assure you the US Government is not quaking in their boots at the thought of Billy Bob's basement arsenal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (2 children) Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it. Surely they teach this distinction in military training? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself. I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops. It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago (2 children) I can assure you the US Government is not quaking in their boots at the thought of Billy Bob's basement arsenal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (2 children) Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it. Surely they teach this distinction in military training? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself. I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops. It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (2 children) Especially since those guys are pretty much all lard-asses. There's a reason why every competent military on the planet emphasizes physical fitness before anything else; it's because real combat --as opposed to playing paintball with your fatbody friends-- is one of the most physically and psychologically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it. Surely they teach this distinction in military training? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder. permalink fedilink source parent [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself. I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops. It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (2 children) Indeed. As 101st infantry alumni, I'm well aware. Having been on both sides, military combat arms and a civilian gun owner, I find the 'defense against the government' idea around the 2nd amendment to be laughable. If they thought you were an actual threat they'd drone strike you out of existence, and you'd be a bullet point on an after action report. They own us now and they know it, that's why everything is going to shit, and it's why we were warned about the rise of the IMC. If only my younger self had been educated about that, I may not have joined up. Hmmm maybe there's a link there?!?! I wonder. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it. Surely they teach this distinction in military training? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) But it’s not about defending against the government. It’s about deterring the government. A pufferfish can’t defend against a shark, but by being spiky it deters the shark from attacking it. Surely they teach this distinction in military training? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CarbonatedPastaSauce@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) No they pretty much just taught us how to kill shit. In all seriousness, do you honestly believe that's the case? That the US federal government is deterred by an armed public? Because I don't think they give a shit, at all. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago I mean, with all the armor and shit they wear and the flashbangs and the speedy sweep through a building, it sure seems to me like they're very conscious of the danger of going to get someone. It takes a lot more work and preparation to go grab a US citizen than it does to go grab a pig. A farmer wants a particular pig he isn't putting on armor and tossing flashbangs and going in with backup. Yes, I think the federal government is deterred by an armed public. They don't just casually fuck with people, like that military government in Myanmar fucked with its people. It's a big deal for them, a costly affair, to go up against a house that might have guns in it, and they don't take it lightly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago I think my old man had much the same, or at least somewhat similar thoughts, when he came home from Vietnam. He was a UH1 door-gunner/crew-chief with the 4th ID in the Central Highlands, survived being shot down, was awarded a Distinguished Service Cross, a purple heart, a fistful of air medals and came home with a giant chip on his shoulder. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) That’s funny I thought catching a bullet was one of the most physically punishing activities known to man. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself. I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops. It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) What's funny is you getting defensive about it. Sounds like you might have a fitness issue yourself. I'm not saying that you necessarily are a "disgusting fatbody," (to quote Gny. Sgt. Hartman,) but if you were, that's exactly how you would react to the fact that every competent military on the planet demands high levels of physical fitness of their combat troops. It's just a fact, my dude; you don't last long in real combat if you're heaving and gassed within the first 15 minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) I do have a fitness issue. I was forced to stop working out for a couple of years due to a neurological condition. I've slowly worked up to the point of being able to hike with 15 lbs, without inducing insomnia or adrenaline rushes. It sucks balls. Are you done attacking me personally now? Can we get on with the conversation? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JudgeHolden@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) I'm not attacking you personally. Personally, I wish you nothing but the best. What I'm attacking is the phony mythology that has thousands of fatbodies imagining that being heavily armed is somehow a valid and necessary counter to the possibility of government overreach. It's an objectively absurd and laughable proposition. My dad served with the 4th ID in Vietnam, my grandfather fought from Guadalcanal to Okinawa where his war ended, and then he went on to fight in Korea and survived the clusterfuck that was the Chosin Reservoir. My point is only that such men still exist in the US armed forces, and there is no universe in which "Fatbody Joe McGee" and his airsoft buddies stand a chance against them, no matter how heavily armed they think they are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago You don’t have to win for the guns to make a difference. It’s a red herring. The fact is it helps. Even if it only scares the people on the front lines facing those guns, and the leaders don’t care, it still increases the cost of sending people toward that line. Like, any government agent that hesitates before going into a room to arrest someone has been slowed down by the guns that could be in that room. The person who wrote the order has to consider the guns. The cop who thinks it might be fun to rape some random housewife for the hell of it has to think of those guns. I don’t understand the resistance to acknowledging that getting shot is something people work hard to avoid, and that avoidance includes not threatening or violating a person who has the power to shoot you. It’s very simple. It’s why every animal demos its weapons when cornered: the evolutionary data is in and visibly bearing weapons improves survival. That’s why organisms expend energy growing weapons and then expend more energy waving them around when they’re threatened. It works. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 3 years ago Nor am I quaking in my boots when someone is armed in the same room as me. But I’m not gonna fuck with that person. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (4 children) Yup, the only real revolution is a violent revolution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 years ago (1 child) Violence is a sometimes (even often) unavoidable byproduct of revolution, not an essential characteristic. Don't confuse the two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) George Jackson would disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago And Michael Jackson would disagree-hee-hee. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Zoot@reddthat.com 10 points 3 years ago You know, now that a good portion of people are on Lemmy, it just might be the perfect place to start organizing, whatever you feel that may be... permalink fedilink source parent [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution would suggest otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Okay, when a government has completely collapsed, after the total collapse of the larger global leading entity; a peaceful revolution that results in something completely new, should be the top option. But I don’t think we have that much time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) How much time do you think we have? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal" Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago Sounds like history as usual then. The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening. Personally I’m most worried about starting a family. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) And how the heck do we know that it have any reasonable chance of working out well and that it won't be brutally suppressed or co-opted by reactionaries? And how would anyone even organize such a thing? ~Strawberry permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) We don't have any idea if it will work out or if it'll be snuffed out. However, the lack of purposeful revolution will result in an aimless one, carried on not with thought and intent, but instead as a reaction to the immseration of the world's people as we bake in and are flooded from our homes and cities. The only option is to try as the current hegemony will not solve the problems we face for the problems are a direct result of their desired politics in action. As for organizing one, that's way too long of a conversation to occur here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago So we have no idea if it's even remotely a good idea or if it's likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 years ago (1 child) Violence is a sometimes (even often) unavoidable byproduct of revolution, not an essential characteristic. Don't confuse the two. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) George Jackson would disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago And Michael Jackson would disagree-hee-hee. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) George Jackson would disagree. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago And Michael Jackson would disagree-hee-hee. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RobertOwnageJunior@lemmy.world 7 points 3 years ago And Michael Jackson would disagree-hee-hee. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 10 points 3 years ago You know, now that a good portion of people are on Lemmy, it just might be the perfect place to start organizing, whatever you feel that may be... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution would suggest otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Okay, when a government has completely collapsed, after the total collapse of the larger global leading entity; a peaceful revolution that results in something completely new, should be the top option. But I don’t think we have that much time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) How much time do you think we have? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal" Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago Sounds like history as usual then. The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening. Personally I’m most worried about starting a family. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) Okay, when a government has completely collapsed, after the total collapse of the larger global leading entity; a peaceful revolution that results in something completely new, should be the top option. But I don’t think we have that much time permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) How much time do you think we have? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal" Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago Sounds like history as usual then. The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening. Personally I’m most worried about starting a family. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) How much time do you think we have? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal" Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago Sounds like history as usual then. The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening. Personally I’m most worried about starting a family. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ShakyPerception@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) In my personal (very, very amateur) opinion; less than 10 years, where things keep running as "normal" Humanity is awesome at adapting so I think it'll be a very long time before things become impossible to deal with, but there is going to be a lot of transition and disruption over the next 20+ years permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago Sounds like history as usual then. The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening. Personally I’m most worried about starting a family. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 point 3 years ago Sounds like history as usual then. The thing I’m most worried about would be nuclear weapons, but I’m pretty sure the aliens are preventing that from happening. Personally I’m most worried about starting a family. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago* (1 child) And how the heck do we know that it have any reasonable chance of working out well and that it won't be brutally suppressed or co-opted by reactionaries? And how would anyone even organize such a thing? ~Strawberry permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) We don't have any idea if it will work out or if it'll be snuffed out. However, the lack of purposeful revolution will result in an aimless one, carried on not with thought and intent, but instead as a reaction to the immseration of the world's people as we bake in and are flooded from our homes and cities. The only option is to try as the current hegemony will not solve the problems we face for the problems are a direct result of their desired politics in action. As for organizing one, that's way too long of a conversation to occur here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago So we have no idea if it's even remotely a good idea or if it's likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ckrius@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 3 years ago (1 child) We don't have any idea if it will work out or if it'll be snuffed out. However, the lack of purposeful revolution will result in an aimless one, carried on not with thought and intent, but instead as a reaction to the immseration of the world's people as we bake in and are flooded from our homes and cities. The only option is to try as the current hegemony will not solve the problems we face for the problems are a direct result of their desired politics in action. As for organizing one, that's way too long of a conversation to occur here. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago So we have no idea if it's even remotely a good idea or if it's likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago So we have no idea if it's even remotely a good idea or if it's likely to leave us in a similar position to before or worse, or how to do it? Great plan. ~Strawberry permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mordred@lemmy.world 2 points 3 years ago (2 children) Oh yeah? Tell that to Gandhi permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ilir@lemmygrad.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You are aware that besides Gandhi there was a lot of violent protest? Only violent protest makes the demands of the nonviolent acceptable to the ruling class. Without a violent part of a movement, the demands of the nonviolent are always ignored. Which is perfectly logical, because why accept the demands of someone you can ignore without consequences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mordred@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Disruption can be non violent permalink fedilink source parent [–] theblueredditrefugee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gandhi was a UK agent and delayed Indian independence by decades. Also he was a pedophile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mordred@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Thanks for those insights even if they're not really relevant to what was being discussed permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ilir@lemmygrad.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child) You are aware that besides Gandhi there was a lot of violent protest? Only violent protest makes the demands of the nonviolent acceptable to the ruling class. Without a violent part of a movement, the demands of the nonviolent are always ignored. Which is perfectly logical, because why accept the demands of someone you can ignore without consequences. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mordred@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Disruption can be non violent permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mordred@lemmy.world 1 point 3 years ago Disruption can be non violent permalink fedilink source parent
[–] theblueredditrefugee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 years ago (1 child) Gandhi was a UK agent and delayed Indian independence by decades. Also he was a pedophile. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mordred@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Thanks for those insights even if they're not really relevant to what was being discussed permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mordred@lemmy.world 0 points 3 years ago Thanks for those insights even if they're not really relevant to what was being discussed permalink fedilink source parent