I feel like it should be noted that the western pressure campaign to get rid of Netanyahu forced him to rely even more on people like Ben Gvir and other Hadreem, which allowed them to extract concessions in regards to expanding the settlements.
Like just from a place of pure competency it was an awful strategy. If Schumer has said something like “Israel has a right to defend itself, but the US refuses to help the IDF so long as they violate court orders and refuse to draft Hadreem” Bibi would have been gone.
I just don’t get the sense that the US State Department has a fundamental understanding of Israeli Politics, or the internal politics of most middle eastern nations. Without that knowledge projecting soft power becomes so much harder.
`According to the report, Kindred created a hostile work environment by incessantly "discuss[ing] his past dating life, his romantic preferences, his sex life, the law clerks’ boyfriends and dating lives, his divorce, his interest in and communications with potential romantic or sexual partners, and his disparaging opinions of his colleagues. He also made disparaging comments about public and political figures. Some examples of these comments include: 'I was a huge hit at dinner Partly due to how much s--- I talked about Sarah Palin'; 'I told a republican [state] senator to eat a d---'; and '[a senator] is worried that I can kick [] his a--.'"
Why can't this happen to at least two SCOTUS jurists?
This is one of the most upsetting things in American news in the past couple of years and it barely gets any attention. These regular protesters, who are doing the good work of the people to protect us from authoritarianism, are being charged with domestic terrorism. This whole situation is insane.
The fact that the police are even being provided funding and real estate in order to practice urban warfare is disgusting enough. And then to charge those who protest it with terrorism? Who are the terrorists here, really?
From the side of the article's title's perspective, it makes sense because some politicians are in fact trying to put mask bans in place in order to make it easier to identify "suspects". Because it's harder to recognize people's faces when they have a mask on. So yeah, it makes sense. It's just awful.
What is this picture supposed to be of? A man who is depressed about his eyes being different colors? I can't tell how it's supposed to be related to the article.
In this case the backlash is from the gay community to a (stupid) member of the gay community, so saying it’s a leopards-eating-faces party (lefp) member getting their face eaten would mean the gay community is the lefp right? I don’t think that’s what the lefp meme is about
This person supports policies that hurt themselves and their peers. Now their peers are angry with them for supporting things that hurt them. They are being hurt by the result of what they support.
That’s not leopards eating faces though. That’s a guy voting for the leopards-eating-faces party and getting his shit rocked by his fellow citizens for endangering them.
Yeah, but in this case it’s not the leopards eating their face (yet). They’ve voted for the leopards, people are angry at them for it, but so far the leopards have only eaten other peoples faces
Eh, then you could say voting progressive and getting attacked by your conservative community would count as leopards eating face, since you’re getting hurt by the result of what you support.
The meme is about voting for the harm and being directly harmed by the policy voted for, like if someone voted to ban abortions and then couldn’t get one when they needed it. Voting to ban abortions and then getting backlash from your friends is not leopards eating face (yet) either
This guy is voting not only to have his own face eaten, but everyone else’s within his community. I wouldn’t want to acquaint myself with someone like that either.
I’m not saying the guy did a good thing. In this article he voted for the leopard party, but hasn’t had his face eaten yet. He voted for the leopard party and everyone was fucking pissed at him for it
idk I thought the leopards eating faces party meme was mainly for examples of them both voting for leopards and getting their face eaten.
It’s a little more nuanced than that. The typical face eating leopards voter doesn’t have enough critical thinking to figure out they’ll get eaten eventually. Everyone else around him knows they’re gourmet leopard food and it’s only a matter of time before they’d get eaten. I wouldn’t wait to hold my judgment on the guy until after the inevitable happens because of his dumb-ass decision.
Fun fact: most good comedians are actually highly intelligent. It takes a lot of creativity, psychological insight and often knowledge to consistently make people laugh about stuff they didn’t necessary consider fertile ground for hilarity.
Thinking comedians are less informed than your average Republican congressclown from Rifle, Colorado or the 1st district of Texas says a lot about a person, none of it good.
Also, what numbers are you even talking about? Arrest statistics? Convictions? Things originating in Wayne LaPierre’s ass?
I agree many if most are smart. But smart means different things and does not mean anyone should take him seriously from a bit. So unless Jeff, is rattling off a statistic that even implies through a causational link, that shows any evidence of 40M irresponsible gun owners then I’m not sure I care about his comedy routine not that it would disprove my point in any way.
smart means different things and does not mean anyone should take him seriously from a bit.
They should when the bit itself is full of poignant arguments expertly refuting common myths. Which is exactly what he does in this very bit which you apparently refuse to even watch.
So unless Jeff
It’s Jim. Jeff is part of his surname. Big Trump saying “Chairman Un” vibes 😄
rattling off a statistic
For someone who’s yet to provide any to prove his assertion, you’re awfully preoccupied with statistics
evidence of 40M irresponsible gun owners
You know that some factual conditions can be inferred through reason, right? That’s what “Jeff Jimries” does in the bit you automatically dismiss.
I’m not sure I care about his comedy routine
Clearly. It has convincing counterarguments to the claims that you seem to think are somehow proven by many people having guns.
Do you think that the fact that almost everyone has shoes mean that the vast majority of people walk with a healthy posture?
not that it would disprove my point in any way.
Easy claim to make when your “point” is as hollow and unsupported as a bendy straw in a vacuum.
I’ve seen the bit. I agree with most of it. It’s entirely irrelevant. You are just trying to bring the entire gun debate to a small, limited scope statement.
How is it inferred, in this bit, that most gun owners are irresponsible. That has gone above my head.
How does any of that relate to most gun owners being responsible people? Folks really suck with trying to ignore the absolute numbers and try to use relative comparisons to serve as justification.
The VAST majority of gun owners are responsible and never experience anything like this. Using parents who left their toddler in the car buying fireworks at night is an absurd representation of your average gun owner. Gun owners like this are the exception and the numbers aren’t hard, you’re talking about less than a hundredth of the percent of the population.
No, I would have said I didn’t have a clue about these individuals. I would take as many bets as you’d offer on a randomized selection of gun owners. I take that bet all day.
The fact that the number one killer of children in the US is guns?
You are asking me how that fact relates to responsible gun ownership?
Think really hard about how those children were killed by those guns, and maybe you can figure it out.
The children who died by guns are either:
Killing themselves, meaning that an irresponsible gun owner gave that child access to a gun, either deliberately or not deliberately. Irresponsible!
Being killed by the owner of the gun. This one should be self explanatory. It’s irresponsible to use the gun you own to kill a child.
Killed by someone with access to someone else’s gun. Again, whoever owned this gun was irresponsible enough to allow their weapon to be accessed by someone else to kill children.
No it’s not relevant to the argument that most gun owners are responsible. Well it is, only in the sense that it proves it. Even the worst country in the world is overwhelmingly responsible even you consider population size.
It’s not important that many gun owners don’t end up allowing their guns to be used to kill children. Your argument is miniscule, inconsequential, and not helpful to the sickness in the US society.
It is important, tantamount, and very relevant that because the US has so many guns, that the leading cause of death to children are the guns.
Idgaf about most gun owners, I care about reducing the number of children being killed.
Why don’t you care about reducing the number of children killed by guns?
No, I think you misunderstand and want to turn this into a debate about guns when I made a simple statement. Most gun owners are responsible. Most gun owners never experience gun violence because of irresponsible gun owners. To say our imply most gun owners are irresponsible is a lie.
If you didn’t give a fuck about him owners you shouldn’t have run your mouth with false information to my very simple and scooped statement which has nothing to do with the point you are trying to make.
These clowns will pray to take your guns and call you stupid for owning them while fretting about Trump and his cult seizing power and banning LGBTQ+ folks from existing.
No, I think you misunderstood, and want to turn a very important debate into a pedantic point about sheer ratios without wider context.
Increased gun ownership has been repeatedly shown to increase gun violence. That’s a fact. To say that it’s “responsible” to increase or even maintain the levels of gun ownership is false.
To say or imply that most gun ownership is responsible is like saying that most cigarette smoking is responsible…except when you consider every fucking horrible ill it wreaks upon society.
You shouldn’t run your mouth with false information that is so “very simple and scooped”, because that misses the entire fucking point.
I completely agree. Thank you for agreeing on the responsibility. Can you find a single statement in this thread where I state anything about the laws or enforcement? My point is simple and limited and you and this entire thread have thrown the entire gun debate team at me.
Gun violence should be reduced, national consistent laws should be put in place, background checks should be consistent and thorough.
Yeah sure I agree with all that. Frankly, and saying this as a former rural Appalachian Republican who owned firearms, I think we should go the UK route and effectively ban them altogether. I think I can make a compelling argument that they (a) do not make people safer, (b) do not defend against tyranny, and therefore (c) yield an overall net-negative to society. To me the crux of the issue isn’t the “responsible” gun-owners, but rather the ones who do fall through the cracks; for there are enough of them who have a serious impact of our nation’s bottom-line.
Potentially, but that implies leaving guns around outside of safes around kids isn’t all that dangerous considering the high number of gun owner and guns.
I don’t believe that’s the case. I think it is more likely a few idiots cause a majority of the pain and loss of life.
I have no data on this but anecdotally I can honestly say I despite being around idiots and gun owners in rural country with my now trump loving mother, that I have not met 1 single person even remotely close to dumb enough to leave a 2 year old in a car in the summer of GA, unbuckled and free to roam the car, that has a unlocked loaded gun.
I understand the challenge with using personal experience, but in the absence of any real data, this is what I have to work with.
The numbers really don’t support any meaningful mass of irresponsible gun owners. The challenge is that the consequences of those few are typically life.
You either have greater faith in the percentage of humanity that is responsible than is warranted, or your standards for responsibility are where I would expect considering your sealioning about your stupid toys.
Here’s a story for you. I’ve only really held a gun once, at a camp riflery range (very small calibers). I still end up doing a fair amount of gun research for understanding gun debates / safety practices, research for fiction where characters have to talk about guns, etc.
I have had to correct other Reddit users that are gun owners, about the workings of basic single-action revolvers, in a very deep/long thread. I briefly doubted myself and checked my own sources, and yes, I was correct and the gun owner was persisting off the idea I was wrong. I’m sure there’s some responsible owners out there, but the fact there are so many bull-headed idiots about their guns, who still say they’re responsible, should scare anyone.
The specific topic, if you’re interested, was on the situation where an old-style revolver is loaded and cocked by an inexperienced user, who then wants to safely decock/unload the gun without firing it (at that point, the cylinder is locked so basic approaches won’t work). Feel free to look it up - the approach needed there is pretty damn stupid.
I don’t handle guns, I just like westerns and play too many video games:
Don’t you have to hold the hammer while you pull the trigger to decock it? The trigger unlocks it, but because you’re holding the hammer it doesn’t strike the shell?
So in order to safely disarm you have to pull the trigger, which sure sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
Exactly right. It’s possible there are some newer revolver models that have fixed that quirk of design, but that’s been true of all the ones I looked up YouTube videos on.
Yeah, modern ones have a decocker to fix that problem. I’ve never looked up how they work exactly. I do know that some revolvers also have a little piece that comes up to block the hammer from striking.
The historic design is certainly unsafe, but in those days, guns were rare and expensive enough that if you had one, you were already going to be trained on it. (Also, compared to a semi-auto pistol slide spring, revolver hammer springs are surprisingly weak. The only time I’ve had to do it, in a safety class, I was using so much force to hold the hammer up, I didn’t realize I had to let off to let it down.)
I had a girlfriends father insist on taking the whole family to the gun range as a “fun day out thing”. Not my thing, but why say no to new experience? Besides her dad had always openly carried so it was clearly something HE was into, so being invited to family time with him felt like a kindness
But oh joy, was I thankful that a gun instructor was there, literally everything her dad said was corrected. From hand placement, to how to load to how to stand. The guy nearly kicked dad off the range at one point for having a loaded gun facing his kid.
Thankfully I never had to suffer his company since we broke up later, but it was a very eye opening experince. Being INTO guns definitely does not correlate with safe usage.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.