Can America be fixed?

Binaural

Eats Squid
It's a slippery slope to censorship though, and that would play right into Trump and his goons hands with the fake news media. Would Alex Jones take a bum wrap for his president?

The way Reich talks about the constitutional convention it is a serious risk of fucking a lot of people over.
It's not a slippery slope at all - Alex Jones continuously violated the terms of service on commercial distribution platforms and got waxed as a result after ignoring a warning period. No government intervention whatsoever. No rules were changed or undue influence brought to bear.

I'd also suggest that you seem to be under the misapprehension that Trump needs reality to support his inane "press is the enemy of the people" schtick. No matter how often the Washington Post and New York times report news which turns out to be true to immediate and comprehensive denials by the administration, these people are not going to be reasoned out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
 

pink poodle

Our man in Japan
^ Holy shit that's fucking unreal!!! I laughed so hard I farted. Thank you @hifiandmtb you have made my day.

@Binaural - Trump and his cronies can make all the claims they want to about fake news, but they would struggle to enact anything...unless they had wider support. Say an underground news paper suddenly appeared that contained extremist ideas, how wod they deal with that? Given the right to a free press etc. I don't know how that works in their system.

While Jones has effectively shut himself out (the bits and pieces of him I've glimpsed are bizarre at best) through his unusual form of entertainment, it seems to me the sort of stuff that could be sited as evidence of the negative impact of fake news. You know, news that is circulated without official proof/truth that may need to be provided from a government authority or is perhaps reviewed at random like a drug test by a government authority with the relevant information body facing punishment for not- truth. A bit like our advertising standards perhaps. Wild hypothesising I know but there is currently moves to actively restrict access to information or news being driven by the fake news issue, Facebook is the main example I can think of. If I make no more posts...you know they've locked onto my position and nabbed me.
 

moorey

Boom!
#fakenews...given that Trump now admits he lies to the media and the American people...but not to the judicial system under oath...so that’s ok. #realnews
 

Binaural

Eats Squid
@pink poodle - to use someone else's words, Jones is an example of the paradox of tolerance, per Karl Popper:

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

Hard to say better than that why you can't be too purist when dealing with the sorts of people who would harass and defame the parents of dead children in order to aggrandise themselves.
 

rowdyflat

chez le médecin
People like Alex Jones who expound such crap to dumb vulnerable people should be shut down .
Someone in my town soaks up that alt right crap , if he went on at me I would tell him to eat a bag.
Its not a matter of free speech when you harm others.
 

Oddjob

Wheel size expert
@pink poodle - to use someone else's words, Jones is an example of the paradox of tolerance, per Karl Popper:

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

Hard to say better than that why you can't be too purist when dealing with the sorts of people who would harass and defame the parents of dead children in order to aggrandise themselves.
I'm intolerant of dumb people and would happily use Karl Popper as an excuse to introduce eugen-I mean licenses for children.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 

moorey

Boom!
People like Alex Jones who expound such crap to dumb vulnerable people should be shut down .
Someone in my town soaks up that alt right crap , if he went on at me I would tell him to eat a bag.
Its not a matter of free speech when you harm others.
It’s like the anti-vax movement and homeopathy among other things.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Might be an interesting read, if anyone gives a shit:


Do gun-free zones prevent mass shootings, or encourage them? The truth is, no one has enough good evidence to say for sure.

America spends more research money studying hernias and peptic ulcers than it does studying gun violence. As a result, we don't know whether assault-weapon bans reduce homicides, or whether better background checks might prevent accidental shootings. We don't even know how many guns are circulating in the United States right now.

A two-year study of gun policy in America by researchers at RAND found the following:

  • The evidence for or against most major gun policy proposals is weak, inconclusive, contradictory, or entirely nonexistent. We don't even have a shared set of facts on basic questions. How many mass shootings were there in 2015? Depending on the definition, estimates range from 7 to 371.

  • The strongest evidence supports safe storage laws meant to keep firearms out of the hands of children. But even there, the lack of research makes it hard to anticipate any tradeoffs, such as hindering defensive gun use.

  • For all the fury of the debate, the pro- and anti-gun control sides appear to share many of the same objectives when it comes to gun policy. They differ over which policies will best achieve those objectives. That's a question of fact that better research could answer.
https://www.rand.org/blog/rand-review/2018/07/more-research-could-help-prevent-gun-violence-in-america.html







...., worse than Hitler.
 

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
every time.JPG
every single time.JPG
every single fucking time.JPG


We won't reduce suicide, but we'll reduce how many suicides kill themselves with a gun!
We won't reduce violent crime or homicides, but at least they won't be with a gun!

Also, Obama lifted the federalfunding ban into gun research in 2013, and instructed the CDC to begin a report on it. He also secured $10m in funding for the CDC to carry this out, and the National Institute of Health got another $18m in research grants for firearm and crime studies in the three years proceeding this order. These reports are readily available and worth a read.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
We won't reduce suicide, but we'll reduce how many suicides kill themselves with a gun!
We won't reduce violent crime or homicides, but at least they won't be with a gun!
Does the report say that? I couldn't find it but I didn't go through with a fine tooth comb on it yet.
 

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
Does the report say that? I couldn't find it but I didn't go through with a fine tooth comb on it yet.
All of these are word for word quotes:

Child-access prevention laws may decrease total suicides.
Evidence for this relationship is limited.​
Child-access prevention laws may decrease firearm self-injuries (including suicides).
Evidence for this relationship is supportive.
Background checks may decrease violent crime and total homicides.
Evidence for this relationship is limited.​
Dealer background checks may decrease firearm homicides.
Evidence for this relationship is moderate.​

Background checks may decrease total suicides.
Evidence for this relationship is limited.​
Background checks may decrease firearm suicides.
Evidence for this relationship is moderate.
 

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
I assume there's a legend in there that quantifies what limited, supportive, moderate, etc. I'll have to look it up.

Not sure if it's what you're implying but I don't think that these findings are the end to any argument either. There's nothing to say that if access to guns are limited that people won't just as quickly find another, just as effective way to commit suicide, homocide, etc., just as there is nothing to say that they will either. "A" may or may not directly lead to "B".


I get to hang out with this guy for a couple of weeks pretty soon. He got pilloried by some sectors of US society for stating fact in response to a question. I'm sure the issue will arise as I am confident that there will be another mass shooting in the US in those couple of weeks. Should be interesting.
 

Zaf

Gearbox Frother
The majority of gun deaths are suicides, and restricting access to firearms stops firearm related suicide, but doesn't drop the overall rate of suicide. And this has been previously demonstrated in the thread, through fairly robust statistics, in a multitude of countries. Logically as well, suicide is an impulse and (at least statistically) is not prevented by limited access to methods; people in that position will find a way.

I think it also comes with an implication that there are "types of death" that are undesirable compared to others, and that killing yourself with a gun is worse than hanging, poisoning, drowning, suffocating, or jumping to your death. A restriction in this regard is largely targeting a symptom, and not a cause and will only achieve changing a trend within the issue.

There's also a discrepancy with reporting on mass shooting events, and we've tackled this previously. The RAMP article linked does address that to a small degree, to quote them directly "How many mass shootings were there in 2015? Depending on the definition, estimates range from 7 to 371." And the discrepancies aren't limited to definitions, restricted reporting on firearm related homicide without mentioning overall homicide. There's seemingly no correlation between ownership rates and firearm homicide rates, as we already know the vast majority of homicides (not just firearms related) are condensed to low-socioeconomic, urban population centers with high black populations and are gang related. This has again, been demonstrated through demographics of homicide victims and perpetrators.

More research is always a good thing, and I completely support that conclusion of the article. But we've had a whole lot of extra, well funded research put in the past half a decade the federal gov't has been allowed to inject money into it.

GO v GC.JPG


Here's a little plot I just did using the Gun Ownership rates reported by Injury Prevention and the Homicide rate for each state from Wikipedia. The R-squared value for that line of fit is 0.0778.
 
Last edited:
Top