Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



Miso Beno posted:

Dead link

Edit: looks like they got cease and desisted based on the duckduckgo cache.

I got you: http://archive.is/lRvwi

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



Can we do popular guntubers? Did iraqveteran8888 ever explain what all those 88s mean? I rewatched the Forgotten Weapons with Larry Vickers and the Rhodesian FAL and I don't see any signs Ian is uncomfortable. I see him nodding along and agreeing with Larry that it's sad that the Rhodesians lost, and then continuing to make future videos with him.

mlmp08 posted:

Gaston Glock’s son

You mean glockstore owner Lenny Magill's son. And in the chat logs, the kid is saying he learned it from dad.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



Jehde posted:

This is a habitual mannerism thing, not a white supremacist approval thing. Fairly sure Ian is nodding in response that he has received and understood what Larry has said, not that he agrees and supports with what he says. He does this in basically all the interviews he conducts. The extreme of this nodding mannerism is actually interjecting with "uh-huh" "sure" and other sorts of vague acknowledgments. It's common as hell amongst WASP type people here and it's something I catch doing myself and try to suppress. Ian can actually be a good interviewer in how neutral he is. He's not there to chat, he's there to get the insight of the interviewee.

However, he still gives Vickers a platform by featuring him in random stuff. Vickers is a notable name in firearm development history, and he can have insight to offer when he's not talking about "the good old days". But he is still a rhodesia nostalgist. Calling him a cold warrior is a good descriptor.

Capn Beeb posted:

Ian's response was 100% nod and let the dipshit spew, do not engage otherwise we'll be here for five hours. His response to the video, locking the comments on that video in particular, and being asked about b-b-b-but what about the black menace rampaging against the white man indicate that he's firmly "shut the gently caress up about white genocide you idiot". He even told someone directly to get their news from a different source if they believe that.

Ian good, Karl good.

I'm not sold. Ian brings up the political angle to begin with. Ian is the one who offers up the tut-tutting observation that they went from a [racist illegal white minority apartheid] government "that was not good for a lot of people to a government that was not good for anybody." I assume he turned the comments off because they were full of *overt* white supremacy. But the video itself is still up. And he still continues to make new videos with Vickers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7sQL9Rx4io#t=831s

I really like FW and InRange too and appreciate Ian's response to the South Africa stuff. But I'm trying to set aside the fact that I already like Ian and look at this Rhodesia video objectively and it looks not great. Relative to totenkopfs rollmarks and poo poo, it's a lot less cut and dried, so I'm willing to let it go, but it puts me on edge.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

how the publicity of assassinations spurred other assassins to act.

Fearless posted:

seeing someone else breach that taboo makes it much easier for others to follow through.

This is a good piece that gets into that idea:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence

Everyone who hasn't already should read the whole thing, but here's the thesis:

quote:

But Granovetter thought it was a mistake to focus on the decision-making processes of each rioter in isolation. In his view, a riot was not a collection of individuals, each of whom arrived independently at the decision to break windows. A riot was a social process, in which people did things in reaction to and in combination with those around them. Social processes are driven by our thresholds—which he defined as the number of people who need to be doing some activity before we agree to join them. In the elegant theoretical model Granovetter proposed, riots were started by people with a threshold of zero—instigators willing to throw a rock through a window at the slightest provocation. Then comes the person who will throw a rock if someone else goes first. He has a threshold of one. Next in is the person with the threshold of two. His qualms are overcome when he sees the instigator and the instigator’s accomplice. Next to him is someone with a threshold of three, who would never break windows and loot stores unless there were three people right in front of him who were already doing that—and so on up to the hundredth person, a righteous upstanding citizen who nonetheless could set his beliefs aside and grab a camera from the broken window of the electronics store if everyone around him was grabbing cameras from the electronics store.

Granovetter was most taken by the situations in which people did things for social reasons that went against everything they believed as individuals. “Most did not think it ‘right’ to commit illegal acts or even particularly want to do so,” he wrote, about the findings of a study of delinquent boys. “But group interaction was such that none could admit this without loss of status; in our terms, their threshold for stealing cars is low because daring masculine acts bring status, and reluctance to join, once others have, carries the high cost of being labeled a sissy.” You can’t just look at an individual’s norms and motives. You need to look at the group.

His argument has a second implication. We misleadingly use the word “copycat” to describe contagious behavior—implying that new participants in an epidemic act in a manner identical to the source of their infection. But rioters are not homogeneous. If a riot evolves as it spreads, starting with the hotheaded rock thrower and ending with the upstanding citizen, then rioters are a profoundly heterogeneous group.

Finally, Granovetter’s model suggests that riots are sometimes more than spontaneous outbursts. If they evolve, it means they have depth and length and a history. Granovetter thought that the threshold hypothesis could be used to describe everything from elections to strikes, and even matters as prosaic as how people decide it’s time to leave a party. He was writing in 1978, long before teen-age boys made a habit of wandering through their high schools with assault rifles. But what if the way to explain the school-shooting epidemic is to go back and use the Granovetterian model—to think of it as a slow-motion, ever-evolving riot, in which each new participant’s action makes sense in reaction to and in combination with those who came before?

frunksock fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Aug 11, 2019

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



If all I had to go on was my own social media feed, I'd assume the writing was on the wall for ARs, and that support for banning them had been slowly building over the past 25 years, and especially over the past 5-10, leading to a majority now in favor of a new ban. But polling shows the opposite:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243860/snapshot-majority-oppose-ban-assault-rifles.aspx

A really bad mass shooting will cause a big but temporary shift of support in favor of a AWB, but then it fairly quickly recedes back to its 25 year trend of steadily and slowly *losing* support. And this is just assault weapons, not all mag-fed semi-auto rifles, which will be much tougher sledding, both constitutionally and politically. My friends and coworkers are mostly all "yeah, ban those too," people, but that doesn't seem to be where the country's at, or even the way it's necessarily tending.

All of that said, if there were another Sandy Hook today, and it happened while congress were in session, I think you *could* see an AWB pass. I think one could have happened after Sandy Hook if they'd gone for it immediately. The first really awful mass shooting of 2021 is the more likely time, though.

If we want to keep guns legal longer term, we need more gun owners, and particularly gun owners in demographics that aren't already declining as a proportion of the population, like 'white and rural.' Towards that end, one of the best things we can do is work on cleaning up gun culture to be less alienating to people who aren't already on the inside. I.e., part of the original intent of this thread, I guess.

NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

And it can be hard to sort that poo poo out, even if you're making an active, conscious effort to root around in the junk drawer of your own brain. Rooting around in someone else's is harder.

By thinking about their perspective and what's important to them, you ( hopefully ) manage to slowly crack open the drawer and reach the spatula of empathy, whereas if you tried to just jerk it open, you'd be foiled by the kitchen tongs of ingrained response.

I don't really have anything to say about the rest of your post, but I just wanna call out the top-shelf metaphor work you put in here, since no one else did.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002




Fox News polls are generally as legit as anyone else's. But note the dates. Those polls are: immediately after Sandy Hook, shortly after Sandy Hook, shortly after Parkland, and immediately after El Paso. The UBC numbers are relative firm. but the AWB numbers are soft and spike up after an especially bad mass shooting and then recede back to this trend:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243860/snapshot-majority-oppose-ban-assault-rifles.aspx

Like I said, you could definitely still get one passed in the wake of one of these especially bad mass shootings, though.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



NerdyMcNerdNerd posted:

explaining to them that they really ought to vote at a local and federal level in their best interests and why it is in their best interests and how various social issues, even ones that don't impact them directly, are bad should hardly be a controversial idea.

This is the part that can often sound and feel extremely patronizing. I used to say stuff like this and now cringe thinking about it. Presuming to know what's in someone else's best interests, or what's most important to them politically and why is something that you should use like dumptrucks full of humility and empathy to attempt, if you should even attempt it at all. Like a Die Hard III sized dumptruck convoy.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



A Wizard of Goatse posted:

as opposed to what, assuming they fully understand their own desires and have irreconcilably set themselves against your own interests and cannot be rationally persuaded, only subjugated or destroyed? Of loving course a political discussion involves talking about what's really in the other party's best interests. If you feel patronized by someone suggesting you're wrong about your positions, consider that nobody else is gonna bother talk to you about what you want before going ahead and doing whatever they've already decided you deserve

I can't untangle most of this but yeah, start out on the presumption that any given person knows their own interests better than you do, and that they're doing their best to vote accordingly. Obviously tons of people are total loving idiots who have no idea what they want, why they want it, or how to get it, but it can be patronizing to enter a conversation on that presumption.

Presume they're at least as informed as you are, but might care about things you're not thinking of, or (rightly or wrongly) believe a given problem has a different root cause and therefore a different solution than you think it does. You might contend it's obvious that someone who depends on program X and straight-ticket votes for the party that wants to destroy program X is 'voting against their interests.' But they're voting against *that* interest (maybe), not necessarily all of their interests. I routinely knowingly 'vote against my interests.'

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



The platform vs. publisher distinction is usually more about whether the company is legally responsible for the stuff it hosts. Like, can Disney sue YouTube when someone uploads Endgame? If YouTube is a platform, then no, because it can't reasonably be held responsible for what any one of its billions of users does any given second. If it's a publisher, then yes, because it specifically chose what to host. I assume that the more editorial control a company uses in selecting what it hosts, the harder it is for it to claim it's a platform, but I don't know where the line is.

I would be OK with deplatforming if there weren't a very small corporate oligarchy doing it (and in a coordinated way). I'm fine with SA banning whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants. I'm not fine with seven billionaires having the power to mostly silence whomever they want without any transparency. We might all be happy about who's getting deplatformed today, but that's because of course it'd start with people and ideas nearly everyone hates. The phenomenon is still troubling. I don't really care whether we call it censorship or not. It doesn't matter as much to me whether or not it's the government doing it when the result is the same: entrenched power opaquely deciding what information we're exposed to. In some ways we have more direct control over the government than the owners of this effective monopoly.

I think the root problem is that this effective monopoly exists. But as long as it does, I'm not comfortable with it deciding what political speech is [allowed / available / accessible / discoverable]. I'm hand-waving the last word because there's a million shades of grey there, too. Since you can host a video without ever showing it in recommendations, or without monetizing it, or letting it turn up in searches, etc.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



Target Practice posted:

I think the whole issue of censorsing one point of view versus another kind of breaks down for a lot of these issues. Like it or not, there are some viewpoints that are objectively, categorically bad; and by extension there are objectively, categorically good viewpoints.

LGBT rights, immigrant rights, reproductive rights, and many others are Human Rights. These are objectively good and correct policies that millions of people and dozens of other countries in the civilized world have acknowledged and embraced. There is no room in a decent country for debate over these things. None. The same goes for climate change, or disgust for authoritarian violence.

So should Milo or that Kent State piece of poo poo be silenced at every opportunity? Yes. Fox News dismantled by SOMEBODY for being an agent of disinformation and dangerous propaganda? Absolutely.

There is no better place to witness the alternative than social media. White nationalism is allowed to flourish and spread it's hate as far as it can using true believers and bots. Sure, every once in a blue moon some dipshit will get a suspension, but it's the left that is silenced en masse. The government backs this. The ruling class backs this.

That's why for what I would say is the majority of these issues, is bring on the loving censorship in any form that we can get. Censor the hate and the lies and make way for people to move forward. Because that's what's being done to the people who are trying to bring this country into the light. They are being silenced and intimidated.

It bums me out that "bring on the loving censorship" and "yeah, the state should dismantle a news organization" takes seem to be becoming more mainstream. Even though I bet I mostly agree with you on the particulars of all those issues you list, I disagree that there's no room for debate on any of them or that people on the wrong side of those debates should be silenced. I understand it's exhausting to feel you have to keep defending ground that shouldn't even be in question, and that you feel like you might lose because you're fighting fair and they aren't. But giving the government and/or Mark Zuckerberg control over our discourse isn't a good solution.

Note that some (most?) of the people who feel the same way you do about this also have guns on that list of no-debate / silence-dissenters issues.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



poeticoddity posted:

I'd like to offer some insight into your Roy Moore comment as someone who lives in a district that overwhelmingly voted for him:

Did people generally accept the allegations as true? I assumed that a big part of the reason he still got so many votes was that people believed his accusers (and the media) were just lying.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



I wonder if mlmp and Parfait have different ideas of what "alt right" means. There was a time earlyish in the 2016 election when there were competing ideas of what it meant. There were people who thought it meant, roughly, Trumpism: nationalism (but not white nationalism), isolationism, and a conservative rejection of neo-conservatism. And then there was the definition that ultimately won out: white nationalism, literal naziism, etc.

But the actual alt-right seems really small. The number of people actually carrying tiki torches under nazi flags was what, dozens? A hundred? And that was supposed to be the big 'all the white nationalists in the country show up' event. Charlottesville II was even more poorly-attended. Every time they have one of these, it's like a few dozen nazis and hundreds / thousands of counter-protestors.

They want to be seen as big and powerful and growing, and that's part of why they found common cause with the Clinton campaign in portraying Trump's movement as being the same (or at least allied) with their movement. People are herd animals and gravitate towards movements they think are strong and/or growing. The alt-right want to make you think that's what they are because it's good for recruitment. And some people opposed to Trump want to make you think Trump's movement is an overt white supremacist movement because real* white supremacy is still actually very politically unpopular.

I say "real" white supremacy is politically unpopular because there's another kind of ambient white supremacy sort of woven into the fabric of the country that white people aren't necessarily conscious of even as they enjoy its benefits. And that's real, but it's also something distinct from marching under a white power flag or advocating for white separatism. It's useful to shine a light on each of these, but it's not useful to pretend they're the same, have the same immediate causes, or the same solutions (outside of the ways it may be cynically politically useful to various groups to pretend this).

IMO this is kind of the fallacy of the cartoon. The idea isn't that calling someone racist makes them into a nazi. It's that calling those 'normal' ambiently-racist people literal nazis makes them hate you and see you as an existential enemy, and helps normalize the literal nazis by blurring the line between them and the basic racists. If you tell someone who's racist at the level of "all lives matter" that they're the same as someone at level 1488 and treat them accordingly, I think (maybe) you do actually risk strengthening the actual nazis. Partly by, like I said, overstating their numbers and strength, but *maybe* also partly by making it easier for the "all lives matter" guy to self-radicalize by leaving that as the path of least resistance / most acceptance, and giving him common cause in the form of a common enemy.

Even this happens (and I dunno if it does), it's of course still the nazi's own fault for walking down that path. And it doesn't mean we should be accepting of either literal nazism *or* basic racism.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



Internet Wizard posted:

SF proper is the kind of city that buys robots to chase homeless people rather than paying for social services.

Shooting Blanks posted:

SF is particularly ugly. It's also the first city I'm aware of that started designing features on park benches and around buildings to make it impossible for the homeless to sleep there. With housing policy having been completely destroyed by boomers over the past 20 years and the aforementioned techbros, it's really the epitome of FYGM.

Capn Beeb posted:

That's liberalism, babes. Housing for the homeless? Nah just spend that money on police robots and keep gentrifying the place.

I'd guess SF spends more (per resident) on permanent housing for the homeless than anywhere else, at least in the US. It's where most of our homelessness budget goes, and we have a relatively large homelessness budget -- even before we just passed a referendum for a new tax to double it. Part of the reason homelessness is more visible in SF than in some other cities is that we have a particularly high percentage of 'chronic' homeless: people who have a debilitating addiction or mental illness that makes them far more likely to stay homeless. While a city like NYC has roughly the same homelessness rate, they're proportionally a lot more 'transitory' homeless than in SF: people who might temporarily need shelter and assistance but then exit homelessness.

I'm not saying we're doing enough, or that the juxtaposition of that homelessness with the extreme wealth that's also here isn't gross, but it's wrong to single out SF as a place that's not spending on homelessness.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



I'm not onboard with the "ok gesture = nazi" thing. OK gestures are like 99% people just making ok gestures, .999% idiots trolling, like, "haha im ownin the sjws who fell for the 4chan hoax and think everyone's a nazi," and maybe .001% people who might actually be nazis. I'm just gonna assume everyone's in one of the first two groups unless there's a good reason to think otherwise.

In this case it's pretty clearly a caricature of how he uses his hands when he talks.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



Owlbear Camus posted:

This is a distinction without difference.

In 2020 there is zero daylight between being an "ironic" Nazi and a sincere Nazi.

I don't think they're being ironic nazis. It's more that they're making fun of people who (they think) think everyone to the right of Mitt Romney is a nazi. To be clear, they're still idiots.

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



Cyrano4747 posted:

Like, here's how my head is going.

Nazi flag/prominent swastika display / KKK iconography >>> Kekistan poo poo (today) >> "OK Sign" in a specifically political / online/ gun show / etc. context >>> 3%er stuff> confederate flag / wehrmacht poo poo <> Kekistan poo poo (three years ago) >>>> Molon Labe / Sparta / Warrior Culture crap >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> general "gun culture" cringe poo poo <> "OK sign" in general use seen on the street or something

I'm with you except I have the 'OK sign at a gun show / political context' down well below the confederate flag because even in those contexts, I'll default to reading it as "trollin the sjws who think everyone's a nazi" rather than as signaling white power (ironic or otherwise). Whereas I read flying the confederate flag as explicitly racist.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

frunksock
Feb 21, 2002



Cyrano4747 posted:

Eh, I've hung around enough old dudes who are just into collecting confederate or WW2 poo poo that I don't see it as explicitly racist.

Now, I should have been more specific about the context there. There's a huge, HUGE difference between the guy with a stars and bars bumper sticker and the one with a framed 150 year old flag on display in his study. In the gun show context I was thinking more the collector types than the ones flying it from their trucks.

Yeah I meant more the bumper sticker guys than collectors / re-enactors / whatever, though I'm suspicious of some of those guys too. Like, is nazi / confederate stuff the only stuff you collect? Why? What specifically does it mean to you to have a framed slaver flag hanging in your study? Etc.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply