If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

Citizens in China simply don't have that many guns. Switzerland allows and encourages widespread gun ownership, but that ownership is strictly regulated and monitored.

 

[Dak]

Citizens in China simply don't have that many guns. Switzerland allows and encourages widespread gun ownership, but that ownership is strictly regulated and monitored.

Wouldn't restricted ownership be a part of regulation?

 

[Einherjar86]

Chinese regulation is virtually a ban. I distinguish bans from regulated ownership.

 

[rms]

All I was suggesting is that more guns do tend to result in a higher rate of violent crime (and Switzerland does in fact have a higher rate of gun crime than China, if I'm not mistaken).

you're just evading the claim, though. i don't understand why. and to just say "china vs. usa" is pretty disingenuous

Switzerland allows and encourages widespread gun ownership, but that ownership is strictly regulated and monitored.

last i read/heard/saw, Swiss forces all men to own a gun for militia purposes...but Switzerland or Canada directly counter your own claim here so I don't know what is going on

 

[Einherjar86]

you're just evading the claim, though. i don't understand why. and to just say "china vs. usa" is pretty disingenuous

Why are you making this so complicated? I'm not evading the claim, I stated the claim. Then I reiterated the claim. What am I evading? And how am I being disingenuous? I cannot comprehend your nonsense.

last i read/heard/saw, Swiss forces all men to own a gun for militia purposes...but Switzerland or Canada directly counter your own claim here so I don't know what is going on

Yeah I don't know either, this is a real chore.

 

[rms]

I cannot comprehend your nonsense.

jesus christ. imagine if you said this:

"My original claim was that the increase population of blacks will lead to a higher rate of violent incidents"

(from)

My original claim was that the proliferation of guns (i.e. their increase in number) will lead to a higher rate of violent incidents

and then when one asks why the hell do black people make a community more violent you just respond with "all I was suggesting is that more blacks tends to a higher rate of violence"

(from)

All I was suggesting is that more guns do tend to result in a higher rate of violent crime

these claims need some sort of logical background or else it's just fucking dumb

 

[Dak]

Chinese regulation is virtually a ban. I distinguish bans from regulated ownership.

Interesting. I wonder if that's common among more US liberal types? Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, I see regulation on a continuum, bans being on one end and zero related laws on the other.

 

[Einherjar86]

these claims need some sort of logical background or else it's just fucking dumb

More guns tend to correlate to more violent incidents. Likewise, a higher-density black population tends to correlate to more violent incidents (percentage-wise).

These aren't the same as saying that black people are inherently more violent, or that guns inherently make people more violent. These are observations with various factors involved.

You want me to explain these underlying factors, but I'm not prepared to. All I'm prepared to do is make the observation, which I made.

Switzerland is a notable exception, but I did acknowledge the extent of regulations in that country.

Interesting. I wonder if that's common among more US liberal types? Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, I see regulation on a continuum, bans being on one end and zero related laws on the other.

That's fair, but I'm of the opinion that bans will not solve the problem (or if it will, it will result in other problems; I don't think China is a beacon of political liberty--nor is the U.S., but I firmly believe that banning guns will only make things worse). I am of the opinion that certain regulations and attitude adjustments can ameliorate the issues, so I distinguish between bans and regulation.

I'm not sure how many others of the leftist persuasion share this perspective.

 

[Dak]

That's fair, but I'm of the opinion that bans will not solve the problem (or if it will, it will result in other problems; I don't think China is a beacon of political liberty--nor is the U.S., but I firmly believe that banning guns will only make things worse). I am of the opinion that certain regulations and attitude adjustments can ameliorate the issues, so I distinguish between bans and regulation.

I'm not sure how many others of the leftist persuasion share this perspective.

You probably already know this, but the main sticking point between even "moderates/center-left" and pro-gun/anti-regulation persons is the necessity of a national and/or state registry to make regulation truly work. The problem with a registry is it puts an easily enforceable seizure/ban always one EO or "crisis" driven Congressional vote away. I know this sounds "slippery slopeish", but I think it's a very reasonable fear.

 

[Einherjar86]

I sympathize with that perspective, I just don't see it as a plausible outcome barring some massive cultural revolution (and I use that phrase intentionally--the reason citizens are mostly barred from owning guns in China has to do largely with its political and economic history).

The political and economic topography of the U.S., as divided as it is, virtually prohibits a central government from enacting widespread bans and confiscation. If it did, we would have organized retaliation. But aside from that, plenty of democrats own guns and don't want to give them up. The mentality about guns in this country is very much a product of its economic history, and, for better or worse, public opinion is way too volatile to even begin pursuing prohibitory measures.

Furthermore, there are examples of countries with strong centralized regulation with widespread gun ownership (and I'm thinking again here of Switzerland--again, this practice seems quite grounded in the country's political and economic history).

 

[Dak]

I sympathize with that perspective, I just don't see it as a plausible outcome barring some massive cultural revolution (and I use that phrase intentionally--the reason citizens are mostly barred from owning guns in China has to do largely with its political and economic history).

The political and economic topography of the U.S., as divided as it is, virtually prohibits a central government from enacting widespread bans and confiscation. If it did, we would have organized retaliation. But aside from that, plenty of democrats own guns and don't want to give them up. The mentality about guns in this country is very much a product of its economic history, and, for better or worse, public opinion is way too volatile to even begin pursuing prohibitory measures.

Furthermore, there are examples of countries with strong centralized regulation with widespread gun ownership (and I'm thinking again here of Switzerland--again, this practice seems quite grounded in the country's political and economic history).

I think it's fair to assert that at this point in history the US is quite a bit more divided politically than Switzerland may ever have been, both politically and geographically. But that aside, there's been plenty of hubbub in the news this year about banning semi-automatic weapons. It's not going anywhere at the moment, but that it's being floated by some as "common sense" (a 80%+ gun ban effectively, with a SWAG as to percentages) tells me there's risk.

 

[Dak]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/sports/track-gender-rules.html?smid=tw-share

Advocates for intersex athletes like to say that sex doesn’t divide neatly. This may be true in gender studies departments, but at least for competitive sports purposes, they are simply wrong. Sex in this context is easy to define and the lines are cleanly drawn: You either have testes and testosterone in the male range or you don’t. As the I.A.A.F.’s rules provide, a simple testosterone test establishes this fact one way or the other.

Testosterone throughout the life cycle, including puberty, is the reason the best elite females are not competitive in competition against elite males. This 10- to 12-percent sex-based performance gap is well documented by sports and exercise scientists alike. But it isn’t the most important performance gap. Rather, that’s the mundane fact that many nonelite males routinely outperform the best elite females.

 

[Dak]

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/05/effect-corporate-taxation-investment.html

Among the 130 companies in the S&P 500 that have reported results in this earnings season, capital spending increased by 39 percent, the fastest rate in seven years, data compiled by UBS AG show. Meanwhile, returns to shareholders are growing at a much slower pace, with net buybacks rising 16 percent. Dividends saw an 11 percent boost.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Ugh is George Mason soooo bankrolled by the Koch Brothers. We'll see how it pans how in any case. As much as I opposed the tax cuts, I wasn't exactly against cutting the corporate rate (not that any of the giants ever paid anywhere near the old rate, nor will they being paying the full current rate). Much better would have been an increase on high income to offset some of the hit on the deficit.

 

[Dak]

Ugh is George Mason soooo bankrolled by the Koch Brothers. We'll see how it pans how in any case. As much as I opposed the tax cuts, I wasn't exactly against cutting the corporate rate (not that any of the giants ever paid anywhere near the old rate, nor will they being paying the full current rate). Much better would have been an increase on high income to offset some of the hit on the deficit.

My experience has been that the same people who think invoking the name of Soros is stupid conspiracy theorizing will also invoke the Koch Brothers at the drop of a hat. The research cited was not done at/by professors at George Mason/the Mercatus Center.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

My experience has been that the same people who think invoking the name of Soros is stupid conspiracy theorizing will also invoke the Koch Brothers at the drop of a hat. The research cited was not done at/by professors at George Mason/the Mercatus Center.

Please. One is the parroting of tropes in echo of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (often adding as well that Soros is an accomplice in the holocaust while simultaneously denying the holocaust without the faintest awareness of contradiction), and the other involves actual billionaire reactionaries looking to enrich themselves personally at the expense of social and economic equity.

I'll admit that's not quite a fair analysis, but we'll never agree anyways, so I may as well get my rocks off a little

 

[Dak]

Please. One is the parroting of tropes in echo of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (often adding as well that Soros is an accomplice in the holocaust while simultaneously denying the holocaust without the faintest awareness of contradiction), and the other involves actual billionaire reactionaries looking to enrich themselves personally at the expense of social and economic equity.

I'll admit that's not quite a fair analysis, but we'll never agree anyways, so I may as well get my rocks off a little

Well I'll easily agree that the Koch brothers are not contributing resources towards a goal of outcomes equity in any given domain. Such a goal would be a fool's errand in even the most charitable of terms, with the caveat that by fool's errand I don't mean it cannot be rather easily achieved. Global nuclear war would provide an efficient and rapid transformation of the globe to a more economically and socially equitable state.

 

[rms]

http://www.nydailynews.com/amp/spor...t-article-1.3967964?__twitter_impression=true


“When I’d have a list of potential freshmen, the first question I’d be asked is if they were white or black,” he said. “I was confused about why the question was, ‘How can we get more white players in the program or on the field?’”

 

[Dak]

Weird right? No one has a problem with the overrepresentation of black athletes in football and basketball. In fact to do so is apparently racist. I mean, I'm not bothered by it, but I am not a member of the equality religion.

 

[Dak]

I missed this the other day.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/karl-marx-at-200-influence.html

Racial and sexual oppression have been added to the dynamic of class exploitation. Social justice movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, owe something of an unspoken debt to Marx through their unapologetic targeting of the “eternal truths” of our age. Such movements recognize, as did Marx, that the ideas that rule every society are those of its ruling class and that overturning those ideas is fundamental to true revolutionary progress.

We have become used to the go-getting mantra that to effect social change we first have to change ourselves. But enlightened or rational thinking is not enough, since the norms of thinking are already skewed by the structures of male privilege and social hierarchy, even down to the language we use. Changing those norms entails changing the very foundations of society.

To cite Marx, “No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.”

The transition to a new society where relations among people, rather than capital relations, finally determine an individual’s worth is arguably proving to be quite a task. Marx, as I have said, does not offer a one-size-fits-all formula for enacting social change. But he does offer a powerful intellectual acid test for that change. On that basis, we are destined to keep citing him and testing his ideas until the kind of society that he struggled to bring about, and that increasing numbers of us now desire, is finally realized.